I don't have terribly much to say about either of the games, but I did see both US/Canada hockey games, both ending in such terrible disappointment.
I thought the women outplayed Canada for almost the entirety of their game, but did fall apart a bit at the very end. One thing I found interesting was that they made a lot of use of cycling the puck for generating offense, unlike the men. It also felt like, because the speed is a bit slower than the men, that a power play is a bigger advantage for the women.
The men, I thought, gave a good account of themselves as well. Canada definitely was the better team there, although it certainly didn't seem hopeless for the Americans to win.
Quite disappointing finishes for both; now we'll have to see if the men can defeat Finland for bronze. And I am looking forward to the Canada/Sweden game, although I think it'll mostly come down to Lundqvist and Price. Hank is better, but he's facing the better offense as well.
Showing posts with label olympics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label olympics. Show all posts
20140221
20140215
Oshie vs Kovy & Datsyuk
Watched today's USA vs Russia preliminary game from the Olympics this morning. I found my feelings a lot more mixed than I expected. I love OV, of course, and Datsyuk is pretty amazing (even if he does have the affrontery to play for Detroit), but the US is definitely my country.
My daughter surprised me by insisting that I wear my OV jersey while watching, which amused me.
I actually missed the first period, watching the Switzerland-Russia women's game then, but did finally find the men's game. It was already tied at one when I turned it on, and stayed close throughout. I thought that Russia got the benefit of a few questionable calls, although they didn't really take advantage of them. It's probably some bias from getting used to what the Caps do, but it seemed like they could have made some better decisions on handedness there.
The US did take advantage of one power play they got, with Pavelski scoring on a wicked pass cross-ice from Kane (the play looked much like a Caps power play, actually, with Pavelski in OV's position when he scored). But Datsyuk matched Pavelski's goal to tie it up again.
Then, several minutes later, Datsyuk's line appeared to score again, probably on a deflection that just barely got under the crossbar. It looked like they were reviewing it to see if it was hit above the crossbar (both attempts to deflect it were trying to push it downwards). After a couple replays, it was apparent that both players attempting the deflection missed, and that the puck was still rising as it went into the net, so it seemed sure to be a goal.
But then the review said "no goal", and I later heard that it was because the net was dislodged before the puck went in. I don't know, but it seemed an odd call. I wasn't complaining, though, as it left the game tied.
And that's the way regulation ended, too, going into 4-on-4 with the huge ice. Unbelievable how much room there was out there (I'll come back to this), but nobody managed to put it into the net, despite some really good chances.
So into a shootout it went, without me really knowing the shootout rules they were using. It turns out that three initial players needed to be selected, and choosing who shoots first is done similarly to the NHL. In that first round, Oshie started out by scoring, while the first two Russians were stopped. But the last two Americans were also stopped, leaving it on Kovalchuk's stick to finish. And he delivered, beating Quick on a cheeky chip shot into the corner, sending it to extra rounds.
Like the NHL, whoever led at the end of any round after that would win. Unlike the NHL, they could re-use shooters, which I did not like at all. It ended up going five more rounds, with Oshie getting all the American shots, and Kovalchuk and Datsyuk sharing duties on the Russian side. Frankly, I hated reusing the same shooters, plus I was disappointed that OV and Semin never got a chance. There were several scores in there, but in the fifth additional round, Oshie finished it after Kovy was stoned.
It was good to see the US win, and better to have had it be a close game.
What I found really interesting, though, was the effect of the big ice. Part of it, I suppose, was the quality of the players on each side, but it seemed easier to break out and easier to carry into the zone (I'm saying this based on several games; men's and women's). But it seems easier to keep play to the outside, and harder to get good chances. Part of it is that, with more boards, cycling doesn't work as well. And part of it is that the defense finds it much harder to pressure all the way out. There seem to be a lot fewer chances, overall, despite all the talent on display.
It's certainly interesting to watch; I'm looking forward to other games. And one of these days, I'll get used to Oshie wearing 74 while Carlson wears 4.
U-S-A! U-S-A!
My daughter surprised me by insisting that I wear my OV jersey while watching, which amused me.
I actually missed the first period, watching the Switzerland-Russia women's game then, but did finally find the men's game. It was already tied at one when I turned it on, and stayed close throughout. I thought that Russia got the benefit of a few questionable calls, although they didn't really take advantage of them. It's probably some bias from getting used to what the Caps do, but it seemed like they could have made some better decisions on handedness there.
The US did take advantage of one power play they got, with Pavelski scoring on a wicked pass cross-ice from Kane (the play looked much like a Caps power play, actually, with Pavelski in OV's position when he scored). But Datsyuk matched Pavelski's goal to tie it up again.
Then, several minutes later, Datsyuk's line appeared to score again, probably on a deflection that just barely got under the crossbar. It looked like they were reviewing it to see if it was hit above the crossbar (both attempts to deflect it were trying to push it downwards). After a couple replays, it was apparent that both players attempting the deflection missed, and that the puck was still rising as it went into the net, so it seemed sure to be a goal.
But then the review said "no goal", and I later heard that it was because the net was dislodged before the puck went in. I don't know, but it seemed an odd call. I wasn't complaining, though, as it left the game tied.
And that's the way regulation ended, too, going into 4-on-4 with the huge ice. Unbelievable how much room there was out there (I'll come back to this), but nobody managed to put it into the net, despite some really good chances.
So into a shootout it went, without me really knowing the shootout rules they were using. It turns out that three initial players needed to be selected, and choosing who shoots first is done similarly to the NHL. In that first round, Oshie started out by scoring, while the first two Russians were stopped. But the last two Americans were also stopped, leaving it on Kovalchuk's stick to finish. And he delivered, beating Quick on a cheeky chip shot into the corner, sending it to extra rounds.
Like the NHL, whoever led at the end of any round after that would win. Unlike the NHL, they could re-use shooters, which I did not like at all. It ended up going five more rounds, with Oshie getting all the American shots, and Kovalchuk and Datsyuk sharing duties on the Russian side. Frankly, I hated reusing the same shooters, plus I was disappointed that OV and Semin never got a chance. There were several scores in there, but in the fifth additional round, Oshie finished it after Kovy was stoned.
It was good to see the US win, and better to have had it be a close game.
What I found really interesting, though, was the effect of the big ice. Part of it, I suppose, was the quality of the players on each side, but it seemed easier to break out and easier to carry into the zone (I'm saying this based on several games; men's and women's). But it seems easier to keep play to the outside, and harder to get good chances. Part of it is that, with more boards, cycling doesn't work as well. And part of it is that the defense finds it much harder to pressure all the way out. There seem to be a lot fewer chances, overall, despite all the talent on display.
It's certainly interesting to watch; I'm looking forward to other games. And one of these days, I'll get used to Oshie wearing 74 while Carlson wears 4.
U-S-A! U-S-A!
20130715
Sochi
Speaking of dysfunction (and heading downhill towards third-world status), I thought I'd written before about corruption surrounding construction of the Sochi Olympics site. I think what I thought I'd written about before was an article talking about there being as much as $30B in graft involved in the construction. Given an initial estimate of $12B for entire construction, it just blew my mind that a number like that was even feasible.
I can't find that article now, but I just ran across a newer article on the ongoing theft in the Economist. It neither confirms nor corroborates the specific figure I'm remembering, but certainly shows that the spirit of what I'm remembering is correct.
Of course, there are two other big issues to go with it. The first is, why host the winter olympics in one of the warmest places in Russia? And two, how much money was spent in bribes to the IOC to land the Olympics in the first place?
Kind of makes you feel sorry for the Russian people, doesn't it?
Also, the talk in the first article of how corporatist policies sunk the USSR kind of begs the question of where the US is going, as many people are trying to raid the US treasury for everything they can take, as well. And having a disturbing amount of success, as can be seen by the size of corporate bailouts, and what those companies have suffered since (nothing, aside from a small amount of public shaming and a few toothless regulations).
I can't find that article now, but I just ran across a newer article on the ongoing theft in the Economist. It neither confirms nor corroborates the specific figure I'm remembering, but certainly shows that the spirit of what I'm remembering is correct.
Of course, there are two other big issues to go with it. The first is, why host the winter olympics in one of the warmest places in Russia? And two, how much money was spent in bribes to the IOC to land the Olympics in the first place?
Kind of makes you feel sorry for the Russian people, doesn't it?
Also, the talk in the first article of how corporatist policies sunk the USSR kind of begs the question of where the US is going, as many people are trying to raid the US treasury for everything they can take, as well. And having a disturbing amount of success, as can be seen by the size of corporate bailouts, and what those companies have suffered since (nothing, aside from a small amount of public shaming and a few toothless regulations).
20100301
A few thoughts on the Caps
Watching the end of the third period of the Olympic gold-medal game really pushed home a maxim that the Caps have almost always failed to live up to. That maxim is, "Throw it at the net, and good things happen."
I understand why that doesn't happen with the current composition of the team: they just have so many highly skilled players, that they want to score the pretty goal. And make no mistake, "throw it at the net..." does not lead to pretty goals. It leads to goals like the US scored with twenty-four seconds left. And it's true that the current team is not having problems scoring goals, in general.
But those ugly goals count just as much, and it gives a fall-back plan for when the pretty goal plan fails. I wonder if that points to why the Caps have had so little post-season success in their history. The first time they made it to the Conference Finals was a product of them living that maxim for a year. Especially in the playoffs, when John Druce caught fire after learning from Dino Ciccarelli how to screen the goalie.
Anyway, I just have to ask about that. I'm not sure what it is, but it's sure frustrating to watch. Some of it is certainly bad luck/officiating. Losing game seven to the Flyers two years ago falls into that category (seriously, could you have even imagined running over a goalie like that without getting called for a penalty?). Last year, though, was just lack of mental energy.
Lack of coaching? Lack of leadership from the stars? I don't know what it was, but they just looked like they expected to win just for showing up. Ah well, enough griping.
Kudos to the Olympic team for one hell of a try to unseat Canada. I wonder how many years off of Canadian's life expectancies were cut by that one goal.
I understand why that doesn't happen with the current composition of the team: they just have so many highly skilled players, that they want to score the pretty goal. And make no mistake, "throw it at the net..." does not lead to pretty goals. It leads to goals like the US scored with twenty-four seconds left. And it's true that the current team is not having problems scoring goals, in general.
But those ugly goals count just as much, and it gives a fall-back plan for when the pretty goal plan fails. I wonder if that points to why the Caps have had so little post-season success in their history. The first time they made it to the Conference Finals was a product of them living that maxim for a year. Especially in the playoffs, when John Druce caught fire after learning from Dino Ciccarelli how to screen the goalie.
Anyway, I just have to ask about that. I'm not sure what it is, but it's sure frustrating to watch. Some of it is certainly bad luck/officiating. Losing game seven to the Flyers two years ago falls into that category (seriously, could you have even imagined running over a goalie like that without getting called for a penalty?). Last year, though, was just lack of mental energy.
Lack of coaching? Lack of leadership from the stars? I don't know what it was, but they just looked like they expected to win just for showing up. Ah well, enough griping.
Kudos to the Olympic team for one hell of a try to unseat Canada. I wonder how many years off of Canadian's life expectancies were cut by that one goal.
20100224
non-local blackout?
Man, NBC's coverage of the Olympics gets suckier and suckier. First there was the USA-Canada game getting pushed to MSNBC, which meant that I could only see a few minutes of it. Now they don't even show what was supposed to be THE marquee matchup of the entire hockey tournament... what was widely expected to be the gold medal game?
Granted, it didn't turn out to be much of a game, and I'm shocked that Ovie apparently didn't bring his "A" game (although I'm actually happy that Russia is out; now Ovie and Semin will get a bit more rest before finishing the season), but that's hardly something that they could have predicted.
As a side note, I caught the coverage of the 4x10km cross-country race, and that was one hell of an anchor leg by the Norwegian Petter Northug. Damned impressive. They had one shot of him after the race ended, and it looked like he had done it all on adrenaline, and was completely spent. Major kudos to him for giving it his all.
Granted, it didn't turn out to be much of a game, and I'm shocked that Ovie apparently didn't bring his "A" game (although I'm actually happy that Russia is out; now Ovie and Semin will get a bit more rest before finishing the season), but that's hardly something that they could have predicted.
As a side note, I caught the coverage of the 4x10km cross-country race, and that was one hell of an anchor leg by the Norwegian Petter Northug. Damned impressive. They had one shot of him after the race ended, and it looked like he had done it all on adrenaline, and was completely spent. Major kudos to him for giving it his all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)