YEY, CANADA! Way to go. A good match, but Canada was really better this time.
S. Crosby still doesn't reach the daylight. Stays in his shadow.
S. Crosby still doesn't reach the daylight. Stays in his shadow.
Quick was on it, shame the US didn't make it through but Canada clearly were better on the night.
I have to agree, Canada kept the puck better and really set up good shots. Didn't even bother watching USA vs Finland because I knew Rask would shut us down after a morale dip like that.
Yea you guys got railed for the Bronze, although at least you were in contention for it, unlike the Russians.
Final was an amazing spectacle of Canadian Ice Hockey talent, although I did want Sweden to knock the puck in to liven things up. After that 2nd goal it was just game over.
Sweden had ALL but one of their star players sidelined, last to go was their no1 centre Backstrom who played in semi-final, but not in the final. Zetterberg, Henrik, Franzen, Backstrom were all out. Crappiest final ever.
Still think they would have edged it.
What happened 1 hour before the match probably had bigger impact on the team than his absence alone.
Now his doctor has finally admitted he screwed up.
But I agree, the final was an underwhelming end to an underwhelming tournament... what comes to exciting matches, at least compared to Vancouver (NHL ice though) or Torino. Skilled Canada played very defensively, skilled Russia did not play much at all and skilled USA stopped playing in the semifinal. There was a bit more potential.
Because equality means mentioning oppressed shit in a positive light at any given opportunity.
I do hope that is just a troll article, I mean... I've got nothing to say. The whole article just screams this:
ding winner
Craig Ferguson 
I laughed very hard reading about you guys talking about hockey, considering how lacking your knowledge is, along with your totally incorrect vernacular.
Made me laugh.
I apologize for being English and therefore superior. Except talking of hockey of course... you'd far surpass me as a Canadian :P
Well that's interesting
That said, I dunno why I'd expect anything less from BlueFlame and Matt. Having indepth conversations about things they obviously don't understand.
Yea because the sport of ice hockey and the dynamics of human potential are really something hard to understand...
Considering you were trying to use the GAA as a way to measure a teams ability, and use it as why Latvia did better against Canada is about the most obvious "case in point" about how little you understand hockey.
GAA is only ever used as a stat to gauge a goalies abilities, never a full team.
If a team gets 60+ shots on your goalie, it means you are significantly worse at breaking the puck out of your zone than the other team is at holding the line and back checking.
Fact of the matter was Latvia managed only like 15 shots in the whole game. That's like 1 shot every 4 minutes. That's Latvia's offence being destroyed by Canada's defense.
So yes, you clearly do not understand hockey with the ways that you tried to gauge Latvia's performance.
Yea but its like any sport, the term 'shot' is such a nondescript thing.. I mean in hockey anyone violently striking the puck gets classified as having shot. Also 'shots' doesn't emphasize any plays that have actually led to a goal scoring opportunity and shot, rather than someone squeezing a puck between someones legs to miss by 2 meters.
Actually, the shots count expressly counts shots saved by goaltender (or goals). Not shots that miss, or hit the post. Hence them called "Shots on goal" and not "shots near goal".
Again, great hockey knowledge.
Again, great hockey knowledge.
Didn't specify anything like that on the olympics imagary.
Again, if you knew anything about hockey, you'd know that "Shots" implies "Shots on goal" as attempted shots are not a recorded stat.
ohsnap dawes .
Cooper maybe its time to go home bro
.Cooper maybe its time to go home bro
The Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics
(163 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG