WJC: Greatest Collapse or Greatest Comeback

[Zine]

"Comeback/collapse" is basically the same thing......the words just change depending on what team is being discussed.

 

[BlackAces*]

Just a monumental, embarrassing collapse, there is no excuse for just falling asleep in the third period.

Live and learn I suppose.

 

[Alberta tough]

Imop in order for there to be an "epic comeback" there also needs to be some what of an "epic collapse". They go hand in hand.

 

[NewEnglandSportsFan*]

Epic collapse.

This was completely different from Russia's two previous "comeback" games. They had needed only two late in the third to send the Finland game to overtime, where it was anybody's game. The one-goal deficit against Sweden was nothing especially when Sweden had gone ahead only a minute before and in addition the Russians had earlier blown their own 2-0 lead.

Five goals in the last 15 minutes after being shut out 3-0 after the first 45 minutes is obviously completely different, indeed unprecedented. While it may look like a comeback on paper and on the score sheet its nothing but a total collapse when viewed at ice level as it can only happen if there is a defensive/offensive/psychological implosion of epic proportions.

It's not like these teams weren't familiar with each other and the Russians unleashed some sort of unknown offensive weapon. To the contrary these teams or relatively close variations thereof had played each other for 23 previous periods during the past two months and nothing remotely resembling this type of event had happened on either side. Maybe it was pressure after the two quick goals; the Canadians had been a good third-period team all tournament and seemed stunned by the turn of events. Whatever the case, it seemed as though they simply left the ice or stood in place and let the Russians freewheel like never before. The Canadians themselves were at a loss to describe what had happened. They were a better team than they showed and the players will have to face the music for a long time -- hello Bill Buckner -- but that's the way it is when 15 first-rounders collectively spit the dummy.

so to summarize, a very good comeback? I agree.

 

[canucksfan]

The goals occured in the third period, but you could see signs of the Russians coming on in the second period. The Canadian players were backing off because the Russians were coming with speed. Canada's defence was very slow for an international team.

It can't be one or the other, but it is a combination of both. I would say more a comeback because the Russian players had come back before in the tournament.

It just shows where one lives can change ones perception of an event. Russians will call this a comeback whereas Canadians will call it a collapse.

 

[SENSational Sens Fan]

Both.

 

[Zine]

Just a monumental, embarrassing collapse, there is no excuse for just falling asleep in the third period.

Live and learn I suppose.

Canada didn't fall asleep....they just could not handle Russia's pressure.

No team can keep the pressure on (like Canada in 1st period) for a full 60 minutes....it's physically impossible to keep flying like that for a full game non-stop; there must be a let up at some point.

Basically it all comes down to momentum. Russia was able to weather the Canadain storm much better than visa-versa.

 

[NewEnglandSportsFan*]

Its obviously both. Hockey is inherently a zero-sum game: one team's success is another team's failure. The two are intractably linked.

this is what everyone should be saying. Alas it is not so

 

[The One Who Knocks]

I'm sorry, but most people voting "collapse" are most likely just bitter Canadians trying to take all of the credit away from the Russians. This was a team that proved multiple times throughout the tournament that they had what it took to come back and win games when pushed up against the wall. Sure Canada didn't look as good in the third as they did the rest of the game, but IMO that's because Russia worked hard and played a game of desperation and the Canadians simply couldn't match that level of energy

I love Canada and typically root for them in international tournaments, but Russia's comeback might be one of my favorite hockey moments in recent memory.

 

[Evil Romano]

The Canadian team collapsed, not me. Seeing you talk like this proves to me that I'm the only one seeing this from an objective viewpoint. You're associating the two of us with the teams, whereas I am only seeing what occurred.

Canada collapsed because they stopped skating hard, fighting for the puck, started letting the Russians into prime shooting positions, etc. The Russian comeback began shortly after.

Of course - you (sorry for labeling you again...) victimize yourself because I assumed you affiliate yourself passionately with Canada. I am sorry, from now on I'll be referring to the Canadian Team as the Canadian Team. It doesn't prove anything. You are objective? What makes you in better position to determine?

You oppose my view just as much as I oppose yours. Seems like its mutual. And no, once again I have to disagree - the Canadians collapsed because of the great early two (and even the first)-goal comeback. This was a comeback, clear and simple.

 

[Alberta tough]

Of course - you (sorry for labeling you again...) victimize yourself because I assumed you affiliate yourself passionately with Canada. I am sorry, from now on I'll be referring to the Canadian Team as the Canadian Team. It doesn't prove anything. You are objective? What makes you in better position to determine?

You oppose my view just as much as I oppose yours. Seems like its mutual. And no, once again I have to disagree - the Canadians collapsed because of the great early two (and even the first)-goal comeback. This was a comeback, clear and simple.

