jacklours said:
So you wouldn't start a goalie to win the game, your reasoning is you would start one because if you lose people don't blame you as much. You're ****ing pathetic, a totally gutless coach. I just hope you ain't coaching hockey at all.
In my mind, you put the goalie that'll get you the win, If brodeur is good enough to play and get you the W, put him in, if not, then Luongo will go get it for you.
Thanks for calling me pathetic, eh?
To clarify, yes, I would start the goalie which gives me a better chance to win. Brodeur is that goalie.
He just so happens to
also be the consensus #1 goalie on the team and the goalie that the majority of people believe should get the start, if he's healthy.
Do you think that Quinn doesn't have to think about how fans will react to his decision on who to start? Gutless? Gutless would be not accepting the job of coaching Team Canada in the first place. This isn't simply one game we're talking about. This is his whole coaching legacy. Do you want to be known as the coach who decided to start the #2 goaltender, even though the #1 was healthy but the #2 was "hot," in a game that Canada loses? Do you want to handle all the "what-if's" and questions that the media will ask you on your decision? Do you want to be known as the coach that
lost the World Cup on home ice ?
Now obviously if Luongo managed to win the game then you would look great. But that is a very high-risk move, and the consequences of a loss could be devastating to you.
I was trying to give a different perspective on how Quinn would decide. Obviously the simple answer would have been "start Brodeur because he's more proven and gives you a better shot." But I think public perception is also an important factor.