Round 2, Vote 4 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Bear of Bad News]

Sorry, shouldn't post unclear things while being rushed out to go to work.

What I meant, and it's nothing of great value really, was that wouldn't you guess - under normal circumstances - that we would look at that Czech Panel and see Holecek ranked really high because of what he did in politically-charged tournaments vs. the Soviets and rah rah sis boom bah! And we'd have to look at that and go, 'well, this ranking is a little over the top for him because of this, this and that'

And then when the media/whoever votes for awards in the World Championships, you'd guess they would be more prone to going by the scoresheet and just taking the goalie with the lowest GAA or what have you...and we'd have to make a guess about that and what that's worth (like we did for 1st team AS goalies and the correlation with lowest GAA post-WWII).

But here, it's the opposite of what I'd expect. Holecek was ranked as like the, what, 6th most important player on these teams. Almost indifferent appeal. His own coaches, the guys that started him in these games, felt like he was a support player more than anything.

Meanwhile, the people that voted for the WCs, they ignored the obvious choice (Tretiak) and went with a different take: Holecek or even Valtonen ('72)...

Nothing more than that, nothing accusatory or anything groundbreaking...just an (un)interesting observation.

That makes more sense - and I appreciate the clarification!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And Mike, I really do think you are exaggerating the defensive nature of the left wing lock. It does help out the goalie, but not as much as the neutral zone trap:

I got an email this weekend asking me about the difference between the left-wing lock and the neutral zone trap, and what I thought worked better.
...
The left-wing lock provides more of an offensive chance for the defending team when transitioning, however it is less effective defensively than the trap. Conversely, when utilizing the trap, the defending team puts a large priority on defending, and not attacking.

http://themackreport.com/two-ways-of-defending/

The article describes the difference between the LWL and the Trap in detail for anyone interested.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've gotten votes from 18 of 27 voters so far.

I'm stepping out for a few hours - if anyone gets their votes in in the next 3 hours or so, they'll count.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm not sure how we're measuring that effectiveness or why it's particularly relevant. Given the make up of the Czech and Soviet teams, I think the LWL makes more sense and is more effective. I think the Soviets could slash their way through a NZT because of their timing and skill...they could generate 3-on-2 situations against the NZT as I envision it...can't get an odd-man rush against the LWL really, and it stifles east-west movement at the time when it matters most - in the mid-offensive zone.

So while the NZT might be better defensively than the LWL (I guess? One rated 4 Lemaire's out of 5 on the scale, the other 3.5?), I think in the situation we're talking about - the wide ice, the lack of clutch and grab (or overly physical play in general), the goaltender on the Czech side and the same-handedness of the Soviet shooters, I think the LWL is a better fit...for whatever it's worth...

 

[Bear of Bad News]

List sent. Very difficult this round.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Origins of the LWL

And Mike, I really do think you are exaggerating the defensive nature of the left wing lock. It does help out the goalie, but not as much as the neutral zone trap:



http://themackreport.com/two-ways-of-defending/

The article describes the difference between the LWL and the Trap in detail for anyone interested.

Origins of the LWL are strongly linked to the 1970s Czech National Team's efforts to counter the distinct Soviet attributes.

Also of note that the early 1970s were before the various changes to the offside rules, touch-up, delayed, intentional and the rules that counter freezing the puck along the boards and other tactics that facilitated the neutral zone trap to the detriment of the one and two forward forecheck.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Origins of the LWL are strongly linked to the 1970s Czech National Team's efforts to counter the distinct Soviet attributes.

Also of note that the early 1970s were before the various changes to the offside rules, touch-up, delayed, intentional and the rules that counter freezing the puck along the boards and other tactics that facilitated the neutral zone trap to the detriment of the one and two forward forecheck.

True, the LWL was basically designed to counter the strengths of the Soviets.

Fred Shero showed how a properly executed trapping system could embarrass the Soviets though.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Aggresive Forecheck

True, the LWL was basically designed to counter the strengths of the Soviets.

Fred Shero showed how a properly executed trapping system could embarrass the Soviets though.

Aggressive forecheck on an NHL sized rink.

 

[lamini]

This was true in 1969 while the Soviet tanks were still in Prague, but I'm not sure if it was true afterwards.

As far as I remember there was strong anti-Russian sentiment here (Cz) even after 1989. Maybe it wasn't more important than getting gold, but I still doubt there would be any fixed matches.

 

[Theokritos]

Meanwhile, the people that voted for the WCs, they ignored the obvious choice (Tretiak) and went with a different take: Holecek or even Valtonen ('72)...

Obvious choice? Obviously not for the people who observed the tournament!

 

[VMBM]

Martinec and Nedomansky were right wings. Hlinka was a center. Jiri Holik was a left wing.

Nedomansky played as center too (à la Maltsev for USSR)

 

[VMBM]

Obvious choice? Obviously not for the people who observed the tournament!

I'd be very interested to hear also why Tretiak would've been the "obvious choice" in 1972... or 1973, 1975 etc.

A lot of revisionism going on here, methinks!

1978 WHC with results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_World_Ice_Hockey_Championships The Czechoslovakian team beat the Soviets in the preliminary round 6-4, not exactly a goaltending battle. However Tretiak and the Soviets bounced back in the finals taking a 3-0 lead over Holecek and the Czechs in Prague winning 3-1, the required 2 goal difference. Why Holecek won the awards and honours remains a mystery as he was not the best goalie.

He wasn't the best goalie? How do you know? Just because he let in more goals than Tretiak in the final round?

Even if Tretiak was better than Holecek in the deciding game (which I think he was), it doesn't mean he was the best goalie of the tournament (overall).

 

[tarheelhockey]

Obvious choice? Obviously not for the people who observed the tournament!

I think that was his point -- the voting wasn't just a "box score" award as is sometimes the case.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think that was his point -- the voting wasn't just a "box score" award as is sometimes the case.

Correct.

 

[Theokritos]

Thanks for pointing that out.