Hlinka Gretzky Cup 2019

[LuckyBoeser]

 

[snipes]

The shots this game were 37-13 for Canada.

He stood on his head all game.

 

[jj cale]

Guess the Canadian way didn't work.

No gold for Canada this year.

Really? can't believe we all didn't know that here.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

He is going to have one of the best pre-draft resumes of any goalie that I can remember if he has any level of success at the WJC in December.

 

[Dominance]

Nothing to do after a game like that but tip your hat to an incredible individual effort by Askarov. Hold your heads high boys, you dominated the whole tournament outside of the second period against Sweden. Russian fans, you guys have an absolute gem there. Great hockey game.

 

[Yakushev72]

Unfortunate for Canada to run into a goaltender like this. This game wouldnt be close without him. Likely last international gold any of these russians will see poor group outside a few players and the goalie. This Canadian crop with Lafrenniere included is gonna be filled with NHL superstars for Canada. Future looks bright cant complain. Can't win them all they can settle for 9/10 in the past 10 years.

It is a putdown of Russia to say that the only reason they won was because of an extraterrestrial performance from the goalie (yet another "next Tretiak"). That's not the first time I've seen that argument from Canadian posters, and I think the intent is to backhandedly demean the other team. I don't see how the argument is justified. First, Russia was the only team to finish the tournament undefeated. Second, while Canada had some blowouts against the lesser foes, in the Medal Round, against two peers, Sweden and Russia, they only scored a grand total of 4 goals in 6 periods. Putting the puck in the net was a problem for Canada against top opposition. Like most (or all) Russians, I didn't see the game, but why couldn't you just say that it was another day at the office for the Russians?

 

[snipes]

It is a putdown of Russia to say that the only reason they won was because of an extraterrestrial performance from the goalie (yet another "next Tretiak"). That's not the first time I've seen that argument from Canadian posters, and I think the intent is to backhandedly demean the other team. I don't see how the argument is justified. First, Russia was the only team to finish the tournament undefeated. Second, while Canada had some blowouts against the lesser foes, in the Medal Round, against two peers, Sweden and Russia, they only scored a grand total of 4 goals in 6 periods. Putting the puck in the net was a problem for Canada against top opposition. Like most (or all) Russians, I didn't see the game, but why couldn't you just say that it was another day at the office for the Russians?

You just admitted you didn’t see the game in the last sentence.

Why be offended if you didn’t actually see how phenomenal of a performance Askarov put on?

It was Tretiak like.

 

[Dominance]

It is a putdown of Russia to say that the only reason they won was because of an extraterrestrial performance from the goalie (yet another "next Tretiak"). That's not the first time I've seen that argument from Canadian posters, and I think the intent is to backhandedly demean the other team. I don't see how the argument is justified. First, Russia was the only team to finish the tournament undefeated. Second, while Canada had some blowouts against the lesser foes, in the Medal Round, against two peers, Sweden and Russia, they only scored a grand total of 4 goals in 6 periods. Putting the puck in the net was a problem for Canada against top opposition. Like most (or all) Russians, I didn't see the game, but why couldn't you just say that it was another day at the office for the Russians?

Because the shots were 37-13, the high danger chances were, if anything, more imbalanced, and Canada’s puck possession was likely double that of their opponent. Maybe that was your team’s strategy, but I doubt it.

 

[jj cale]

It is a putdown of Russia to say that the only reason they won was because of an extraterrestrial performance from the goalie (yet another "next Tretiak"). That's not the first time I've seen that argument from Canadian posters, and I think the intent is to backhandedly demean the other team. I don't see how the argument is justified. First, Russia was the only team to finish the tournament undefeated. Second, while Canada had some blowouts against the lesser foes, in the Medal Round, against two peers, Sweden and Russia, they only scored a grand total of 4 goals in 6 periods. Putting the puck in the net was a problem for Canada against top opposition. Like most (or all) Russians, I didn't see the game, but why couldn't you just say that it was another day at the office for the Russians?

Some posters don't want to do it because most Russian posters on here typically won't ever give Credit to Canada and their good performances when they win , they are always making up excuse and blaming conspiracies or some other hogwash and demeaning Canadas wins against them all the time.


