WC: 2017 Team Finland Pt. 2

[ChicagoBullsFan]

Trust only reports that cite some relevant party, preferrably one without a profit motive and with a track record for being correct. For example in this matter of the locker-room tantrum, you'd want a source that was actually in the room or is known to be connected with someone who was(and knows what is and isn't out of line in those situations).




Don't assume there's any truth to it. None of his sources are named, and IS has been running with this narrative throughout the tournament(and turning a tidy profit with it, I'm sure). Just trying to give the casual viewer an easy explanation for why we didn't win the championship in dominant fashion once again(which they of course are given as a reasonable expectation every year). If the results were different, these same people would be singing Marjamäki's praises, no matter what their "sources" say.

How do you recognize those trustful reports.
No-one Finnish hockey reporter isn't Bob McKenzie type insider who knows everything about hockey.

Maybe Sami Hoffren is that type but he's NHL corresponder.

 

[FiLe]

For the record it didn't go much better against Tre Kronorna either, with the safe and sound, conservative trap system.

Actually, we weren't doing all that bad 5-on-5, so that's a boon to the system. It was the power plays that killed us.

Hiring Marjamaki for men's national team head coach was terrible mistake.

A couple of days ago you claimed you were laughing at people who thought like this. Whish-whosh, the sound a coat makes as it turns around... and then back around again...

 

[Lempo]

A couple of days ago you claimed you were laughing at people who thought like this. Whish-whosh, the sound a coat makes as it turns around... and then back around again...

I blame the army and the awesomeness that is M62.

 

[DoubleGold]

This is a completely feelings-based argument, but what I've gathered from Marjamäki (it's not that much), he thinks screaming at adults from the top of his lungs is a good idea.

This aligns with the story about the shouting in the locker room, and the story about NHL'rs declining (Koivu wtf?) because Marjamäki treats his players like babies ("skate! skate!").

He needs to go. God damn am I sick of him.

 

[llwyd]

He needs to go. God damn am I sick of him.

Nope, he earned himself an additional year - and hopefully he has learned from the experience. He needs to build bridges and be less, well, insultingly hands on. The problem wasn't really the game plan but that it was often so poorly executed which is fundamentally the coach's responsibility. He's a smart guy, surely he will learn from this bit of a wreck of a season...

 

[Loffer]

Actually, we weren't doing all that bad 5-on-5, so that's a boon to the system. It was the power plays that killed us.

Who knows and maybe. But still the guys took those penalties (yeah, they were undisciplined and made Berry Hill to flip) within that system. Secondly, the PK was just abysmal, so, there we have a coach who is allegedly a trapping specialist with patent-pending rigor, yet he cannot organize PK effectively (well, tellingly, it looks too passive, too).

Mr. Berry Hill can finish off this interim coaching duty of his until Karri Kivi is available, yes. But after that the guy should retire from the field work altogether. Maybe something in the treasury or foreign affairs; a secretary of state kinda occupation should serve well his meticulous mind and high ambitions.

 

[FiLe]

Who knows and maybe. But still the guys took those penalties (yeah, they were undisciplined and made Berry Hill to flip) within that system. Secondly, the PK was just abysmal, so, there we have a coach who is allegedly a trapping specialist with patent-pending rigor, yet he cannot organize PK effectively (well, tellingly, it looks too passive, too).

There isn't really more than one basic way to "organize" a PK. All a coach can do is decide who goes in the box in those situations. And even the amount of penalties we took wasn't that high - three two-minute minors, and at least one of them seemed like a complete fluke. So there was really no problem with the discipline either.

Sweden was just that good on power play. Especially with that defense of theirs, the snipes from blueline were down right lethal. So saying the PK should have been better is a bit similar argument as having Patrik Laine score from an one-timer from the left, and then complain, "clearly they need a better goalie".

Not to mention the very basic, simple fact that Sweden had superior material in all. Even if you feel like arguing the rest of my explanations (and feel free!) it's still hockey 101 that in a situation like that, losing isn't really anybody's fault in particular. I don't mean to say losing was a given, anything is of course possible in a single game, but... a fish can't cough if it's got no lungs.

 

[Trilliann]

Actually, we weren't doing all that bad 5-on-5, so that's a boon to the system. It was the power plays that killed us.

