Create a Dreamwidth Account
Site and Account
Reload page in style:
2014-03-31 04:02 am (UTC)
Some question-based annotations! (lightly edited)
I know why generally speaking there's no advantage to a wing-to-wing switch on the scissor play but in the screenshot it looks like Jones might be in better position to defend Kane than Glencross. Is switching in that situation not possible because the scissor play has already taken place and trying to call it now would result in both Flames players being out of position, or because Jones (who is relatively stationery) would be slower to start trying to catch Kane than Glencross (who is already moving)?
I think you're onto something when you say it has to do with the fact that Glencross is already moving in the right direction. Building on that,(I think) if they were going to switch they already would have by this point; Glencross, given his trajectory/speed is already pretty committed to Kane. Changing direction to stay high (near Leddy) would be hard at this point. Also, it's entirely possible (given the speed of the game) that it just happened too fast, and/or that Glencross hadn't fully realized how badly he was going to be beaten.
The second scissor play involves what basically ends up looking like man-to-man play to me, and the two mistakes that result in the goal seem like they'd be equivalent in man-to-man play as well. Is there a specific difference that would've occurred if the Flames actually played man-to-man (Stajan covering Saad more closely rather than engaging Kane?) instead of zone defense? Or is it that it doesn't matter what defense you play, if you make mistakes like that it'll cost you?
First, I think most teams play a hybrid of zone and man-to-man, at least in some aspects of the game (eg, nearly everybody line-matches at least sometimes, everybody's PK looks basically the same (box = zoneish D). The specifics of what a individual coach wants his (this) team to do in this situation are beyond my knowledge. But you could guess that if Stajan chose to cover Saad over Kane he could have effectively taken Saad out of the play as an option (good), but would have left a much more dangerous piece of ice open for Kane (bad).
Is the fact that Glencross cheating in the hopes of getting a breakaway and then getting burnt defensively by Kane part of why a lot of offensive defensemen are poorer defensively? i.e. if you think defensively you won't get the offensive chances, and if you're trying to get the offensive chances you won't be defending as well.
Oh man. I could go on for
about the role of the defenseman, and how it's changed, and the poor, overlooked stay-at-home guys. Long story short though, there is a specific breed of defensemen that really function at 4th forwards (hi Karlsson! Hi OEL! Hi PK! Hi Drew!) They are elite because they have to be positionally sound, as well as incredibly fast to be able to participate in the offensive rush w/o screwing over their team on D (offensive Dmen will thus be open to everyone's favorite criticism of being 'defensively irresponsible' [again, Hi Karlsson! Hi PK!]). And yes, the underlying assumption is, if you're head is thinking about scoring chances, you're probably not as focused on D as you could be.
Thread from start
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address.
Sign in using OpenID
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Check spelling during preview
This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.
Most Popular Tags
anti lockout squee
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 17th, 2017 12:10 am
Top of page