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.
No, not even close. 2 forecheckers for the majority of every game. Canada was so excellent defensively because their puck support, checking, mobility, and backchecking. Amazing structure and discipline. I'm not even joking when I say this was probably the greatest hockey ever played by a team.
 
IDuck said:
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.
Click to expand...

True. Everybody collapses (again, some more than others), especially in this tournament. I don't see why it's such a faux pas. Seems like there's a bit of a stigma about playing good defense. It almost always gets you labeled as a trap team, which isn't always true.

Even Canada's 1-2-2 isn't always a trap. They used the top of that formation in the opponents zone to flush the puck out to the wall and attacked that 1st pass with the 2nd forechecker (inside or at the opponents blue line) many times. The trapping they did in the neutral zone was very limited in the overall scheme of things.

I don't even really like the term "trap" to be honest. It's just hockey at this point.
 
Rancourt Fist Pump said:
True. Everybody collapses (again, some more than others), especially in this tournament. I don't see why it's such a faux pas. Seems like there's a bit of a stigma about playing good defense. It almost always gets you labeled as a trap team, which isn't always true.

Even Canada's 1-2-2 isn't always a trap. They used the top of that formation in the opponents zone to flush the puck out to the wall and attacked that 1st pass with the 2nd forechecker (inside or at the opponents blue line) many times. The trapping they did in the neutral zone was very limited in the overall scheme of things.

I don't even really like the term "trap" to be honest. It's just hockey at this point.
Click to expand...

Correct, they split the ice in half and forced the opponent to one side or the other. Once they established which side, they took away the middle and eliminated passing lanes with their positioning and sticks. Made the game easy for their D to read and therefore allowed them to be fairly aggressive at the blue line particularly with the forward support coming back.

Terrific game plan that was perfectly executed. This is the future of hockey on international ice. Get used to it.
 
Trap teams don't out-shoot their opponents constantly. Whoever said 'trap' is using a hockey word of the day calendar.
 
This American vote: Absolutely no way was Canada trapping. Simply beautiful forechecking and supporting each other. Hockey played purely and wisely.
 
It's not a trap. It's called the best defense is a great offense. While we didn't score as much as we should, we dominated in puck possession time and just never let the other team have the puck much.
 
Rancourt Fist Pump said:
That's called collapsing in the defensive zone and has nothing to do with neutral zone trapping.
Click to expand...

Actually you're wrong. part of the trap strategy IS to collapse in the defensive zone too. The whole point of the trap is a team conceding that they can't contain the other teams forwards (and D) talent wise - ALL over the ice. It's also used to protect a lead...but the trap strategy doesn't end when a team employing it concedes between the blue line. If that happens, they retreat back and play in front of the goalie and clog below the circles. why? because again, they don't have the speed and talent to contain the cycle, so they trap to the outside, pushing opponents along the half walls and corners.

regardless Canada wasn't trapping. A team that has 80-90% of the game 's puck possession isn't trapping
 
They trapped the opposition in their own end for the majority of the game but that's as far as you can go calling it a trap system.
 
This "trap" discussion is hilarious.

The "trap" is a DEFENSIVE SYSTEM TO NEUTRALIZE ATTACKS IN THE NEUTRAL ZONE AND TURN OVER PUCK POSSESSION.

We were puck possessing and constantly forechecking. Which has absolutely nothing to do with neutral zone "trapping" as a system. Puck possession and trapping opponents in their own end has nothing to do with "trapping" other then sharing the name.

Period. End of story.

If anything, I call it "keep away" hockey that only superior teams can deploy.

If you don't know the difference, go watch some football or baseball.
 
CHill Seeker said:
Actually you're wrong. part of the trap strategy IS to collapse in the defensive zone too. The whole point of the trap is a team conceding that they can't contain the other teams forwards (and D) talent wise - ALL over the ice. It's also used to protect a lead...but the trap strategy doesn't end when a team employing it concedes between the blue line. If that happens, they retreat back and play in front of the goalie and clog below the circles. why? because again, they don't have the speed and talent to contain the cycle, so they trap to the outside, pushing opponents along the half walls and corners.

regardless Canada wasn't trapping. A team that has 80-90% of the game 's puck possession isn't trapping
Click to expand...

To ask the question and compare it with what TC did begs the question.....how many fans actually know what they are talking about?
 
The clogging up of the blueline is exactly what Sweden and Finland did.

It's not a trap at all. It is a simple tactic used to prevent cross-ice passes going into the offensive zone and cause turnovers. Crosby's goal was a direct result of this tactic working because Sweden stopped being patient after going down in the score.

The trap is more zone defense and it's pretty simple too.

Both can look pretty boring. Esp. when used by plumber-type players like Lemaire-era Wild.

To get around both you basically need to dump and chase or beat it with a brilliant passing play or rush by a defenseman or ultra-skilled forward.
 
TOML said:
I think people hear 'trap' and automatically start overreacting.

It's all boring-looking though, compared to high-flying plays and insane dekes. No doubt about that.
Click to expand...

Which some would call pond hockey.....:nod:

I like end to end action as much as the next guy, but I like gold and a Cup far more. Sure, it would be more nail biting and thrilling if we were down 4-0 and came back to win it 8-7, but I don't think my heart would take it! LOL! Nor think it was "great hockey" if it was left to pot luck of the last shot winning the game.
 
No trapping at all. We've seen trapping before. The 1995 New Jersey Devils trapped. The 1998 Czech Olympic team trapped. To me, calling someone a trapping team means you are playing NOT to lose rather than playing to win. Canada was playing to win every game and trying to score every shift. It reminded me of the 1970s Montreal Canadiens. They were just so good at every aspect of the game, including defense. They didn't sit back, and many of their opponents sat back and waited. But since our defense didn't make a mistake all tournament on the ice the other team waiting for a chance never got it.

When you fire 57 shots in a game you are not trapping. And today, what was it like 37 shots? And the same against the Americans? That's not a trapping team. A trapping team gets 19 shots on goal and waits for the opposition to make a mistake. Canada blitzed every game and attacked from the get go. Their puck control game was phenomenal, I've never seen that before. This was the definition of a TEAM.

One last thing, Drew Doughty was the most impressive player I think. In the second period of the Gold medal game he took the puck on a long rush, passed it back to I think it was Nash and the puck was turned over in the Swedish end. All of the sudden there was a counter attack the other way, not a threatening one, but one that made you want to have the defense back. As it was the Swedes dumped the puck in and the first one to grab it in the Canadian corner was..........you guessed it, Doughty.
 
Absolutely. I saw a few still pics of all 5 players stacked at the blue line in an article a few days ago that helped prove the point I already saw watching the game.
 
No, not even close to a trap. Finland and Latvia were playing Trap's. Canada had a hard fore check and a strong back check. They limited Sweden to low percentage areas and hustled hard all game.
 
Dominating possession in the other team's Ozone is not trapping.

Using speed and relentless puck pressure to create turn-overs and transition is not trapping.
 
MK9 said:
Absolutely. I saw a few still pics of all 5 players stacked at the blue line in an article a few days ago that helped prove the point I already saw watching the game.
Click to expand...

Having 5 players on the blue line proves it wasn't a trap. Please learn what a trap is. By definition a trap requires a player to be forcing the puck carrier into the trap.
 
Wouldn't say trap either. Almost all our forwards back checked like beasts pretty regularly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom