GDT: Semifinal - May 19 - Canada vs Switzerland

[tsnTpoint]

They should ban the large ice surface from the game of hockey.

It literally stifles offence and makes it feel like your watching a boring soccer game.

 

[BruinLVGA]

McDavid concluded his interview with this about Switzerland: "...we definitely found out how good they're"

 

[Loffer]

Well well well, what we have got here is a true North American fin..., sorry Bronze Game. That should pump up the boys and home ranks around TV sets also. An epic battle in sight! Yep, get your detectors to maintenance already, I mean your teak paneled AV-receivers from the 80's and have a nice day at hockey.

 

[Urbanskog]

If you think that Canada's 2018 IIHF WC team was our A team than I believe I can say the same thing about you.

That's nothing that I ever even implied. The point is that this Canadian team is a medley of players who would make the hypothetical best-on-best Team Canada and players who wouldn't. Not an A team, not a D team or anything in-between.

 

[snipes]

McDavid is on the Canadian C or D team? The depth of Canada really is something!

He's the only forward on that roster that makes a best on best Canadian team as of today.

Arguably the only player on that team that makes a best on best Team Canada.

Nevertheless, this takes nothing away from the Swiss win. Sincere congrats to that team and their fans. They are a top level hockey nation and have shown they can push the big 6 at any given tournament.

 

[Name Nameless]

They should ban the large ice surface from the game of hockey.

It literally stifles offence and makes it feel like your watching a boring soccer game.

The new way of getting more goals in overtime should also be 7 on 7.

in other words, what?

 

[Three On Zero]

He's the only forward on that roster that makes a best on best Canadian team as of today.

Arguably the only player on that team that makes a best on best Team Canada.

Nevertheless, this takes nothing away from the Swiss win. Sincere congrats to that team and their fans. They are a top level hockey nation and have shown they can push the big 6 at any given tournament.

The McDavid homerism is strong with this one

 

[booyakasha]

The McDavid homerism is strong with this one

he's not wrong though.
the envy is strong with your post.

 

[torero]

Ah yes, the classic hfboards fan: the "shot counter".

Switzerland through two periods had the far better chances and was way more dangerous than Canada. In the third, it was all Canada. As I said, Switzerland deserved to win, robbed nobody. I suggest to you not to be THAT Canadian fan: the sore loser. It's a real bad tag to have. Nurture your class, don't kill it like this.

PS: I think that it was 16 shots to 11 in the second...

Agree with you ... most were routine shots or pucks bouncing in front of the goalie in a very crowded area.
At the end, Canada lost because they didn't create enough real scoring chances. We saw little from McDavid or Barzal !!
And the 3 goals ... Kuemper didn't play that badly !! IMO none of the 3 goals were soft goals. He could have made extra-saves ... and make the difference ... he didn't OK with that. But Canada didn't loose because of him.

puck possession, yes. shots, yes; real dangerous scoring chances NO. or too little.

And Switzerland played and had good scoring chances in the 1st and 2nd, and in the 3rd (all to my dissatisfaction yet still successfuly), they turteled.

 

[Three On Zero]

he's not wrong though.
the envy is strong with your post.

Envy of what? A McDavid led team fails in the NHL, a McDavid led team fails in WHC... nothing to be envious about

 

[syz]

You complain about "bad tags" in relation to sounding like a sore loser and then you proceed to call those who have pride for their nation as "Neanderthals". The irony is strong there...

Pride in one's nation is not only natural, but a very respectable way of being. Nationalism is all it's about in these tournaments: it's nations competing to prove who is better. I am proud of being Swiss, I love my nation and I hope that I will always see them perform in a way that gives pride to my fellow countrymen and me. And there's nothing wrong with patriotism either, by the way.

And by the way, "long stretches in Switzerland's zone" doesn't equate to having a better game. Switzerland had the best grade chances through period 1 and 2. They mostly kept Canada away from the dangerous areas in the same span (Canada pretty much saw no 2nd and 3rd chances in the first two periods): that's called defending. In the third, Canada pushed hard and Switzerland was a bit gassed and it was therefore all Canada. Switzerland deserved this one 100%.

What's "respectable" about it? It's at best benign racism, one with an inherent potential to devolve into actual racism. It's a textbook logical fallacy that unfortunately still goes over most people's head. Apparently it also serves to blind people from something as mundane as noticing even strength scoring opportunities in a hockey game. If you need to get your pride vicariously from something that you had literally no involvement in, then be my guest, I guess. Whatever makes you happy. But I digress.

I've only watched a couple of games from this tournament, but I think it's pretty safe to say that if Switzerland dominated scoring chances through 2 periods they'd have won by more than a goal, considering there are probably people here who could score on Kuemper. As it stands I don't think Switzerland generated sweet f*** all at even strength after the first period. 2 PP goals and a goalie standing on his head were the difference.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Man Canada losing to swiss... remaining Canadian team in nhl bout to get dropped by vegas…. tough spring

 

[booyakasha]

Man Canada losing to swiss... remaining Canadian team in nhl bout to get dropped by vegas…. tough spring

by the one team with the most Canadians BTW, against a Canadian team led by an American.

 

[syz]

They should ban the large ice surface from the game of hockey.

It literally stifles offence and makes it feel like your watching a boring soccer game.

