Not only was coaching the problem, but I think that selection was a bit of a problem, too. Don't get me wrong; we had a great team, good enough to beat the Americans, but our team could have been better.
Crosby should have got more ice time in this game, IMO. Also, I don't think he was out in the last 2 minutes. He should have been.
Also, I think the choosing of this team MAY have too skiewed towards filling roles and quotas, and no simply chosing the best pure players available.
They felt that they had a lot of big, strong players that can score, and some skilled offensive small guys (Crosby, Dawes, Tambellini), so they figured they needed some checkers, some role players so they chose guys like Tim Brent, Jeremy Collitan and Steven Dixon.
For example, Jeremy Colliton is a solid defensive hockey player, but will not provide much offense. But oftentimes, the main guys killing penalties were players such as Carter and Getzlaf and Richards, guys that were also on your top scoring line. So what is the use of Colliton?
IF, for example, we dropped Colliton and Dixon and chose two of Perry, Brodziak, or Henrich, I think we would have had a better team.
I really think the phillosophy should be to build THE BEST team comprised of THE BEST players, and I'm not sure this was done hear. They were picking some players to fill certain 'perceived' roles instead. On this team, we have enough guys that can play on the PK, and good lines to match up against other good lines.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think --at least when it comes to fowards-- that Canada picked THE BEST forwards available.