You get what you give. Have you ever considered trying to be a reasonable game observer and giving congrats when you lose? I think you would quickly notice an about face from those fans you complain about.

 

[snipes]

Some posters don't want to do it because most Russian posters on here typically won't ever give Credit to Canada and their good performances when they win , they are always making up excuse and blaming conspiracies or some other hogwash and demeaning Canadas wins against them all the time.


You get what you give. Have you ever considered trying to be a reasonable game observer and giving congrats when you lose? I think you would quickly notice an about face from those fans you complain about.

“I didn’t see the game” was in the last sentence of that post you quoted.

I mean, how can you discuss the game if you didn’t actually see it?

 

[VictorLustig]

It is a putdown of Russia to say that the only reason they won was because of an extraterrestrial performance from the goalie (yet another "next Tretiak"). That's not the first time I've seen that argument from Canadian posters, and I think the intent is to backhandedly demean the other team. I don't see how the argument is justified. First, Russia was the only team to finish the tournament undefeated. Second, while Canada had some blowouts against the lesser foes, in the Medal Round, against two peers, Sweden and Russia, they only scored a grand total of 4 goals in 6 periods. Putting the puck in the net was a problem for Canada against top opposition. Like most (or all) Russians, I didn't see the game, but why couldn't you just say that it was another day at the office for the Russians?

I watched parts of the game and I kind of agree here. Askarov was obviously good but Russia definitely played well. Shots will always get lopsided when one team is a goal down for an entire game. The Canadians were not particularly sharp when they got their chances and they wasted plenty of PP opportunities.

 

[jj cale]

“I didn’t see the game”.

I mean, how can you discuss the game if you didn’t actually see it?

True, but it's still beside the point. Here we have a poster who is notoriously known for badmouthing anything Canadian hockey (along with 2 other Russian posters who make up the terrible trio among their fans here) and yet he is irked when fans won't worship and give laurels to the Russians play.

Those type of people I simply don't understand, their thinking is just bizarre.

Why don't they clean up their own act and then have an honourable place to stand on when they get irked over these things? You can't lecture someone on behaviour you are grossly guilty of yourself. He doesn't seem to get that. But it's not even that, he gets it all right, he isn't a stupid person, I can tell that by his writing. He just doesn't care, plain and simple, the hate is too strong.

Never a pretty thing to look upon in anyone.

 

[NekcuP]

Ice hockey is not just about attacks, the defense is at least as big as the attacks.
Canada was better on the offensive side this time, while Russia was better on the defensive, small margins deciding, but this time the defensive decided more.

As in the semi-final between Can-Swe, that time it was the offensive part that decided, now it was the other way around.

That's the great thing about ice hockey, I think, just because you have a takeover game you don't automatically win, just because you're hard pressed you don't automatically lose.

 

[Yakushev72]

You just admitted you didn’t see the game in the last sentence.

Why be offended if you didn’t actually see how phenomenal of a performance Askarov put on?

It was Tretiak like.

I have said on occasion that I thought Russia vastly outplayed their opponent but still lost - I said it about the Semi-Final game of this tournament last year when they were upset by Sweden after, by your standards of measure, thoroughly dominating them. Sweden often chooses not to bring their top age-group players to this tournament, so I wouldn't insult them by saying that their victory was the result of one individual player. They lost handily to Canada in the GMG, and I said at that time that Canada was lucky that they didn't have to face a much better Russian team - as the events of today clearly explain!

Shots on goal is a neutral statistic that addresses only quantity, not quality! You can have 37 shots, but if 20 of them are from beyond center-ice, the difficulty of making saves becomes greatly reduced. And there were apparent Canadian posters in this thread who said that many of the shots were not high quality or threatening, and that overall, they were disappointed with Canada's intensity. You can't have it both ways!

 

[Tobias Kahun]

It is a putdown of Russia to say that the only reason they won was because of an extraterrestrial performance from the goalie (yet another "next Tretiak"). That's not the first time I've seen that argument from Canadian posters, and I think the intent is to backhandedly demean the other team. I don't see how the argument is justified. First, Russia was the only team to finish the tournament undefeated. Second, while Canada had some blowouts against the lesser foes, in the Medal Round, against two peers, Sweden and Russia, they only scored a grand total of 4 goals in 6 periods. Putting the puck in the net was a problem for Canada against top opposition. Like most (or all) Russians, I didn't see the game, but why couldn't you just say that it was another day at the office for the Russians?

Russia got dominated.

The goalie stood on his head.

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

Alright, swedes takes bronze. Did they dominate the finns?

 

[snipes]

I have said on occasion that I thought Russia vastly outplayed their opponent but still lost - I said it about the Semi-Final game of this tournament last year when they were upset by Sweden after, by your standards of measure, thoroughly dominating them. Sweden often chooses not to bring their top age-group players to this tournament, so I wouldn't insult them by saying that their victory was the result of one individual player. They lost handily to Canada in the GMG, and I said at that time that Canada was lucky that they didn't have to face a much better Russian team - as the events of today clearly explain!

Shots on goal is a neutral statistic that addresses only quantity, not quality! You can have 37 shots, but if 20 of them are from beyond center-ice, the difficulty of making saves becomes greatly reduced. And there were apparent Canadian posters in this thread who said that many of the shots were not high quality or threatening, and that overall, they were disappointed with Canada's intensity. You can't have it both ways!

Ehh

Congratulations on the victory. We shall meet again old foe.

It was a fantastic hockey game as most Canada v Russia games are. Respect to the way both teams battled with everything they had.

Looking forward to the annual Super Series next. Once again congratulations on the win.

 

[Star Ocean]

The shots this game were 37-13 for Canada.

He stood on his head all game.

Thats pretty insane

 

[Star Ocean]

Alright, swedes takes bronze. Did they dominate the finns?

Three points by nybeck.

 

[Yakushev72]

Because the shots were 37-13, the high danger chances were, if anything, more imbalanced, and Canada’s puck possession was likely double that of their opponent. Maybe that was your team’s strategy, but I doubt it.

Its a difference of styles. Canadian hockey had never placed much emphasis on stickhandling and passing to get into prime scoring position, as do the Russians. Canadian hockey blasts the puck into the zone, typically just inside the red-line, and forechecks intensively. You are going to get more shots on goal if you just blindly blast away, but they are going to be mostly low quality shots from outside the danger zone. I assume that is what happened today. In the Gold Medal Game today, with 55 minutes already played, Canada had only scored one goal!

 

[snipes]

Three points by nybeck.

Sounds like it was a Swedish beat down of the Finns.

How did Raty and Lambert play for Suomi?

 

[Star Ocean]

Sounds like it was a Swedish beat down of the Finns.

How did Raty and Lambert play for Suomi?

Finland looked tired today thought sweden would lose since we played two penaltyshootout in a row.

Also i havent seen any finnish posters in here. They all gone.

 

[Atas2000]

Because the shots were 37-13, the high danger chances were, if anything, more imbalanced, and Canada’s puck possession was likely double that of their opponent. Maybe that was your team’s strategy, but I doubt it.

You may doubt whatever you want, but this russian team has defeated USA, Sweden, Finland and Canada along the way. Yes, not all those teams had their best talent there, but who cares. Canada squeezed out a SO win against Sweden(without it's two top players) and lost to Russia. But the talk is about that mediocre russian team of nobodies who would have lost by double digits of not for Askarov. That's a not well hidden canadian bitterness and overconfidence and borderline arrogance from some posters.

Every game Canada loses they "dominated". Yawn...

 

[snipes]

You may doubt whatever you want, but this russian team has defeated USA, Sweden, Finland and Canada along the way. Yes, not all those teams had their best talent there, but who cares. Canada squeezed out a SO win against Sweden(without it's two top players) and lost to Russia. But the talk is about that mediocre russian team of nobodies who would have lost by double digits of not for Askarov. That's a not well hidden canadian bitterness and overconfidence and borderline arrogance from some posters.

Every game Canada loses they "dominated". Yawn...

Who said Russia would have lost by double digits but for Askarov?

 

[Mehar]

Congrats to Russia. Cannot help but wonder why Jacob Perrault was not good enough to make this Canadian team despite a strong camp. A move that backfired. Unbelievable performance from Askarov.