If anything could exorcise the fears of Canadian hockey fans after a middling start to the Olympics, it would be a sound thrashing of the Soviets Russians. And against all odds, that was what happened last night, as Canada skated out to a 4-1 lead and finished the game off in convincing fashion with a 7-3 win over the Communist threat their long-time rivals.
Entering the game, Evgeni Nabokov had not been bad for Russia. The San Jose Sharks starter had a .911 SV%, which while not lovely was okay, but which wasn’t nearly as good as backup Ilya Bryzgalov (.939 SV%). Nabokov struggled against Canada, and while the defence didn’t help him out all that much he was the team’s biggest problem, and he ended up allowing six goals on 23 shots (.739 SV%). Bryzgalov was brought in far too late by head coach Vyacheslav Bykov, and although he shut the door (.947 SV% on 19 shots) it was already over.
The Canadians also did a good job of containing the Russian stars, particularly Alexander Ovechkin and Evgeni Malkin who combined for just one assist and a minus-4 rating, but it was the offence that stole the show tonight, peppering Russia with 46 shots, and with some unlikely players standing: in fact every one of tonight’s three stars had been having lacklustre tournaments. Some familiar faces also continued to perform well; Jonathan Toews recorded two assists as did Duncan Keith while Shea Weber scored another goal. Once again, Luongo was more okay than brilliant, although he managed some solid saves.
The bottom line in all of this is that Canada can now finish no worse than fourth and is much closer to the gold medal game than they were just one day ago. The disaster that would have been finishing out of the top four has been averted, and the national soul-searching can be deferred to the Russian Federation.
Three Stars
1. Dan Boyle. The Sharks defenceman has not been especially good in this tournament, but all of that changed tonight as he scored a highlight reel goal, added two assists and led the team with a plus-3 rating. He looked every inch the veteran puck-moving defenceman that Steve Yzerman thought he had named to the team.
2. Ryan Getzlaf. Another player who had his best game of the tournament, Getzlaf opened the scoring just over two minutes in. He finished the night with three points, and threw a huge hit on Anton Volchenkov after the Russian defenceman knocked Eric Staal head-first into the boards.
3. Corey Perry. Two goals for Perry go a long ways towards making up for a brutal effort on Ryan Kesler’s empty net goal in Canada’s loss to the United States.
On the heels of a lop-sided 8-2 victory over Germany, Team Canada continues its quest for gold tonight with a quarterfinal game against Russia at 4:30 Pacific Time.
I chose the photo above because it’s a fine representation of Canada’s dominance against Germany, but also because of the player on the far right: Jonathan Toews. Prior to the tournament I quibbled with the selection of Toews; I was willing to admit he was a fine player but I didn’t think he deserved to be on this team over some of the other options.
I was wrong about that. Toews has been excellent despite rather limited ice-time, and he currently leads Canada in plus/minus with a plus-7 rating. He also has five points (all assists) which puts him behind only Dany Heatley and Sidney Crosby for the team lead. I haven’t run the numbers, but I’d be surprised if he wasn’t Canada’s best scorer relative to ice-time.
I hope he gets more ice-time against the Russians, who could end Canada’s medal hopes. There are some players – mostly veterans – underperforming, and Toews would seem a logical choice to move up the line-up if one of them gets shuttled down.
In net, Roberto Luongo didn’t shut the critics up with a perfect game (and in honesty, even in a perfect game he would have heard ‘it’s just Germany’) but he’ll have his best chance to do so tonight. His game against the Germans wasn’t bad – the goals scored against were the result of some ugly defensive breakdowns, particularly the last one, a 2-on-0 breakaway. The true measurement of him – and indeed, the rest of Team Canada - will start being taken tonight.
As with yesterday, we’ll be live-blogging the festivities, and I invite everyone to join us.
Mike Babcock raised the ire of a lot of people last night by deferring to Sidney Crosby rather than Rick Nash on a penalty shot last night. I understood the logic behind his choice: the guy with the best shooting record should take the shot. It wasn’t favouritism (despite an argument I had with a co-worker this morning), it was adherence to a sensible plan. I’m also unimpressed with the idea that Nash needed the shot to get going; the fact that he drew the shot and the fact that he scored against the Germans later in the game make that a non-issue.
That said, Crosby’s shootout numbers over his career are so similar to Nash’s that I’m not sure it mattered. The table below is the career numbers for every player on the Canadian team with more than 10 attempts. We’re still dealing with small numbers here, but this is a slightly better sample than just using this past season’s numbers.
Player
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
Attempts
Percentage
Jonathan Toews
7/12
6/10
0/2
24
0.542
Sidney Crosby
6/8
3/10
2/7
5/15
2/6
46
0.391
Brendan Morrow
0/2
2/7
1/1
1/1
11
0.364
Ryan Getzlaf
3/7
5/9
2/12
5/12
0/2
42
0.357
Rick Nash
4/11
4/11
4/10
1/5
3/8
45
0.356
Corey Perry
1/8
5/10
4/7
1/6
0/2
33
0.333
Mike Richards
1/4
4/10
2/6
0/3
3/7
30
0.333
Patrick Marleau
2/7
1/2
4/8
0/1
0/5
23
0.304
Jarome Iginla
0/3
0/5
3/5
3/4
1/9
26
0.269
Patrice Bergeron
3/13
0/7
0/1
6/11
2/9
41
0.268
Dan Boyle
2/8
2/7
0/1
16
0.250
Dany Heatley
1/5
0/3
0/4
1/4
2/8
24
0.167
Eric Staal
0/1
0/2
1/2
0/3
1/4
12
0.167
Of players not listed, three have scored goals. Joe Thornton is 2/9 on his career, while Drew Doughty has gone 2/5 and Brent Seabrook is 1/1.
Based on the numbers above and Babcock’s selections against Switzerland, it appears that he’s running from this year’s record rather than career, which strikes me as a foolish thing to do given the size of the numbers involved. This blog seems to be transitioning into a Jonathan Toews love-fest, but I think it’s clear that he should be the number one option with a bullet on the power play (particularly given his international shootout record), followed by Crosby and then Getzlaf, with Morrow and Nash getting looks later on if one of the above isn’t getting the job done. Olympic rules being what they are, I can’t see a reason to use anyone outside that group of five.
Today marks Canada’s first elimination game: a qualifying match against Germany at 4:30 Pacific Time. If Canada wins, they’ll continue on to play a quarterfinal game against Russia tomorrow; of course if they lose the tournament ends here. Join us in the Live Blog:
Roberto Luongo has been confirmed as Canada’s starter, replacing Martin Brodeur, whose two month slide in NHL play has carried over to the Olympics. The one bright spot in the transition is that it is occurring now: had Brodeur put in an effort similar to the one against the United States on Sunday during an elimination game, the tournament would already be over. Despite a shaky final NHL game against Minnesota, Luongo’s been very good since January and made some good stops en route to a shutout win over Norway in Canada’s first game.
Despite where the Canadians are, I don’t think wholesale changes are needed: the goalie switch was the most important adjustment to the lineup, and other minor moves will be needed, and this game against the Germans is a good opportunity to get one last run at finding where players fit.
Despite the switch in Canada’s net, the most important player in this game is Thomas Greiss, the 24 year-old backup goaltender from the San Jose Sharks. Germany cannot compete with Canada either up front or on the back end, and like both Switzerland and the United States will need its goalie to steal the game for them. Greiss has been impressive in limited minutes for the Sharks but has an uninspiring track record in the AHL and isn’t close to being as consistently good as a Jonas Hiller or Ryan Miller, but he can get hot and this is the biggest game of his career. If he stands on his head and the Germans can get some offence – most likely from one of Marco Sturm, Jochen Hecht or Marcel Goc up front, or Christian Ehrhoff on the power play – they have some chance of upsetting Canada.
It’s up to the Canadians to deny them that opportunity. The individual talents on this roster are undeniable, and there can be no quarter shown, just a continual, merciless offensive onslaught from the forwards. Players like Chris Pronger and Eric Staal need to play with discipline, eschewing the careless penalties that have plagued the Canadians. Luongo needs to be the best goaltender on the ice.
Damien Cox’s latest column, this one on the Olympic goaltending switch, is a real joy to read. Cox does his best to pillory head coach Mike Babcock, painting a picture of a dishonest (he lied to the media!) and indecisive man who has unsettled the team with his dithering and “deserves to be roasted on the spit of Canadian hockey opinion” if new starter Roberto Luongo isn’t brilliant.
Cox tells us that Babcock told Luongo Sunday night that he would start against Germany, but rather than portraying it as a coach giving his starter some time to prepare, he twists it into an attack on Brodeur, who wasn’t told until Monday morning. But this is a minor point, a mere prelude to the main thrust of his attack on Babcock.
In Cox’s opinion, with so much uncertainty existing the coach ought to have made his decision on goaltending early so as to stabilize the team. Leaving aside the questionable benefit of such a move (I can just picture Sidney Crosby tossing and turning at night: ‘I don’t know if I’ll have world-class goalie Martin Brodeur behind me or world-class goalie Roberto Luongo behind me; I feel so… unsettled), Cox implies that Babcock’s decision not to anoint a starter out of orientation camp was somehow a failing:
Babcock could have announced in Calgary that it was time for the youngsters to take over and anointed Luongo and Fleury as the two goalies, with Brodeur in reserve.
With the benefit of hindsight, Cox chooses to ignore that both Cam Ward and Steve Mason were in contention for an Olympic job. In fact, given Cox’s preference for ‘established winners’ it’s entirely possible that Luongo would have missed the team entirely, in favour of Ward and Fleury. Suggesting that Babcock should have known in August who would start is ridiculous.
Cox picks on Babcock for declining to explain his reasons for starting Luongo against Norway. I personally would have felt the reasons were obvious even had he named a dedicated starter: in the case of injury, it’s nice to have a goalie with an Olympic game under his belt. In this situation – with Brodeur entering the tournament on a two-month slide – the reasons are even more obvious: so that if Brodeur struggles, Babcock has a Plan B. Cox surely understands this, just as he chooses not to acknowledge it; he frets that Luongo will enter the game against Russia “without having faced a top-drawer opponent,” without thinking about the implications of Luongo getting his first Olympic start in an elimination game.
That’s really what this comes down to: what Cox sees as waffling I see as Babcock keeping his options open. Consider the situation. Brodeur is the all-time NHL wins leader. He has a plethora of individual records and awards, as well as multiple championship rings. He’s Canada’s incumbent starter and one of the finest goaltenders ever to play the game, and the expectation of virtually everyone is that he’ll be the starter. Weighed against that is the fact that he hasn’t been very good over the last two months: 3-5-2 in his last 10 games with an .876 SV%, and only a .903 SV% since January. In Babcock’s shoes I’d want to give him a chance, but I’d also want to have the opportunity to try something else if his struggles continued.
Brodeur’s struggles have continued. Cox highlights his brilliance in the shootout against Switzerland, glossing over the fact that he was only ordinary over the preceding 65 minutes of hockey. He was downright bad against the Americans, and given his performance over the last two months the decision to yank him makes perfect sense.
Cox next appeals to the absurd:
Do you think the U.S. would be going to Tim Thomas if Ryan Miller had been hammered by Canada? Would Sweden be turning to Jonas Gustavsson if Henrik Lundqvist had lost to Finland on Sunday?
The difference between Ryan Miller and Tim Thomas this season is a large one: Miller is a Vezina candidate, while Thomas is struggling to hang on to his starting job. The gap between Lundqvist and Gustavsson is even wider: the former is one of the game’s elite goaltenders, while the latter has yet to show he can be more than a serviceable backup. No such gap exists on the Canadian team: Luongo actually has the edge on Brodeur statistically in each of the last two seasons (both regular season and playoffs) and if they entered these games with similar careers Luongo would almost certainly be the starter; only Brodeur’s illustrious career gave him the edge.
Cox saves his best for last, appealing to Babcock’s track record:
Anytime Babcock has had success – the 1997 world juniors, the 2002 Stanley Cup final with the Anaheim Ducks, the 2008 and ’09 Cup finals with Detroit – he has identified a starting goalie and rode him hard.
He didn’t pull Marc Denis in ’97 when that team struggled, or J.S. Giguere in ’02, or Chris Osgood in either of the past two playoff seasons.
There’s just so much wrong in those two paragraphs that I feel compelled to respond to columnist Cox with Dr. Cox:
Denis and Giguere in the years mentioned above aren’t remotely comparable to Brodeur at these Olympics. Denis didn’t lose a single game en route to gold in 1997, while Giguere won the Conn Smythe trophy in 2003 despite being on the losing team in the finals thanks to five shutouts and an unbelievably good .945 SV%. As for the Osgood comparison, that’s flat out wrong because Chris Osgood wasn’t the Red Wings starting goalie in 2007-08.
The Red Wings starter in 2007-08 was Dominik Hasek, whose experience in those playoffs actually looks a lot like Brodeur’s experience at these Olympics. Like Brodeur, Hasek:
… had an illustrious career and was one of the best goalies ever to play the game.
… was the incumbent starter.
… had won a championship with his powerhouse team a few years back (a Stanley Cup in Hasek’s case, a gold medal in Brodeur’s).
… had been outplayed by his backup that season.
… was pegged as the starter going into the playoffs based on his excellent career despite his recent struggles.
.. went .500 against inferior opposition (1-1 against Switzerland and the U.S. for Brodeur, 2-2 against Nashville for Hasek).
… put up an ugly save percentage (.888 for Hasek, .867 for Brodeur).
What Babcock has done with his goaltending at these Olympics is almost identical to the situation in Detroit in the 2008 playoffs. It isn’t, as Cox contends “a different playbook”, but rather an identical one. Babcock has, over the course of his NHL career, deferred to experience over recent results to open the postseason. He did it in the last two playoffs, both with Hasek and with Osgood. In the latter case he was rewarded with a strong performance, and he stuck with the veteran. In the former, the veteran let him down and he turned to the backup – and was rewarded again. It’s difficult to blame him for doing the same thing here.
I’ve long maintained that I’m not a huge believer in “clutch” performance as a way of measuring goalies. It’s not that I don’t believe certain goalies are better at handling the pressure than others, it’s just that there are very few goalies who play enough to get a firm read on. For instance, every goalie can have a rough season – take Chris Osgood, widely considered a clutch goalie, for example. In 2008-09, he was brilliant leading Detroit to the Stanley Cup Finals, but he had been brutal during the regular season with an .887 SV% and had been badly outplayed by backup Ty Conklin. That was a 46-game sample which said Osgood was (maybe) a backup calibre goaltender – but from his career we know he’s more than that.
Given that only a half-dozen active goalies have played more than 50 playoff games, it becomes very difficult to say we’ve seen enough to determine if a goalie is “clutch” or not. Consider with me for a moment two goaltenders: their regular season and playoff win percentage and save percentage.
Player
Season GP
Season Win%
Season SV%
Playoff GP
Playoff Win%
Playoff SV%
Goalie A
196
0.556
0.913
22
0.364
0.892
Goalie B
129
0.543
0.910
25
0.520
0.931
In the regular season, these are pretty comparable players. Goalie A puts up slightly better numbers than Goalie B and wins a little more, but there really isn’t much to choose from. In the playoffs, though, there is an incredible a shift. Goalie A collapses under the pressure, wins barely one third of his games and loses more than 20 points off his save percentage. Goalie B excels; he might be an average starter in the regular season but he’s an elite goalie in the post-season, winning more than half his games and gaining 20 points on his save percentage.
Goalie A is Marty Turco from 2002-06. Goalie B is also Marty Turco, except we’re now considering 2006-08. Is he a clutch goaltender or is he a tremendous failure?
It’s possible that he learned some new technique, found a miracle cure that transformed him from an ugly disappointment into one of the game’s best goalies under pressure. I don’t find that particularly compelling, but it’s possible.
The more likely explanation, in my opinion, is that every goalie goes through good and bad stretches, and that a reputation for ‘clutch’ performance is generally based on whether those stretches coincide with the playoffs or not. Martin Brodeur has had four playoff years where he has played badly. Chris Osgood gets a lot of credit for turning up his game during the playoffs, but he wasn’t especially good as a playoff goalie with either the Islanders or the Blues, and for that matter there were years when he struggled in Detroit too. If we were to judge either goalie on the basis of those seasons, we wouldn’t view them as ‘clutch’ guys; but fortunately for both of them they’ve played behind enough strong teams that they’ve had many opportunities to prove themselves, and they’ve made good use of those opportunities.
Again, it’s not that I think ‘clutch’ performance is a myth: I just think it’s incredibly difficult to measure, and most goalies never get enough games in to show conclusively one way or the other.
Canada’s loss to the United States yesterday has made any attempt to medal a difficult one. Instead of getting a bye to the quarterfinals (which I mistakenly called the semifinals yesterday), Canada now has to play a qualification game against Germany, followed by a quarterfinal game against Russia the very next day, after which (assuming two wins) they’ll have two more games against top opponents. It won’t be easy.
Dirk Hoag of On The Forecheck has a great bracket which shows how the tournament will progress up at his site. In what will likely be another failed attempt at prognostication, I’m going to go through it and take a guess at how the tournament will unfold. Feel free to chime in with similar predictions in the comments section.
Qualifier Games
Game 1: Switzerland vs. Belarus. The Belarusian team has shown in previous years that it can surprise people, but it would still be a bit of a shock if they managed to beat the Swiss. With all due respect to Vitali Koval, Jonas Hiller should be the difference here. Winner: Switzerland.
Game 2: Czech Republic vs. Latvia. Like Belarus, Latvia is just good enough to surprise people, but it’s difficult to picture Tomas Vokoun being bad enough to lose this game (note: Jay Feaster, feel free to disregard). Winner: Czech Republic.
Game 3: Slovakia vs. Norway. Norway managed to force overtime against the Swiss, which is how they dodge Canada and instead draw Slovakia, but in my opinion they’re the worst team in this tournament while Slovakia is good enough to have an outside shot at a medal. Winner: Slovakia.
Game 3: Canada vs. Germany. The Germans will play tight defensive hockey, and pray for twin miracles: first, that Thomas Greiss can put in a better effort than he has so far in this tournament, and second that their pop-gun offence (leading scorer: Marcel Goc) can score enough to keep them in it. Winner: Canada. Please note: we’ll be live-blogging the game between Canada and Germany here at Hockey or Die, so feel free to stop by.
Quarterfinals
Game 1: USA vs. Switzerland. The Swiss put scares into both Canada and the United states during the round robin portion of the tournament, and they’re good enough to challenge the Americans here, though the odds are not in their favour. Winner: USA.
Game 2: Finland vs. Czech Republic. I’m actually of Finnish descent, so it really pains me to say this but I expect the Czechs to win here. This game is almost a complete wild card, and the Finns have the advantage of an extra day of rest, but they’ll also be short Joni Pitkanen, who is serving a suspension. Either team is good enough to win gold if things break right. Winner: Czech Republic.
Game 3: Sweden vs. Slovakia. Despite the hype surrounding the Americans, and both the Canadians and Russians going into the tournament, I think Sweden must be regarded as the favourites at this stage of the tournament. They showed very well against Finland and ought to beat Slovakia as well. Winner: Sweden.
Game 4: Russia vs. Canada. This is going to be a great hockey game, and with a day’s rest on their side it’s easy to favour the Russians here. Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I see goaltending making the difference and allowing Canada to slip through to the semifinals. Winner: Canada.
Semifinals/Finals
Game 1: USA vs. Czech Republic. Like most of the games at this stage of the tournament, this one is too close to call. The Americans have the edge in NHL’ers, but the Czechs aren’t in bad shape either and may even have a modest talent edge. Winner: USA.
Game 2: Sweden vs. Canada.Henrik Lundqvist has yet to allow a goal in these Olympics. On paper, Canada has a superior set of skaters, but then again that hasn’t done them much good so far. The Swedes have an impressive array of talent up front: Zetterberg, Sedin, Sedin, Alfredsson, Forsberg and Backstrom are all on the roster, though their leading goal-scorer is unheralded winger Loui Eriksson who is having a great season in Dallas. Given the path Canada will have to take to make it to this point, Sweden must be regarded as the favourite in this matchup. That said, Winner: Canada.
The scenario outlined above would see Canada faceoff against the Americans for the gold medal, with the Czechs and Sweden playing for Bronze. It’s plausible, although with three strong opponents in a row – Russia, likely Sweden, and then whoever makes it to the gold medal game – it’s going to be very, very difficult.