Actually, if we had been good 5 on 5, we wouldn't have had to resort to so many illegal actions.

 

[FiLe]

Actually, if we had been good 5 on 5, we wouldn't have had to resort to so many illegal actions.

Well, I already commented this right above. Three two-minute minors isn't "many", even less "so many". It's perfectly within the norm even to the most disciplined team.

 

[Loffer]

Well, I already commented this right above. Three two-minute minors isn't "many", even less "so many". It's perfectly within the norm even to the most disciplined team.

Yet, it was "too much" to Berry Hill and his narcissistic or not tolerance level and the guy allegedly went bananas in the locker room during the 2nd intermission. Not that professional, to say the least.

Secondly, to let Patrick Laine to score from the slot shouldn't be blamed the goalie but the so called organization of the skaters of the goalie's team ordered to prevent the Finnish Super Sniper to do his thing. So, not the best analogue there.

And to resort to the "fish cannot cough" -argument is only self-fulfilling defeatism one shouldn't entertain in his mind if a coach with a winning mentality.

 

[FiLe]

Yet, it was "too much" to Berry Hill and his narcissistic or not tolerance level and the guy allegedly went bananas in the locker room during the 2nd intermission. Not that professional, to say the least.

I'm just going to quote another poster here, since he already said all there is to say about this:

Second or third hand information reported by IS... Nothing story, just easy clicks.

Secondly, to let Patrick Laine to score from the slot shouldn't be blamed the goalie but the so called organization of the skaters of the goalie's team ordered to prevent the Finnish Super Sniper to do his thing. So, not the best analogue there.

So your counter-argument is practically that demanding the team performs a so-called "perfect game" all time, every time, is reasonable?

On behalf of all coaches of this earth: The players, they're human. Even the best of them. Not ****ing machines. [MOD]

 

[Trilliann]

Well, I already commented this right above. Three two-minute minors isn't "many", even less "so many". It's perfectly within the norm even to the most disciplined team.

yea I didn't see that post, my reply was on hold for a while before I submitted it, had to attend to other things

 

[FiLe]

What does this to do with anything considering my articulated criticism?

You seemed to be suggesting that a coach can conjure up a system that can eliminate all human error. Something that is, naturally, impossible. And coming up with that kind of argument simply made me seethe a bit. My apologies if you felt that went over the top. But still, please don't suggest that a system should just do away with all mistakes.

Another thing to give Marjamäki credit for, btw: There hasn't been a single time when he's publicly thrown his players under the bus. Which flies right in the face of the claims that he just isn't right in the head.

 

[Loffer]

You seemed to be suggesting that a coach can conjure up a system that can eliminate all human error. Something that is, naturally, impossible. And coming up with that kind of argument simply made me seethe a bit. My apologies if you felt that went over the top. But still, please don't suggest that a system should just do away with all mistakes.

Another thing to give Marjamäki credit for, btw: There hasn't been a single time when he's publicly thrown his players under the bus. Which flies right in the face of the claims that he just isn't right in the head.

First, where did I say or suggest something to that effect? Rather, that kind of system oriented engineer thinking of eliminating human errors completely is typical for over-methodical coaches like mr. Berry Hill who seems to have an obsession to come up with such a rigid blueprint and flow chart (without the flow needed) for players to instruct them play like some frigging robots. So, very odd and contradictory comment by you, mr. FiLe.

And - for the sake of the argument - there are different types of narcissism (not taking a stance one way or another regarding the mental status of mr. Berry Hill in this regards): "fluent" and "non-fluent", i.e. publicly discernible and outrageous and then hidden and subtle (at least in public). So, as a formal possibility, for a person to behave as if correctly in front of the camera does not rule out the possibility the given person is a serious narcissist, in the final analysis.

 

[rduck1]

First, where did I say or suggest something to that effect? Rather, that kind of system oriented engineer thinking of eliminating human errors completely is typical for over-methodical coaches like mr. Berry Hill who seems to have an obsession to come up with such a rigid blueprint and flow chart (without the flow needed) for players to instruct them play like some frigging robots. So, very odd and contradictory comment by you, mr. FiLe.

It's his job. That's literally what coaches do, especially in the Finnish hockey tradition. It's been the same way under the Jalonens and Westerlund, and it'll be that way under Kivi or Tapola or whoever follows.

 

[Loffer]

It's his job. That's literally what coaches do, especially in the Finnish hockey tradition. It's been the same way under the Jalonens and Westerlund, and it'll be that way under Kivi or Tapola or whoever follows.

No, it was mr. FiLe's criticism towards me... He seems to be thinking mr. Berry Hill is basically free from such grand fallacies and biases in his pure thinking about hockey...

 

[FiLe]

First, where did I say or suggest something to that effect?

Here:

Secondly, to let Patrick Laine to score from the slot shouldn't be blamed the goalie but the so called organization of the skaters of the goalie's team ordered to prevent the Finnish Super Sniper to do his thing. So, not the best analogue there.

I don't know what you really tried to say here, but it's pretty easy to interpret that you wanted to say that a coach can organize the players so that they can stop each and every cross-ice pass.

And let me tell you, no game plan is that foolproof.


And I must say, I'm pretty darned happy that Marjamäki isn't going anywhere, based on this festering some-rage alone. When we have people willing to entertain ideas like the coach having mental disorders based on third-hand reporting and plain hearsay - and then have all fantasies built on these assumptions denied by reality, well... it's really no tangible argument for keeping the coach any more than it is for sacking him, but it's still pretty gosh darn cathartic.

 

[torniojaws]

http://www.is.fi/mmkiekko/art-2000005219858.html
If this is true Finnish hockey association's only option is fire Marjamaki.

Coach cannot get rid of the players even if they played badly.
I understand that if coach is angry but this-kind behavior is unacceptable.

Yeah, no. He is a lot of things, but not a screamer.

 

[Loffer]

Here:

I don't know what you really tried to say here, but it's pretty easy to interpret that you wanted to say that a coach can organize the players so that they can stop each and every cross-ice pass.

And let me tell you, no game plan is that foolproof.


And I must say, I'm pretty darned happy that Marjamäki isn't going anywhere, based on this festering some-rage alone. When we have people willing to entertain ideas like the coach having mental disorders based on third-hand reporting and plain hearsay - and then have all fantasies built on these assumptions denied by reality, well... it's really no tangible argument for keeping the coach any more than it is for sacking him, but it's still pretty gosh darn cathartic.

Oh man, you are one stubborn specimen, mr. FiLe, unwilling to "lose" on or off the ice. And take that as a compliment. But - well, let's rewind the argument at issue:

1) You say: Against the Canucks TF failed due to an experiment with more offensive and liberal tactics, so it was a no-go. 2) I say: Well, (for the record) the safe and sound neutral zone trap didn't yield any better results vs. the Swedes, 3) You say: It was not the system but the penalties that killed TF vs. Sweden, 4) I say: Maybe, but anyway they were made within the system (yet, Berry Hill flipped cuz the penalties were not a planned part of his assumed "pitch-perfect" system) and the PK failed in essence being too passive (as one might expect from a tactical conservative like Berry Hill), 5) You say: a coach cannot organize the PK, it is always the same, only the executive four (or three) varies and besides your (mine) argument was like complaining the goalie if Laine scores from high scoring area with a beauty of a shot and in addition the amount of penalties was quite normal and ordinary in the game (furthermore, it is just unchecked hearsay and gossip Berry Hill had raged in the locker room after those apparently fatal penalties), 6) I say: your Laine argument is not a very good analogue, since the adequate one would blame the skaters letting Laine shoot from a high scoring area (multiple times; and it should be preventable and as such the demand to prevent that should be a reasonable demand as well), 7) you say: you seem to be thinking a coach should come up with a water tight system which is absurd and unrealistic, 8) I say: on the contrary, mr. Berry Hill aspires such grand schemes of implementing an error free system in TF (which is apt to eliminate the more fluid game, its offensive initiatives, active forechecking etc.)...

Well, okay. If we accept as you claim that the penalties were an acceptable part of the game but not results of the system deployed by Berry Hill and the power kill cannot really be organized anyway and as such it is and was just a hard fact that the Finns had no "lungs" to prevent the goals during them -- so, we can similarly say that against Canada the goals given were if not "flukes" , just more or less independent of the system which was quite flawless per se - or at least we cannot know and claim otherwise and the final score just reflected the superiority of the Canucks in the game (if it were not just a "fluke" also).

