Well put, as usually, mr. FiLe. -- How would you describe or characterize Jalonen vs. Erkka btw. I am not on the chart in this one actually. What kind of coach is Erkka? A pedant emphasizing defense at the expense of creative offense?
But Jalonen is the "Our game" guru, correct? -- I thought Erkka is more up to date in his philosophy of "reactive hockey"? I admit, I am a bit lost here. - So, enlighten me once again, mr. FiLe.
Edit: For me the main difference between these two, never met each, comes down to the personal level of assertiveness. Their different leadership styles, more exactly. Erkka is a bit awkward in that department tbh and with these kids he would simply be more ore less lost. His style is procedural. -- Jalonen has more charisma in his perosnality and leadership. He style is transformational. And he is much more home with these kids.
My comment about Erkka was a bit in jest. He lost points with me with his Team Grindland at the WHC two years back, but there's no saying he couldn't adapt his style to helm a team loaded with offensive skill.
Regardless, Erkka's basic stance still is defense-first. Not nihilistically so, as he allows creativity - but only as far as executing one's defensive duties leaves room for it. Technically, players are allowed to do whatever they will past the offensive blueline, as long as they're ready at all times to beeline it back to defense. Erkka also likes to build his teams somewhat to follow this philosophy, as was evident with that WHC team I mentioned. Plus Jokerit ATM, to a degree. So perhaps the biggest risk with him would be that he'd snub some of our offensive juggernauts in favor of an additional grinder or two.
Jalonen at his worst admittedly wanted to be in control of the game at all zones. It was perhaps the main reason why the Vancouver tournament seemed so full of toils for him.
But I'm not calling that bad means of coaching in and of itself. It was more that some of the NT oldtimers had perhaps gotten a tad too content with different coaching culture. "Our Game" was mainly designed to create success with the not-so-talented class of 80-borns. And when Jalonen did get a team that bought the idea - as he did in 2011 - the results were, well, exceptional.
Besides, Jalonen has proven to be quite prone to learn from his mistakes and adapt his style based on the material he has. Plus he's always been big on encouraging young players especially to use their strengths.
You could say there are three schools to coaching. Type A is trying to tune the players into whatever game plan one has - whether offense-heavy or defense-heavy. Type B involves tuning the game plan instead to match the players. And Type C involves tuning both to find the perfect balance. And let it be said that none of these schools are neither good or bad - they can all thrive and generate success in the right environment.
I figure Erkka is mainly a Type A coach, while Jalonen is more of a Type C. Which is why I view him as the better match for the team we'll have here, since it is bit of a mixed bag, with defense needing perhaps slightly more fine-tuning than offense. Our Game may still loom in the background, but it's a new class with new skillz, so while not completely gone, I do feel it's gone through a bit of a makeover. Plus, of course, as you alluded yourself, Jalonen is extremely charismatic. That's always a big plus especially when dealing with kids.
Btw, there's no need for titles. Just "FiLe" will do fine, no need for all the "sirs" and "misters". Well... if you absolutely insisted, I might accept a "Your Excellency, Honorable FiLe" here and there.
Is there an official starting goalie yet ?
Nope. Looks like the same formula with Kähkönen and Vehviläinen as it was with Saros and Husso. Both will get games in the group stage and the one who fares better will tend the net going forward. You'll just have to pick one or the other for your pool.
