Heraldic
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2013
- 2,937
- 51
After the conversation regarding Larsson's defensive strengths and weaknesses considering our system, I decided to take notes on Larsson's play. from this game
On first period I didn't notice any clear situations where Larsson was on the ice while Blues got pressure on our end.
During the second period there were two pretty indicative examples. Around the clock 17.30 Blues got Sabres stuck on their own end. Larsson as a center most of the time just stood center of our unit - he wasn't close to the puck at all or was giving any pressure. His positioning and play looked a lot like the team last year. No surprise we got a bit stuck there. Not that the defenders were giving lot pressure either, but Larsson wasn't positioned as he could have supported quickly if the defenders were engaged. Really similar situation happened around 4.00 mark. Blues got pressure and Larsson was pretty much positioning himself center of the unit opposed to being close to the puck carrier. The difference for example how ROR played was really evident.
On the 3rd period Larsson becama a lot more active (I'm pretty sure he was guided by the couching staff). On the 17.30 mark Larsson did engage on the board with McCabe. Larsson couldn't get the puck out of the carrier, and he was blocked/pushed by the other Blues player and the puck carrier got space to move towards blueline. Larsson pressured the puck carrier with his stick and the puck carrier passed the puck down through the drill, and McCabe broke the possession. McCabe couldn't get it controlled out and the puck ended up being close to the border. McCabe and Larsson couldn't get the puck, so it was dumped again by Blues player. Bogo broke the possesion by passing it behind him to McCabe and McCabe consecutively to Larsson. Larsson got the puck without having any opponents on him and was able to pass the puck to Ennis.
Around 9.55 mark Larsson engaged against Blues player with McCabe on the right corner on d-zone, but couldn't break the possession. The possession was broke by Foligno and Ennis, who intercepted a pass. Around 6.44 mark Larsson had a puck battle close to the goal, lost it, and the puck was played to the blueline and shot to the goal where it eventually ended up being the game winning goal for Blues.
Larsson didn't make bad reads or positioned himself badly. But at least for me it was pretty obvious that he wasn't good at puck battles or was doing a too good job at engaging or being active before the third period. He didn't break up himself any possessions, but he was able to maintain and transition the puck when the puck was played to him after breaking the possession.
He didn't have a bad game, but this game pointed out pretty well the weaknessess Larsson's defensive game has regarding our system. Him losing a puck battle was bg part of the GWG (sure it wasn't the only part). But he did many times do a good job by transitioning the puck when it was played to him after a possession break up.
I would really appreciate if for example Jame could point out some examples where Larsson did a good job from that perspective, if I did miss something.
On first period I didn't notice any clear situations where Larsson was on the ice while Blues got pressure on our end.
During the second period there were two pretty indicative examples. Around the clock 17.30 Blues got Sabres stuck on their own end. Larsson as a center most of the time just stood center of our unit - he wasn't close to the puck at all or was giving any pressure. His positioning and play looked a lot like the team last year. No surprise we got a bit stuck there. Not that the defenders were giving lot pressure either, but Larsson wasn't positioned as he could have supported quickly if the defenders were engaged. Really similar situation happened around 4.00 mark. Blues got pressure and Larsson was pretty much positioning himself center of the unit opposed to being close to the puck carrier. The difference for example how ROR played was really evident.
On the 3rd period Larsson becama a lot more active (I'm pretty sure he was guided by the couching staff). On the 17.30 mark Larsson did engage on the board with McCabe. Larsson couldn't get the puck out of the carrier, and he was blocked/pushed by the other Blues player and the puck carrier got space to move towards blueline. Larsson pressured the puck carrier with his stick and the puck carrier passed the puck down through the drill, and McCabe broke the possession. McCabe couldn't get it controlled out and the puck ended up being close to the border. McCabe and Larsson couldn't get the puck, so it was dumped again by Blues player. Bogo broke the possesion by passing it behind him to McCabe and McCabe consecutively to Larsson. Larsson got the puck without having any opponents on him and was able to pass the puck to Ennis.
Around 9.55 mark Larsson engaged against Blues player with McCabe on the right corner on d-zone, but couldn't break the possession. The possession was broke by Foligno and Ennis, who intercepted a pass. Around 6.44 mark Larsson had a puck battle close to the goal, lost it, and the puck was played to the blueline and shot to the goal where it eventually ended up being the game winning goal for Blues.
Larsson didn't make bad reads or positioned himself badly. But at least for me it was pretty obvious that he wasn't good at puck battles or was doing a too good job at engaging or being active before the third period. He didn't break up himself any possessions, but he was able to maintain and transition the puck when the puck was played to him after breaking the possession.
He didn't have a bad game, but this game pointed out pretty well the weaknessess Larsson's defensive game has regarding our system. Him losing a puck battle was bg part of the GWG (sure it wasn't the only part). But he did many times do a good job by transitioning the puck when it was played to him after a possession break up.
I would really appreciate if for example Jame could point out some examples where Larsson did a good job from that perspective, if I did miss something.