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.
Orrthebest said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's all 5 players facing the same way. Having 2 facing towards the opposing goaltender and 3 facing their own is called a defensive stance with forwards back checking.
 
Canada played excellent in their own end and used their superior speed to pressure puck carrier and close down lanes. Once they got the puck they used their speed to get out of pressure and open up lanes for passing. You cant fault them.

Sweden did ok in the 1 st period but was truly hopelessly outplayed for the rest of the game.

Didn't like the 1st goal, there is no way for Toews to score but through Lundqvist, he needs to be
more solid.

Lundqvist should have had the second goal, Crosbys finish was bad, but he misses the push away and leaves a big gap near the post.

3rd goal was a beauty...

Best team wins and Swedens inability to hold on to the puck makes for a boring game...
 
They might have trapped if they had played against a team good enough to ever have the puck.
 
CHill Seeker said:
“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
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with this. Wasn't Canada most often in the other zone on the offence which is great defence but that is hardly a trap!

This is was breath-taking, trap sounds really boring & plodding and all defence no offence.
 
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...

tl;dr the following


Starting to feel like we're arguing hockey semantics here, so avert your eyes if your easily bored, but I think you're talking about the Box + 1 defensive zone system. More on that after this trap horse pucky...

The whole point of the trap is to slow down the opponent in the neutral zone and potentially turn them over for a counter attack by limiting the passing options; at the very worst, give them a dump in. If things go well for the defense, you collect that dump in and transition back to offense. Therefore, if you're actually defending in your own zone after you've collected the dump in (or even worse, the opponent gains entry with possession), then your transition game is probably screwed up between your defense and forwards, and/or your trap kind of doesn't work :laugh:

Anyway, in the event of said hot garbage, then your defensive zone coverage kicks in...

This is pretty basic stuff, but he does show a little bit of how tactics can change within the system:

http://weisstechhockey.com/1137/defensivezonecoverageboxplus1/

Virtually every team runs some form of Box + 1 defensive zone coverage. It's versatile in that you can attack, or lay back if you have to, but the beauty of it is really in it's simplicity:

1) It's fundamentally and structurally sound, which allows for better breakouts in transition

2) you can transition into it easily from the 1-2-2 neutral zone trap

and

3) it employs the same basic philosophy as the trap of funneling to the outside and pressuring the puck out there

It's a common system, and not exclusive to teams who run a lot of neutral zone trap. Again, same basic concept, but different if only by name. Depending on how aggressive you want to get, it can look very much like collapsing (pretty much is), or it can look like hell on wheels with some moving parts. I prefer hell on wheels mode ;)

Anyway, I think we can all agree on 1 thing, and it's that Canada most definitely was not running a whole hell of a lot of neutral zone trap and we're all offended by the accusation.

Cheers

:cheers:
 
Last edited:
The New Jersey Devils win gold. Oh I mean Canada

Wow......what a great defensive display by Canada. One of the best teams ever assembled. I think they studied the Devils system and had Pete DeBoer in the stands telling them what to do. The Devils don't play a trap and haven't in years but everyone says that. They cycle the puck in the offensive zone keep them locked in and don't let them out, sound familiar because I think I heard Crosby and some other commentary people and other players say the same thing. When the Devils do it it's boring defensive hockey. When the Canadian all stars do it it's great defensive attack hockey. I can't wait until a Canadian announcer comments on a Devils game and says they play the trap, and smothering and this and that's boring.
 
MK9 said:
Wild fan. I know exactly what the trap is.
Click to expand...
I believe two of those players in the photo that I think you are referring to had just come in on a line change, which is why they are going in an opposite direction from the other three.
 