Main reason I haven't watched an Olympic game since Vancouver and rarely watch WHC games. Makes the sport look like it's moving in slow motion. The legitimate scoring areas don't actually get any bigger, so all the extra ice does is make it take longer to get to those danger areas, which means it gives teams more time to defend. You probably see higher shot totals on average but most of those shots are non-factors, unless you have somebody like Kuemper in net.

Add in some terrible officiating and a whistling crowd that sounds like a bunch of pre-teens screaming at a Bieber concert you have international hockey in a nutshell.

 

[booyakasha]

Envy of what? A McDavid led team fails in the NHL, a McDavid led team fails in WHC... nothing to be envious about

still the only player on this Canadian team to be a lock for an Olympic team, which was his point.

 

[Three On Zero]

still the only player on this Canadian team to be a lock for an Olympic team, which was his point.

More than McDavid would make the Olympic team

 

[Back in Black]

Oh well, better luck tomorrow morning vs USA

 

[Chimpradamus]

Main reason I haven't watched an Olympic game since Vancouver and rarely watch WHC games. Makes the sport look like it's moving in slow motion. The legitimate scoring areas don't actually get any bigger, so all the extra ice does is make it take longer to get to those danger areas, which means it gives teams more time to defend. You probably see higher shot totals on average but most of those shots are non-factors, unless you have somebody like Kuemper in net.

Add in some terrible officiating and a whistling crowd that sounds like a bunch of pre-teens screaming at a Bieber concert you have international hockey in a nutshell.

First of all, you seem very interested in this tournament, while not watching. Second of all, playing in a bathtub with a size created 100 years ago isn't a great solution either. Just great watching another game being decided by scrums and deflections from point shots, in between 58 minutes of board battles and defensemen handling the puck like a live hand grenade.

You think the surface makes a difference? European teams seems to have no problems scoring goals on a large surface, which makes it a point of preference. After watching an NHL season, it's almost relieving watching an international tournament where a player like Kane actually has time to do something creative with the puck, all the more often than in a bathtub. It's not guaranteed he will, but he has the time and ice.

Most shots are non factors? You compare it to the small rink size, I mean? What is the difference in quality shots, whatsoever? Because contested stick on stick flubbers have such a great chance going in on a small rink size, right?

I could agree the international ice is a bit too big, but it's also pretty obvious the NHL sized rink is too small. I would go for a Finnish rink size.

 

[Rob]

More than McDavid would make the Olympic team

No other player would be a lock though.
Maybe Vlasic.

 

[Rob]

Envy of what? A McDavid led team fails in the NHL, a McDavid led team fails in WHC... nothing to be envious about

Art Ross trophy winner?

 

[glucker]

Envy of what? A McDavid led team fails in the NHL, a McDavid led team fails in WHC... nothing to be envious about

And who leads the nucks to their failures?

 

[Name Nameless]

Main reason I haven't watched an Olympic game since Vancouver and rarely watch WHC games. Makes the sport look like it's moving in slow motion. The legitimate scoring areas don't actually get any bigger, so all the extra ice does is make it take longer to get to those danger areas, which means it gives teams more time to defend. You probably see higher shot totals on average but most of those shots are non-factors, unless you have somebody like Kuemper in net.

Add in some terrible officiating and a whistling crowd that sounds like a bunch of pre-teens screaming at a Bieber concert you have international hockey in a nutshell.

I'll go out on a limb and say if you go 100 years back in time, average player would be 5 % smaller. So the right thing to do would be to make the playing field around 5% bigger, all ways. Including the size of the goal.

 

[booyakasha]

And who leads the nucks to their failures?

the city of Vancouver and their "6th man"

 

[Mestaruus]

I want Switzerland to win the final but the reality is that Sweden takes the final easily. Huge advantage with many hours of more rest and stadium full of Swedish fans. It's always easier to be the underdog for Switzerland but I think that advantage kind of goes away in the final a little bit simply because the final is the thing that should motivate anyone.

It will be a close game till about 30 mins. Either tied or one of the teams lead 1-0 but then we'll start seeing tired Swiss players and it will be something like 4-1, 5-1 at the end for Sweden.

 

[syz]

First of all, you seem very interested in this tournament, while not watching. Second of all, playing in a bathtub with a size created 100 years ago isn't a great solution either. Just great watching another game being decided by scrums and deflections from point shots, in between 58 minutes of board battles and defensemen handling the puck like a live hand grenade.

You think the surface makes a difference? European teams seems to have no problems scoring goals on a large surface, which makes it a point of preference. After watching an NHL season, it's almost relieving watching an international tournament where a player like Kane actually has time to do something creative with the puck, all the more often than in a bathtub. It's not guaranteed he will, but he has the time and ice.

Most shots are non factors? You compare it to the small rink size, I mean? What is the difference in quality shots, whatsoever?

If watching players stick handle ineffectively on the perimeter is your thing, then international hockey is for you. I'd rather watch McDavid beat players wide 8 times a period in the NHL because he has less distance to travel from A to B.

Speed is actually rewarded on small ice. Big ice handicaps players who can think and move faster than others. Defensive positioning is everything, and it's easier to do, because, again, the actual legitimate scoring areas don't get any bigger. All you're doing is making the perimeter larger, and the perimeter isn't a threat. All the "extra space" that people ramble on about is just a giant dead zone, because teams just collapse to the same area they would on any sized sheet of ice. Danger areas are defended the exact same way, only more effectively because it takes offensive players longer to get to there, having to travel the extra distance.

With regards to my "interest," I had a free Saturday afternoon and McDavid was on TV. The f*** do you think I was going to do with my day?