Thus, given this, we should at leasts encourage mr. Berry Hill to deploy more liberal systems like in the game against Canada giving players more freedom and autonomy on ice since it prepares the team for the upcoming challenges to adapt to the current winning trends in hockey and in any case develops players individual and collective offensive skill more than testudo kind of passive over tactical trap game.

Furthermore, we should criticize mr. Berry Hill vocally if and when he doesn't comply but just keeps on banging his head on these over-defensive formations until getting sacked. for good. Thanks to the vocal criticism against him.

 

[rduck1]

If we accept [...] the penalties were an acceptable part of the game but not results of the system deployed by Berry Hill [...] so, we can similarly say that against Canada the goals given were if not "flukes", just more or less independent of the system which was quite flawless per se - or at least we cannot know and claim otherwise and the final score just reflected the superiority of the Canucks in the game (if it were not just a "fluke" also).

This is a complete non-sequitor, no(or a false equivalence, more precisely)? I don't see how the undisciplined penalties against Sweden(or the causes thereof) have any causal connection with the goals allowed against Canada.

To make this more clear:
"The undisciplined penalties against Sweden were not caused by the defensive system" does not entail that "the goals allowed against Canada were not caused by the offensive system".

These are independent propositions that should be considered in their own contexts.

 

[BB88]

The Europe-based core of our team is neither fast nor creative, so we really don't have the personnel to play that way. It would require a pretty dramatic departure from recent continuity to implement a more fluid system, and that's just not happening with the way Liitto operates. Any change that might happen would be more of the same with a different face. We'll have to wait until we have a consistently available core of internationally proven high-skill players... And that'll take some years still.

Which is also a huge problem.
Slow teams do....... in high level games.

I want a change from this style, and for next World Cup get more NA experts to coaching staff.
The game has been changing but we haven't.

 

[rduck1]

Which is also a huge problem.
Slow teams do....... in high level games.

I want a change from this style, and for next World Cup get more NA experts to coaching staff.
The game has been changing but we haven't.

Oh I absolutely agree. I would love it if players who realistically belong on the fourth line in these matches were limited into that role, but it's gonna take time. Nobody is going to gamble on a roster full of first-timers, or it's going to get spun into a whole ********* if and when the inevitable bad result comes(can't you just hear Tami droning on about how stupid it was to drop all those venerable veterans). Plus anyone who would be willing to do such a thing will be crossed off Liitto's candidates list pretty damn quickly.

 

[Loffer]

This is a complete non-sequitor, no(or a false equivalence, more precisely)? I don't see how the undisciplined penalties against Sweden(or the causes thereof) have any causal connection with the goals allowed against Canada.

To make this more clear:
"The undisciplined penalties against Sweden were not caused by the defensive system" does not entail that "the goals allowed against Canada were not caused by the offensive system".

These are independent propositions that should be considered in their own contexts.

First, causality is a suspect inductive notion (at least since mr. David Hume noted this in his skeptical empirism centuries ago) and nothing to do with non sequitur as such but at most as the notion causality IS a non-sequitur par excellence; material implication is not a logical one.

But but --- otherwise you also suggest the contexts of the situations or results being 'different' and thus my conclusion is non-valid. May I disagree, no matter were the penalties "undisciplined" or not. We assumed they were not.

 

[rduck1]

First, causality is a suspect inductive notion (at least since mr. David Hume noted this in his skeptical empirism centuries ago) and nothing to do with non sequitur as such but at most as the notion causality IS a non-sequitur par excellence; material implication is not a logical one.

But but --- otherwise you also suggest the contexts of the situations or results being 'different' and thus my conclusion is non-valid. May I disagree, no matter were the penalties "undisciplined" or not. We assumed they were not.

I did not state that either proposal is invalid. Just that their validity does not depend on that of the other in any way. And you may substitute "causal" with "logical" if you so wish.

 

[Mestaruus]

It's so hard to watch this game. Kind of want to turn the TV off. Marjamäki did the important thing and made us win the game of death but I can't imagine watching this crap for the next 1-2 years and I hope he gets fired.