The U.S. and Canadian men's hockey teams were elminated from the Olympic tournament yesterday, by Finland and Russia respectively, leaving North America without a representative in the medal games. Instead the Finns and Russians, along with the Swedes and Czechs will duke it out over the hardware.
This wasn't supposed to happen. Canada, the defending gold medalists, were supposed to put up a better fight. After all, they had a roster stacked with veteran NHL talent and scorign ability. Likewise, the U.S. team was supposed to avenge several lackluster (and embarrassing) Olympic performances with a lineup of experienced NHLers.
Notice a theme here? Age. Both the Canadians and Americans went with experience over younger talent, hoping that with scarce time to practice together and gel as a team, veteran leadership and game experience would be enough to propel them through. So they went with the old standbys -- Chelios, Sakic, Hatcher, Draper -- instead of young guys like Crosby, Staal and Speeza, all having fantastic NHL seasons.
But there was a fundamental fallacy in their strategy. On the larger international ice with little rest and back-to-back games, the old guys couldn't keep up. Both the U.S. and Canadian teams, who had talked so emphatically about their goal scoring potential headed into the games, had trouble scoring. Why? They had no legs under them. Both teams looked like they were skating through quicksand throughout the tournament. They never got into rhythm, never got anything going, and fell back on trying to rely on their individual talent rather than working as a team.
Nowhere was that more evident than when both teams played Russia. Bouyed by an influx of young talent -- 20-year-old Alex Ovechkin, 19-year-old Evgeni Malkin and 22-year-old Ilya Kovalchuk -- combining with veteran playmakers such as Alexei Kovalev and Pavel Datsuyk, the Russians out-skated, out-hustled and all over out-played both teams.
A lot of soul seraching and finger-pointing will be done in the USA Hockey and Team Canada boardrooms this week. Blame will be hurled at the players, coaches and manegement. While there is plenty to go around, a hard look back should be taken at the player selection process for both teams. The strategy was obviously flawed.
Russia's Sergei Gonchar, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, seemed to get it, wondering aloud after the game why Crosby was left off the Canadian roster, "The big ice would be an advantage for a guy like him. He has great speed, great vision. He has the skills and it would be a great advantage for him to play. His style fits this game perfectly."
That was one thing in the post-game interviews I found amazing. When was the last time you heard Russians talking to the man about having heart and Canadians only talking about generating scoring opportunities?
Best analysis I've read of the Olympic hockey situation. I kept watching the games wondering when the Canadiens and US would get focused and display their obvious power. But with the games being played at a point in the season where players often hit a wall experience was, as you point out, actually a disadvantage. I guess it's like the old cowboy movies. If you want to make a hard ride better bring fresh horses.
I only got to see one Canada game (the last one) so I can't comment much on them. The only thing I'll say is that they stacked their team with too many physical power forwards and not enough burners and play-makers. Without Brodeur, they would've been beaten by six or seven goals in the Russia game yesterday.
As for the US team, I agree with the principle of what you're saying. But in contradiction, Chris Chelios, at least in my opinion, was one of the three best players in the tournament for Team USA, along with Brian Gionta and Jason Blake. Plus, it's not like they got blown out of Torino. All four of their losses were by one goal. They played very well against Russia and Sweden but just came up a little short, due mostly to not matching up talent-wise. As for their quarterfinal game against Finland, they played far too undisciplined hockey to expect to beat the fundamentally sound Finns. They took like three or four penalties alone in the third period when they were supposed to be coming from behind. And when you figure that Finland took the lead in the second on two five-on-three advantages, that only adds to the argument.
So you can say it was age or speed or lack of talent, heart, etc... but the bottom line is they just didn't cash in on their opportunities and took too many costly penalties at the worst times.
Not a hockey aficionado, but how many of the NHL superstars were playing for the final four teams? Did that loss of talent impact the chances of the American team from the start?
As I have said before, I am not a hockey fan, but you make a very valid point. I think the biggest problem is that the US team and Canadian team do not have time to gel and do not have enough experience as a team. In team sports, having the most talent does not always translate into a win. US basketball has also found this out in the Olympics. Talent will take you only so far and then the team concept will make you a winner. The Pistons are the best at "team" play in the NBA and they have made it to the finals two years in a row with one win. LA on the other hand had the most talent two years ago and lost in the finals. Teamwork wins over talent every time.
I think the Finns have proven that teamwork is more valuable than individual all stars. The whole selection strategy was just wrong to me. It seemed like picking an all-star team, for both the US and Canada. These guys felt they had a "right" to be on the team (see Jeremy Roenick's response to being left off) and acted like they were doing the brass a favor. Not going to get very far that way.
Whereas you look at the Finns and Russians and Swedes. Peter Forsberg was injured and agonized over whether or not to go to Turin. He ended up going against the Flyers' wishes because playing for his country means that much to him. Fortunately for Flyers fans he seems to be healed and ready to go on Wednesday for the first game back against the Rangers. But where is that devotion from the US team? Instead you get Mike Modano complaining about having to make his own flight arrangements.
I am a chick who lives for sports -- football, hockey, college basketball, lacrosse, you name it.
As a girl from Baltimore married to a guy from Pittsburgh, my football loyalties and love for my husband are put to the test every weekend. Fortunately, he's an understanding guy.
As is our dog, who loves his football, and my beloved Irish.