Let me ask you this when Canada beat Russia 2 years ago when Russia had the lead with 5 secs to go was that a collapse, comeback or a combo of both? Imop it was both.

 

[King Mapes]

Collapse

 

[Evil Romano]

Let me ask you this when Canada beat Russia 2 years ago when Russia had the lead with 5 secs to go was that a collapse, comeback or a combo of both? Imop it was both.

Of course its both. But the point is, the two sides just don't befall the game simultaneously - one is always (well) a result of the other. Sometimes a collapse will take place just before the comeback. And because of the "collapse", the other team will get back in the game. And sometimes, the comeback simply comes ahead of it; and the collapse is a product of the actual comeback. And that is, in my opinion, what happened to Canada. The Russians got a great and dangerously productive comeback with two quick goals. The Russians started to go ballistic on the goalie, and out-skating the Canadians, who collectively stopped playing hockey.

 

[missinthejets]

No team can keep the pressure on (like Canada in 1st period) for a full 60 minutes....it's physically impossible to keep flying like that for a full game non-stop; there must be a let up at some point.

they did it against the americans the game before

 

[Jussi]

We Finns know a collapse better than any other hockey country and other than a certain Finland - Sweden that was supposedly played in 2003 but has since been proven as a myth and not to be discussed, this was the greatest collapse.

 

[shveik]

I'd have to say it was definitely a collapse. Comebacks happen all the time, sometimes the luck rolls a little bit one way, then a little bit another way. A small lead can be lost at any time. However, a 5-0 period amounts to a 15-0 over 60 minutes. Even Norway didn't lose this way, and I think it's obvious that the talent mismatch is not on that level (if anything, I'd say that Canada had a more talented team). At the same time collapses do not happen on their own. It's a sign that the other team is playing better, and the collapsing team has no answer. Things do not just crumble without pressure. Much like a very powerful team Russia collapsed at the Olympics against Canada. They did not just lose their ability, they simply did not have mental fortitude to withstand pressure from team Canada. Also, I wouldn't call it a "comeback", comebacks happen all the time. What's remarkable is the resilience, not giving up despite overwhelming odds going into the 3rd (I mean, who can *really* expect to come back from 0-3 in the 3rd?).

So it's an embarrassment for team Canada, and a proud moment for team Russia. But to put it in perspective, it's just a game.

 

[Luuuuuuu]

As much as the Russians looked like they were clicking on all cylinders in the 3rd, team Canada completely lost focus and there game plan in the 3rd losing the game in my opinion.

 

[hammerwielder]

When you are being shut out 3-0 after 42 minutes, failing to score even when you are up a man, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you all of a sudden score five times in the next 15 minutes, something has happened to the team that had the lead. It's not like you suddenly airlifted some space aliens onto the ice with superhuman abilities. You have the same players, they have the same players.

Canada had easily killed off a power play that spilled over from the second to the third just two minutes prior to the first goal. What happened? Did the "real" Russians just show up, a team that would by this logic beat a fully capable Canada unafflicted by collapse 15-0 every game just by playing their "real" game? Ridiculous. No, the Canadians collapsed. After the power play expired following a great kill by the PK unit and the regular 5 on 5 unit was back on the ice, the team sat back, abandoned the forecheck, stopped skating, stopped finishing their checks. If you look at the horrendous defensive zone coverage that resulted in the first two goals, it was clear they had lost their mental focus. After the second goal, they panicked and played scared for the rest of the game. The whole game plan went out the window. The Russians were allowed to skate more or less at will.

Someone took issue with an earlier post of mine in which I had argued against the comeback theory by stating that the Russians needed only three goals to tie, which made it a comeback. Problem is, they didn't score three goals to merely tie and force overtime; they scored five and ended the period pulling away.

One thing the Russians do have in spades is killer instinct. When they identified the collapse, they put the boots to their opponent mercilessly. A Canadian team typically tries to protect the lead after pulling ahead. That killer instinct should not be mistaken for a comeback. The better analysis in my opinion is they took full advantage of the collapse.

Note: shveik: We came to the same 15-0 analysis independently, as I have just read your post after writing mine. I believe the point is fairly conclusive against the notion of a comeback.

 

[New User Name]

The Russians had 5 goals on 10 shots.

In my book that's a collapse.

 

[Sentinel]

I'd have to say it was definitely a collapse. Comebacks happen all the time, sometimes the luck rolls a little bit one way, then a little bit another way. A small lead can be lost at any time. However, a 5-0 period amounts to a 15-0 over 60 minutes.

You know there is a difference between hockey and mathematics, right? Math extrapolations don't work in hockey.

if anything, I'd say that Canada had a more talented team

Much like a very powerful team Russia collapsed at the Olympics against Canada. They did not just lose their ability, they simply did not have mental fortitude to withstand pressure from team Canada.

That was not collapse either, cuz Russians never got it going to begin with. Although I blame 75% of that loss on Bykov, so...

But to put it in perspective, it's just a game.

That's about the only smart thing in your post.

 

[LeafsFan4281]

collapse

 

[Sentinel]

Did the "real" Russians just show up, a team that would by this logic beat a fully capable Canada unafflicted by collapse 15-0 every game just by playing their "real" game?

Whattahell is up with these idiotic extrapolations?! Why don't we extrapolate 2 goals that Russia scored within 11 seconds? OMG, the outcome of the period should have been 100-0 (2 goals / 11 sec = 5 goals / min)!!!

Get it through your skull: a team cannot fly for 60 minutes. It's physiologically impossible! Unless they've been doped or something. Usually Canada flies in the first 30 minutes, get the scores up, and then just cruise towards the end, in the defensive forechecking mode. The difference was that Russia, who would normally cave in, was capable of creating a comeback (which they had proven twice prior to the final game). One more time: insert Norway for Russia. Do you see them accomplishing the same thing? According to your logic, they should have, simply because "Canada stopped playing."

 

[Evil Romano]

I'd have to say it was definitely a collapse. Comebacks happen all the time, sometimes the luck rolls a little bit one way, then a little bit another way. A small lead can be lost at any time. However, a 5-0 period amounts to a 15-0 over 60 minutes. Even Norway didn't lose this way, and I think it's obvious that the talent mismatch is not on that level (if anything, I'd say that Canada had a more talented team). At the same time collapses do not happen on their own. It's a sign that the other team is playing better, and the collapsing team has no answer. Things do not just crumble without pressure. Much like a very powerful team Russia collapsed at the Olympics against Canada. They did not just lose their ability, they simply did not have mental fortitude to withstand pressure from team Canada. Also, I wouldn't call it a "comeback", comebacks happen all the time. What's remarkable is the resilience, not giving up despite overwhelming odds going into the 3rd (I mean, who can *really* expect to come back from 0-3 in the 3rd?).

So it's an embarrassment for team Canada, and a proud moment for team Russia. But to put it in perspective, it's just a game.

Of course you wouldn't call it a "comeback"...

You are simplifying the very nature of hockey. The fact that Russia got a 5-0 win in one period does not automatically mean that they would have gotten another 10 goals over the next forty minutes (A comeback like that goes heavy on the feet), and it doesn't mean that it was a result of the collapse. Against Norway, you scored 6 goals in the first period (and evidently you had the advantage against a tired, less skillful team) - yet you didn't score another 6 in the second, and certainly not in the third. The game itself isn't plain as pikestaff - everything has an effect on the game, the goalscoring, goalkeeping and what not. The "structure" of the game does not indicate a solid "increase" of the goals by even numbers or playing at the exact and "solidly even" and consistent level at all times. It's not math. Goals don't just happen, there is more to put into account more than just the simple theory of math, of which you're seemingly trying to add to your conclusion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: spectacular comebacks do happen every now and then, and when they do, this usually results in a significant "collapse" (disadvantage) for the opponent.

Collapse? To a certain extent, yes.
Epic and spectacular comeback? Yes!

 

[hammerwielder]

Fact of the matter is, you would never - and I mean NEVER (seemingly) - claim that if Russia had a 3 goal advantage, and the Canadians scored 5 goals in the third period, that this was a "great collapse". You would simply say that the genuine, real and notorious "Canadian heart and passion" got you back in the game, and that you started playing like Canadians. Not the other way around. That, my friend, is my point. The paradoxical nature of it. You wouldn't say, "we won simply because the Russians "collapsed". And you know you wouldn't.

Then you should pick up a copy of "Hockey Showdown" by Harry Sinden, coach of the '72 Canada team. In it, he says that in the third period of the final game, leading 5-3, the Soviets did something they had never previously done in the series: they stopped skating. He attributes the success Canada achieved in the third in overcoming the lead and winning the series to this fact.

Good analysis doesn't break down along national lines, as you suggest, to serve a particular bias, regardless of the facts.

 

[Evil Romano]

Then you should pick up a copy of "Hockey Showdown" by Harry Sinden, coach of the '72 Canada team. In it, he says that in the third period of the final game, leading 5-3, the Soviets did something they had never previously done in the series: they stopped skating. He attributes the success Canada achieved in the third in overcoming the lead and winning the series to this fact.

Good analysis doesn't break down along national lines, as you suggest, to serve a particular bias, regardless of the facts.

I don't see how '72 is relevant. The Canadian mentality has, in my opinion, grown more cocky throughout the years - and so has the media, the CA-hockey establishment and so on. You have fed yourself with your success. I'm not saying that Canadians necessarily have these characteristics more than others (at least not radically), but they do display it more often and disrespectfully. IMO, that is.