Ice Hockey World Cup

[Pekka]

Tingkai, ok, but that's the style of lots of these euro players.. that is, to play PP next to the boards, run the thing in the corners. It makes no sense to me as you know. You can't score from there. Well, the point is you then create good passing opportunities, hope for one timers but it's just not going to really happen that often.

Then you see one of the better NHL players we had, they started to come to the center on PP, shoot with traffic in front of the net, looking for one timers with the blue line. It's like a rule, if you play in Europe, you do the first one, if you are a bit better and play in the NHL, you do this last one.

So that's the PP. Not very good.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

Looks like the pathetic Captain got it done.

You must mean the guy who scored two goals in the final game, one of them a real beaut; the guy who was among the top scorers; the guy you said is a one-way player, but who led Canada in +/-; the guy who was named MVP, the guy who wasn't named captain.

[Asher]

I'm talking about the leadership of the team, not the MVP or the scoring leader...

Why do you think they are the same thing?

Nash has zero leadership experience nor abilities. He's a good scorer when he's not lazy (which is 90% of the time in the NHL)

He is largely a 1-way player, by the way. I'm not the only one who thinks that...Ken Hitchcock says the same thing.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Pekka
Then you see one of the better NHL players we had, they started to come to the center on PP, shoot with traffic in front of the net, looking for one timers with the blue line. It's like a rule, if you play in Europe, you do the first one, if you are a bit better and play in the NHL, you do this last one.

So that's the PP. Not very good.

Yup, doesn't make a lot of sense. Cycling the puck is one thing, but not going to the net just wastes the effort.

The two Finn goals came when they did get guys in front, but it came to late.

Of course, it was harder to do against Canada. The Canadians broke up a lot of attacks with close checking in the neutral zone and forcing the Finns on the boards when the Finns did get through.

The Canadians dominated at all levels, but I'll give credit to the Finns for not giving up and fighting back with the two goals.

[Asher]

By the way, Tingkai, Matthew Lombardi was the leading Canadian scorer in the tourney.

[Serb]

Really?
I thought you've little to no interest in the IIHF crap.

[Serb]

Nash's last goal was -

Congrats Canada.

Too bad you didn't play Russia this time.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
By the way, Tingkai, Matthew Lombardi was the leading Canadian scorer in the tourney.

Actually, Lombardi and Nash both scored 6 goals.

As for your belief that Nash didn't contribute much to Canada's win, yeah, whatever.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Actually, Lombardi and Nash both scored 6 goals.

Lombardi has more points, which is a tiebreaker.

As for your belief that Nash didn't contribute much to Canada's win, yeah, whatever.

Yeah, you're really good with that reading thing aren't you.

I never said anything remotely close to that.

[Asher]

Here's some comments from the boy you love so much on Doan's captaincy:

http://www.tsn.ca/canadian_hockey/news_story/?ID=207640&hubname=

"'It was unbelievable, especially with all those things going on,'' said forward Rick Nash, the tournament MVP. ''He's our captain, he's our leader and he deserves that `C' on his jersey.''

Added forward Justin Williams: ''He's just a solid all-around guy, an unbelievable hockey player. When you talk about leading by example, he's the face of that. He plays hard every night.''

I'm waiting for your concession...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai


You must mean the guy who scored two goals in the final game, one of them a real beaut; the guy who was among the top scorers; the guy you said is a one-way player, but who led Canada in +/-; the guy who was named MVP, the guy who wasn't named captain.

Is that last bit there an attempt again to say Nash should have been captain over DOan?

If so we have this years winner of " Most obstinate poster in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary"



Doan led a team to a perfect record-- Could they have done as well with a different captain? perhaps . . . The fact is that we will never know-- perhaps the DOan controversy was a motivating factor for the team and spurred them on-- or perhaps it was a distraction and prevented them from playing even better. There is no way to know.

BUT when a captain gets unanimous accolades from the players AND said captain leads an undefeated team AND said captain exhibits leadership on and off the ice-- thats a great captain.


Nash ?? Fabulous player. I don't care if he was the "best' player since it is irrelevant to the captaincy question. He probably didn't have the experience or credentials to be seriously considered for captaincy this time out.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai


As for your belief that Nash didn't contribute much to Canada's win, yeah, whatever.

I must be missing stuff in the thread-- Show me where Asher said anything at all along those lines

[Flubber]

Overall

That 3 golds in 5 years for Canada which exhibits the great depth of Canadian talent. The Canadian "B" side is very very competitive with the other nation's "B+" or "A" squads. Most of the best hockey nations can come up with a pretty good top 20 players but at this event where you have to go further down the list, Canadian depth shines through.

Although, if you put Kipper in the Finnish nets , playing anywhere near as well as he did in the playoffs, and I like the Finnish chances. Although if I want to get all revisionist, I could then put Luongo in the canadian nets.


OH and congrats to Stevie Y and the team Canada staff. I liked the youth movement on this team. I criticized the selection of the Canadian team at the last Olympics since I thought they went too heavily "2002" in a team playing in 2006. This time they went for a young squad with a sprinkling of veterans for leadership and experience. This may partly be that some vets turned them down but the results are plain to see.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Flubber
Is that last bit there an attempt again to say Nash should have been captain over DOan?

I was giving credit where credit is due (something Asher can't do): to Nash for outstanding work that proves he's not a one-way player like some idiots like to claim.

Still, you seem to have problems understanding my simple point: Doan was a surprising choice for captain given that he doesn't have as good a record as other players and given the fact that he led his Pheonix to bottom of the NHL.

Did I ever say that he would destroy Team Canada's chances of winning? No.

Did I say anything that wasn't true. No.

I stand by my statement that Doan was a surprising choice.

And yes, the guys are going to say he's the greatest leader ever. Do you really think they would criticize him? He could have done nothing and they still would have praised him, particularly after the politicians got involved. It's called loyalty.

Now Asher wants everyone to believe that Doan "got it done" as if Doan did it by himself. Ridiculous.

Asher continues to trash talk Nash. Again, ridiculous.

This was a team victory, and a lot of credit goes to Murray for his strategy. Credit goes to players for getting the job done on the ice. And credit goes to Nash for being the outstanding player on an outstanding team.

Oh, I agree, Yzerman did a great job putting together the team.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Nash has zero leadership experience nor abilities. He's a good scorer when he's not lazy (which is 90% of the time in the NHL)

He is largely a 1-way player, by the way.

Come on Asher, be a man and admit that you are wrong.

Why don't admit that Nash proved his outstanding abilities in the tourny.

Why not admit that his +/- there is proof that he is not a one-way player.

Or are you going to continue making ridiculous statements.