Argentaliano said:
Wow......what a great defensive display by Canada. One of the best teams ever assembled. I think they studied the Devils system and had Pete DeBoer in the stands telling them what to do. The Devils don't play a trap and haven't in years but everyone says that. They cycle the puck in the offensive zone keep them locked in and don't let them out, sound familiar because I think I heard Crosby and some other commentary people and other players say the same thing. When the Devils do it it's boring defensive hockey. When the Canadian all stars do it it's great defensive attack hockey. I can't wait until a Canadian announcer comments on a Devils game and says they play the trap, and smothering and this and that's boring.
Click to expand...

Someone had to be the innovators. You poor ******** just had to be the unlucky ones to lead the revolution. Good luck trying to shake that "trap team" moniker. Maybe another decade or so ;)
 
I had no problem with it. Use to beat down on the bruins on the ice and scoreboard for years. At least you finally got one you ><><><> P R E T Z
 
I Hate Chris Butler said:
Do people even know what the trap is? :laugh: Or do they just assume low scoring = trapping?
Click to expand...

They don't know what trap is lol.

Playing defense, dominating possession in the offensive zone and not allowing a goal is now "trap" apparently to these people lol. If Canada was playing trap I'd want my team to play trap all the time...
 
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...

Were their helmets off while other players were being introduced at the start of the game?
 
Don't see how you can be considered a trap team when you spent 80% of a tournament in the opposing team's zone.

2-1-2 the whole way, and any defensive scheme looks stifling when you have forwards backchecking like demons.
 
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...

Teams that play perfect hockey can score goals, especially as part of a considered attack
 
Blackbear said:
Teams that play perfect hockey can score goals, especially as part of a considered attack
Click to expand...

Eh. Small sample and they scored 17 goals to their opponent's 3. Hard to be upset with that ratio, and I don't think anyone would say they wouldn't start converting if that team had an 82 game season.

Canada didn't play the trap. They simply played an utterly dominant possession game, that's pretty much as good as a team can get and they played about as well as possible. They didn't score quite as much as they could have but in such a small sample it's not a huge surprise that there was a bit of a weird shooting percentage. Hockey is a game where a crappy team can hand around with a good goalie (Latvia) and there is a lot of luck involved in winning. The best you can do is dominate at the things that are controllable (possession) and hope for the best. You can't build a team around hoping you go on a 15% shooting run at the right time.

The adage of defense winning championships can be true, but in hockey the best defense is a good offense. The best players are the ones who don't surrender shots against in the first place, and the best defenders are the ones who push the play towards the other team's end. Babcock gets it and the team played that to perfection.
 
Kharkov said:
Nothing wrong in playing trap.
Click to expand...

Whether they were trapping or not, Canada's game plan was brilliant: defense first, and then counterattack when the puck is turned over. It is a big ice strategy, and very close to what Finland deployed. There was a lot of cycling with the puck, particularly against the hapless Americans and Swedes, but that is because the big ice, with its extra width, allows it. It is very hard to clear your zone in the defensive end on the big ice.

In all, the Olympic hockey tournament was very boring. No offense. Even Canada was held to 3 goals by Norway, 1 regulation time goal by Finland, and 2 goals by Latvia. That is really low production for the multi-millionaire lineup that Canada featured.
 
Yakushev72 said:
In all, the Olympic hockey tournament was very boring. No offense. Even Canada was held to 3 goals by Norway, 1 regulation time goal by Finland, and 2 goals by Latvia. That is really low production for the multi-millionaire lineup that Canada featured.
Click to expand...

Luckily they produced 25 gold medals for the players involved.
 
JackSlater said:
Luckily they produced 25 gold medals for the players involved.
Click to expand...

I'd say no medal at all, on home ice, is REALLY low production for the multi-millionaires on the Russian side. I'll take a gold medal, 3 goals against, dominant puck possession and Russian tears, over 4 years of excuses.
 
Why is the trap constantly used a negative term. Is it really because its boring? Is it boring because the team makes it unfair for the other team? Or is it because we believe the trap to limit its own team's offensive opportunities. Some of the best coaches have implemented the trap or a left locked down system. Why are we so against it?

Its very well beatable. Just like any system. Jus have to have the right counter attack to their decision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom