Toggle sidebar

Canada's System - Trap or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FanHabtic*
  • Start date Start date
  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

FanHabtic*

Guest
First off this isn't a gloat thread. Braggers need not post.

I have been reading from posters that they thought Canada's defensive playing style was a trap. I don't see that. I see Canada chip the puck in and overload the strong side (where the puck / defender is). 2 men in the forecheck with the defense hanging high on the boards and pinching in when an opportunity arises. It reminds me of the Swedish "torpedo" in the 2002 games where they got the puck deep and had two forecheckers outmanning the defender.

While Canada did clog up the neutral zone on the defensive side it had more to do with the forwards supporting the D. The cycle (which IMO is boring) lends to supporting the Canada's defense.

Anyways, i'm interested in your thoughts and in particular from Devil fans (experts at watching the trap) and Euros who are atune to big-ice defensive schemes.
Click to read more...
 
There was nothing wrong with Canada's victory.
It was some fantastic hockey defensively, but not defensive hockey.

The tournament was poorer for Sweden and Finland being decimated by injuries, but even if they weren't, they'd have been hard pressed to beat this Canadian team.

Not flashy offensively, but well coached, and their D+Price were phenomenal.
 
Trap? No, not at all. They use two forecheckers most of the tournament. Teams like Finland, Latvia, and Norway played "trap" hockey but they actually didn't even use the one forechecker. They just built a five man wall at their Blueline for most of their games.
 
“When you talk about great defense, sometimes people get confused,†Babcock said. “Great defense means you play defense fast and you have the puck all the time and so you’re always on offense. Don’t get confused. We out-chanced these teams big-time. We were a great offensive team. That’s what we coached, that’s what we expected, that’s what we got.â€

/THREAD
 
If anyone thinks the Canadian team was a trap team.... they don't know anything about hockey.

Canada practices a relentless forcheck all over the ice. They pressured the opposing team in all three zones, which the trap doesn't do.
 
I thought the strategy was keep the puck and if you lose the puck, go get it back as fast as you can. Thought they executed that to perfection.
 
Canada was one of the few teams who didn't trap in this tournament. They went hard and deep on the forecheck. Often with 2 men going deep. That's certainly not a trap.
 
If you were to draw up the exemplary way for a team to play, you'd do exactly what team Canada did. Of course you'd have to have the luxury of a stellar defense and an incredibly dynamic offensive threat from all four lines.

No trap at all just perfect hockey.
 
Canada forced Sweden's attackers out towards the boards. It is part of playing trap, but it would be one eyed look at just this. Playing-trap is often associated with playing a lot more conservative than Canada did.
 
They didn't take a lot of chances but they also didn't trap.

They had more than one fore checker most of the time.
 
LiveeviL said:
Canada forced Sweden's attackers out towards the boards. It is part of playing trap, but it would be one eyed look at just this. Playing-trap is often associated with playing a lot more conservative than Canada did.
Click to expand...

Canada didn't play any trap. Forcing Sweden's forwards to the outside is just part of aggressive hockey. Sweden had the puck maybe 20% this game. Maybe. The Trap? Watch the way Sweden collapsed in front of Lundqvist during Canada's numerous offensive zone cycles. That's trap hockey
 
CHill Seeker said:
Canada didn't play any trap. Forcing Sweden's forwards to the outside is just part of aggressive hockey. Sweden had the puck maybe 20% this game. Maybe. The Trap? Watch the way Sweden collapsed in front of Lundqvist during Canada's numerous offensive zone cycles. That's trap hockey
Click to expand...

No Canada did not play trap, which I stated. And if you believe collapsing around the goal is the definition of trap then you have to read up. Anyway Sweden must be truly awesome with just 20% possession when the shots were 24-36 SWE-CAN. :shakehead
 
Everybody has 1 and everybody runs 1 at various points in any game. Some more than others. Canada is far from a "trap team", but ours is a 1-2-2.

Canada has 1 and runs 1 when it suits them, but they also have a vicious 2 man forecheck with a 3rd man high reading and reacting to what happens down low, and they ran it consistently. Even when the forecheck didn't get home, those guys still back checked their ***** off shift after shift and got themselves in positions to affect the opponents transition game. It was forward or nothing for the opponent. Going side to side was just asking to be turned over in the neutral zone because of great back pressure. Going backwards was inviting Canada to trap, and they did when those opportunities presented themselves. It's just a default for these guys at this level. They also took a lot of those opportunities to roll their lines, which isn't necessarily trapping, despite what some people posting stills might have you believe. If you don't want to come forward, then don't be surprised when the other team rolls their lines on you and gets in a 1-2-2. It's going to happen. Especially when that team just spent about a minute in your end laying siege. Everybody has to change after shifts like that.

When the forecheck did get home, and we did have our long possessions, the weak side defenseman even had free reign to activate on those pucks around the half wall to extend our possessions even longer, and our high forward was always excellent at rotating back for them. Aggressive as you want, but always responsible and maintained a good defensive structure at all times through great teamwork and awareness.

This team Canada might have been the best defensive side we've ever assembled. Everybody knew what they were doing. The forwards and defenseman were in sync, and everybody played hard...even when they were trapping.
 
Last edited:
CHill Seeker said:
Canada didn't play any trap. Forcing Sweden's forwards to the outside is just part of aggressive hockey. Sweden had the puck maybe 20% this game. Maybe. The Trap? Watch the way Sweden collapsed in front of Lundqvist during Canada's numerous offensive zone cycles. That's trap hockey
Click to expand...

That's called collapsing in the defensive zone and has nothing to do with neutral zone trapping.
 
Well it was boring and effective. That Backstrom story had a deciding factor fur sure. Good game by Canada. Team sweden were unfocused by this scandal. No kidding.

Such a ****** way IOC handle this! Feel bad for both nations. Not competing under fair play
 
Hank Plank said:
If you were to draw up the exemplary way for a team to play, you'd do exactly what team Canada did. Of course you'd have to have the luxury of a stellar defense and an incredibly dynamic offensive threat from all four lines.

No trap at all just perfect hockey.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I was thinking. The way this team played the tournament is what I'd call "a coach's dream" or at least as close to it as I've seen at this level.

Canada just played the game the right way in all areas. Their only issue was that they could have buried more of their chances, but it didn't matter because they controlled the puck and outclassed every team noticeably.
 
Rancourt Fist Pump said:
That's called collapsing in the defensive zone and has nothing to do with neutral zone trapping.
Click to expand...
agree...i think some are confussed about a "trap" game plan...i did see canada collapsing around there net though (and MANY other teams too) which is something im not a fan of...but canada didnt win gold because they played a certain "system", they won because they were the best and i feel they could of played a number of style's/system's and done that.
 
Canada wasn't trapping, although the larger ice can force teams to do that at times.

I agree with others saying the larger ice is actually worse for scoring. It forces players to shoot from the perimeter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom