GDT: Canada vs Suomi @3pm PT/ 6pm ET/ 1am EEST

[JackSlater]

Sounded like they were trying to get McTavish out there against the Finns top line. Sounded like the plan was if they shutdown the top line there won't be any issues winning.

Which is fine I guess, but what they going to do against a team with more depth?

I didn't like it, sort of coaching scared. Disrupts the lineup and leaves some of the best forwards on the team stapled to the bench just to have McTavish go against a fine but not overwhelming first line. The team with better depth, Canada in most cases, should roll its lines in the vast majority of situations, especially when up several goals. Points to a team selection failure when the team has a clear bottom six and the coach doesn't trust one of those centres (Desnoyers) to go against that line.

Complete side note, but anyone else hearing random noises that sound like the post is being hit? A few times now when I wasn't paying attention I heard a post and looked up and the play was at center ice, lol

I noticed that as well. The ply would be in the corner and you'd hear the sound of the puck hitting the post.

 

[Ciao]

Not a chance - It`s Finland - Germany and Canada - Swiss. They meet again in the quarters if they win their games.

Semifinal.

Canada-Finland semi-final only if the USA and Sweden also advance.

Otherwise, Canada and Finland could meet in the final.

I think each of Canada, the USA, Sweden and Finland have a good chance to win gold. Single-game eliminations-- a lot can happen.

 

[Statsy]

Not a fan of placing him in the bumper spot.

I get that you want to open up things for other guys on the PP because he is so dangerous and will demand attention. But, I just think he's so wasted there. He should be even sitting at the deep point and just trying to threaten with his skating or sick release. If defenders want to puck watch and come to him, he needs to find the open man.

Bedard can work in the bumper position IF we are running the right plays… which we are not. The play needs to come from the right boards down to the goal line and then a quick pass to the slot for a one-timer. The Canucks run this play consistently with Horvat as the trigger man, albeit from the other side.

 

[Ciao]

Bedard can work in the bumper position IF we are running the right plays… which we are not. The play needs to come from the right boards down to the goal line and then a quick pass to the slot for a one-timer. The Canucks run this play consistently with Horvat as the trigger man, albeit from the other side.

Yeah, this will work every time!

The opposition will never catch on.

 

[prongertheman9]

I didn't like it, sort of coaching scared. Disrupts the lineup and leaves some of the best forwards on the team stapled to the bench just to have McTavish go against a fine but not overwhelming first line. The team with better depth, Canada in most cases, should roll its lines in the vast majority of situations, especially when up several goals. Points to a team selection failure when the team has a clear bottom six and the coach doesn't trust one of those centres (Desnoyers) to go against that line.



I noticed that as well. The ply would be in the corner and you'd hear the sound of the puck hitting the post.

I hope this was to send a message to Bedard rather than how Cameron plans on coaching moving forward. You could see the coaches talking to Bedard after his goal in a negative way - probably mad he didn't change immediately after being hemmed in their zone for so long. And then after the bad penalty he probably (hopefully) thought "I'm going to teach Bedard a lesson in a game when we are up big. The funny thing about it is the first shift that McTavish had with Cuylle and whoever is that they got scored on immediately lol and he still stuck to his guns. Not sure what Othmann did though.

 

[Statsy]

Yeah, this will work every time!

The opposition will never catch on.

Well, it only needs to work once per opponent. It’s how you are supposed to utilize the bumper position, otherwise it’s a guy just standing there. If you look at the video I posted, it’s a timing play and if you do it quick enough, it’s tough to stop even when you know it’s coming.

 

[JackSlater]

I hope this was to send a message to Bedard rather than how Cameron plans on coaching moving forward. You could see the coaches talking to Bedard after his goal in a negative way - probably mad he didn't change immediately after being hemmed in their zone for so long. And then after the bad penalty he probably (hopefully) thought "I'm going to teach Bedard a lesson in a game when we are up big. The funny thing about it is the first shift that McTavish had with Cuylle and whoever is that they got scored on immediately lol and he still stuck to his guns. Not sure what Othmann did though.

I'm not sure that's what he was doing, particularly as Johnson took some egregiously long shifts and had some poor giveaways and played once the game was at even strength, and he's produced far less than Bedard has. I don't think that it's a huge deal, but Cameron doesn't have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to coaching with a lead at the WJC.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I hope this was to send a message to Bedard rather than how Cameron plans on coaching moving forward. You could see the coaches talking to Bedard after his goal in a negative way - probably mad he didn't change immediately after being hemmed in their zone for so long. And then after the bad penalty he probably (hopefully) thought "I'm going to teach Bedard a lesson in a game when we are up big. The funny thing about it is the first shift that McTavish had with Cuylle and whoever is that they got scored on immediately lol and he still stuck to his guns. Not sure what Othmann did though.

That's a stupid way to send a message to your star player in a pivotal game.

Save that shit for a team like Switzerland. That Finnish team has enough weapons where they could have made a game of it. Then what? You call off the benching because you realize you need your best players?

Cameron is a moron, but I think we already knew that. As a US fan, it makes me feel like we have a chance despite our goaltending.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

I don't think you can draw many conclusions from this since it was a back to back game and Finland starts slow.

 

[1989]

Yeah, this will work every time!

The opposition will never catch on.

If they're great at what they do, opposition game plans can't contain it.

See: Ovechkin, Stamkos, Gretzky...

Everyone knows where they'll be making plays from... And they still score.

 

[Statsy]

If they're great at what they do, opposition game plans can't contain it.

See: Ovechkin, Stamkos, Gretzky...

Everyone knows where they'll be making plays from... And they still score.

Exactly! How many times have we seen Gretzky on a powerplay with a wicked one timer from the left circle… or Ovechkin making that sweet feed from behind the net from “Ovechkin’s Office”.

 

[Kcb12345]

Bedard can work in the bumper position IF we are running the right plays… which we are not. The play needs to come from the right boards down to the goal line and then a quick pass to the slot for a one-timer. The Canucks run this play consistently with Horvat as the trigger man, albeit from the other side.

This is the problem I've had with Canada's powerplay. I've only seen them use the bumper spot correctly a couple of times all round robin long. They swapped Stankoven and Bedard and I thought they were gonna start using it more all of a sudden but nope, that spot of the ice just seems to be avoided by the guys on Canada's PP. Perhaps they aren't "pretty" enough plays for the top unit to try, but they really would be 2x as dangerous if they could unlock that area of the ice. Right now they're basically playing 4v4 but with a little extra room because there's not much movement required from the PKers with the way they're playing. At the very least using it right would open up all sorts of other plays

 

[majormajor]

This is the problem I've had with Canada's powerplay. I've only seen them use the bumper spot correctly a couple of times all round robin long. They swapped Stankoven and Bedard and I thought they were gonna start using it more all of a sudden but nope, that spot of the ice just seems to be avoided by the guys on Canada's PP. Perhaps they aren't "pretty" enough plays for the top unit to try, but they really would be 2x as dangerous if they could unlock that area of the ice. Right now they're basically playing 4v4 but with a little extra room because there's not much movement required from the PKers with the way they're playing. At the very least using it right would open up all sorts of other plays

With Bedard in the bumper they covered him very closely so it wasn't an easy option. Instead Canada had McTavish, Johnson, and Stankoven free to wire pucks from the half wall and doing that worked. If teams want to over cover Bedard then that isn't a problem that needs fixed from Canada's perspective. The PP is looking a lot better.

 

[Kcb12345]

With Bedard in the bumper they covered him very closely so it wasn't an easy option. Instead Canada had McTavish, Johnson, and Stankoven free to wire pucks from the half wall and doing that worked. If teams want to over cover Bedard then that isn't a problem that needs fixed from Canada's perspective. The PP is looking a lot better.

Teams mostly did the same thing when Stankoven was in the bumper spot, Canada just doesn't look to go there often. Teams just collapsed there and took away any creative passing options or cross ice passes, leaving everything to the perimeter and predictable shots.

I do agree though that things did seem to open up more on the outside quite a bit with Bedard there in the middle. Passes got through with the PKers overcommitting to him, and the 3 guys on the perimeter had a lot more space and options to work with. It was a smart change for sure, I'm looking forward to seeing what that unit can do.

 

[Statsy]

It’s worth noting that all this concern is about a PP that’s operating at 60%.

 

[Mestaruus]

Not a chance - It`s Finland - Germany and Canada - Swiss. They meet again in the quarters if they win their games.

Well if you are saying that Finland and Canada are meeting in semifinals if they both with their quarters, then it's not ideal of course to meet the strongest opponent before the final, but I believe in Finland's chances against Canada in a rematch. Let'a also see if Czech can beat USA, maybe that will change the seeding and Finland's possible semifinal opponent, if Finland beats Germany.

 

[Mestaruus]

Absolutely, damn IIHF allowing commercial breaks during major penalties. Should be more like the NHL, which does not allow commercial breaks during major penalties.

I mean, CONSPIRACY. And of course when I say conspiracy, I do not mean Finland getting a goal that never should have counted due to both referee and technical error. I mean the great commercial break conspiracy.

Are you OK? Only you are speaking of a conspiracy. I'm talking of a home team getting a little home team special, which most likely wouldn't have changed the out come of the game.

Home teams get all kinds of benefits in these games, such as Finland playing in the previous day against Slovakia while Canada had a day off. If I could decide, I would've reversed that situation, because Finland is my team. It was set up that way on purpose, because Finland was thought to be Canada's hardest opponent in the group before the tournament started.

It happens all the time in these tournaments. Finland had such an advantage as the home team in the WHC of men's last spring. Next advantage that Canada will get is to play in the earlier semifinal next Saturday, so that if Canada makes it to the final, their opponent will have less rest time. It always goes that way, so it's not a conspiracy either.

So home team advantages aren't something new, but I hate the fact that they had to squeeze in two commercial breaks instead of one inside that 5 mins of Finland PP. Why couldn't they put the other commercial break right after Finland's PP was over? If the roles were reversed and Canada was trailing behind in front of a home crowd with a PP, we would've seen 0-1 commercial breaks during Canada's PP, not 2 of them. It just requires for the director of the broadcast to decide doing that in favor of a team that most likely is representing his or her nation.

 

[JackSlater]

Are you OK? Only you are speaking of a conspiracy. I'm talking of a home team getting a little home team special, which most likely wouldn't have changed the out come of the game.

Home teams get all kinds of benefits in these games, such as Finland playing in the previous day against Slovakia while Canada had a day off. If I could decide, I would've reversed that situation, because Finland is my team. It was set up that way on purpose, because Finland was thought to be Canada's hardest opponent in the group before the tournament started.

It happens all the time in these tournaments. Finland had such an advantage as the home team in the WHC of men's last spring. Next advantage that Canada will get is to play in the earlier semifinal next Saturday, so that if Canada makes it to the final, their opponent will have less rest time. It always goes that way, so it's not a conspiracy either.

So home team advantages aren't anything new, but I hate the fact that they had to squeeze in two commercial breaks instead of one inside that 5 mins of Finland PP. Why couldn't they put the other commercial break right after Finland's PP was over? If the roles were reversed and Canada was trailing behind in front of a home crowd with a PP, we would've seen 0-1 commercial breaks during Canada's PP, not 2 of them.

I am laughing at your whining, particularly in a game where Finland benefitted from a goal that only existed due to both referee and technical error. The host team is in charge of the scheduling, yes. The host team is not in charge of when commercial breaks are, and in fact the TSN commentators thought that it benefitted Finland to be able to keep its first unit on the ice, whereas the first or second penalty killing units offer little difference.

But the main point is that it is funny to whine about commercial breaks being used to conspire against Finland in a game in which Finland had just received a goal due to two significant errors beyond the control of the players.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Commercial breaks come at the first whistle after 6, 10, and 14 minutes into a period except on icings and during minor penalties. The IIHF does them during major penalties and then NHL does not. It has nothing to do with either a conspiracy or home favoritism.

Maybe Canada is just smart and the coach reminded them a commercial break was coming on the next whistle so they tried to get a whistle twice and it worked

Not even sure why it matters tbh. Best penalty killers would be more rested but it also results in the best PP players getting more PP ice time for Finland too. Or it should assuming your coach isn't a moron

 

[Mestaruus]

I am laughing at your whining, particularly in a game where Finland benefitted from a goal that only existed due to both referee and technical error. The host team is in charge of the scheduling, yes. The host team is not in charge of when commercial breaks are, and in fact the TSN commentators thought that it benefitted Finland to be able to keep its first unit on the ice, whereas the first or second penalty killing units offer little difference.

But the main point is that it is funny to whine about commercial breaks being used to conspire against Finland in a game in which Finland had just received a goal due to two significant errors beyond the control of the players.

It's great that you are laughing and in fact I am laughing at your whiny Canadian bias as well. Maybe you don't understand that Canadians are doing the broadcast. The call to put commercial break to favor Canada doesn't have to come from team Canada. They will simply just put commercial breaks there if they feel like doing so and if it helps their own nation, why not do it, since there are no consequences.

You also don't understand that I'm not complaining about Finland's chances to tie the game being ruined by the decision to put commercial break here or there. It's not why I started talking about this. I just don't want to see that kind of home team advantage in general. Canada or any other nation hosting and getting the benefit vs a random team. I don't want to see the home team get more commercial breaks put in the right moments.

Whether Finland made a goal there or not, I personally didn't believe that Finland would win regardless of that goal being accepted or not. Finland was behind 5-1 so it really didn't matter. I just hate the fact that they are now doing these kind of things with commercial breaks. There's no honor there. It's not team Canada's fault that the Canadian broadcasting team does that stuff, but I'm sure that team Canada doesn't mind.

You are also wrong that Finland benefits of that break to put their PP1 on ice. Finland has two good PP units. In fact the most lethal shooter, Kemell is on the PP2, so it's very good for Finland to run two PP units and Finland can perhaps have a better chance at tiring the opposing PK players by not having these two commercial breaks put in there.

 

[Canada4Gold]

You think TSN decides when there's a commercial break and decided to do it then to try to help Canada? That's amazing

 

[JackSlater]

It's great that you are laughing and in fact I am laughing at your whiny Canadian bias as well. Maybe you don't understand that Canadians are doing the broadcast. The call to put commercial break to favor Canada doesn't have to come from team Canada. They will simply just put commercial breaks there if they feel like doing so and if it helps their own nation, why not do it, since there are no consequences.

You also don't understand that I'm not complaining about Finland's chances to tie the game being ruined by the decision to put commercial break here or there. It's not why I started talking about this. I just don't want to see that kind of home team advantage in general. Canada or any other nation hosting and getting the benefit vs a random team. I don't want to see the home team get more commercial breaks put in the right moments.

Whether Finland made a goal there or not, I personally didn't believe that Finland would win regardless of that goal being accepted or not. Finland was behind 5-1 so it really didn't matter. I just hate the fact that they are now doing these kind of things with commercial breaks. There's no honor there. It's not team Canada's fault that the Canadian broadcasting team does that stuff, but I'm sure that team Canada doesn't mind.

You are also wrong that Finland benefits of that break to put their PP1 on ice. Finland has two good PP units. In fact the most lethal shooter, Kemell is on the PP2, so it's very good for Finland to run two PP units and Finland can perhaps have a better chance at tiring the opposing PK players by not having these two commercial breaks put in there.

Being realistic is not Canadian bias, but your whining remains hilarious. The commercial breaks don't get dialed up by the network whenever they want. There is a protocol in place that is followed. It isn't run by kids who are desperately trying to twist events so that one national team or another wins. It's a stupid, and more importantly incorrect, assumption.

You're whining about the host nation manipulating the timing of commercial breaks (which follow a protocol laid out by the IIHF) that most likely helped Finland (a shallow team keeping its first unit on the ice for more of the powerplay than would be possible otherwise) in a game in which Finland benefited from an egregious failure of the on ice officials and a technical failure (delivering a goal that even the goal scorer admitted should not have counted). It's ridiculous and fairly embarrassing to double down on it.

You think TSN decides when there's a commercial break and decided to do it then to try to help Canada? That's amazing

It's sometimes amazing to hear what people think goes on in these things. TSN, barely promoting the tournament and reduced to showing Dr. Ho ads throughout the game, has both the capacity and inclination to dial up commercial breaks just in time to influence the game. It's odd to imagine anyone other than maybe a kid thinking that up.

 

[Mestaruus]

You think TSN decides when there's a commercial break and decided to do it then to try to help Canada? That's amazing

I say this for the 3rd time, since you are making amazing out of context replys.

This is what I think. If Canada was behind 2-5, in front of a home crowd. They wouldn't have squeezed in two commercial breaks inside that 5 min PP. They would've put just one commercial break there and putting the second commercial break right after the major would've ended. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game, so I'm not complaining about that. I just hate that kind of BS they are doing and it's not team Canada's fault. Team Canada isn't asking for that.

Keep in mind that I didn't care about the result of the game, not before the game and not if Finland won that game, the result didn't matter. You can see that from my post history.

It was not a playoff game. Finland and Canada were locked to get Germany & Switzerland anyways. It was just a practice game going into the game to me. So I'm not writing about Finland being able to win that game if there were less commercial breaks. I hate the fact that they had to squeeze in two commercial breaks there instead of one.

 

[jj cale]

It's great that you are laughing and in fact I am laughing at your whiny Canadian bias as well. Maybe you don't understand that Canadians are doing the broadcast. The call to put commercial break to favor Canada doesn't have to come from team Canada. They will simply just put commercial breaks there if they feel like doing so and if it helps their own nation, why not do it, since there are no consequences.

You also don't understand that I'm not complaining about Finland's chances to tie the game being ruined by the decision to put commercial break here or there. It's not why I started talking about this. I just don't want to see that kind of home team advantage in general. Canada or any other nation hosting and getting the benefit vs a random team. I don't want to see the home team get more commercial breaks put in the right moments.

Whether Finland made a goal there or not, I personally didn't believe that Finland would win regardless of that goal being accepted or not. Finland was behind 5-1 so it really didn't matter. I just hate the fact that they are now doing these kind of things with commercial breaks. There's no honor there. It's not team Canada's fault that the Canadian broadcasting team does that stuff, but I'm sure that team Canada doesn't mind.

You are also wrong that Finland benefits of that break to put their PP1 on ice. Finland has two good PP units. In fact the most lethal shooter, Kemell is on the PP2, so it's very good for Finland to run two PP units and Finland can perhaps have a better chance at tiring the opposing PK players by not having these two commercial breaks put in there.

It has been amazing to read some of your posters in the TF thread talking about how much they can't stand the Canadian posters for not holding anything sacred after a loss and that there is a gentlemens code among Finnish fans when absorbing losses yet I come here to witness this tirade about commercial breaks. I won't even get into the sex deviancy cracks a few of you have taken in game threads the last little while.

Thank God there are some good ones among your group, same with ours, because there are always going to be the ones that are off the rails.

It's a f***in hockey game, some of you need to cool it.

 

[Canada4Gold]

TBH I just can't wait until someone important for Canada has to go to the dressing room with a minor injury and they dial up 9 commercial breaks in a row in hopes that they'll be back without missing any game time.