Canada's System - Trap or not?

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Something about how dynamic/fluid and productive (in terms of shots/chances perhaps) the style was prevents me from calling it "trapping", but it was an annoyingly soccer-esque game of low risk, short burst, high energy dogged puck pursuit, that's for sure. And that's coming from a soccer player/fan.

 

[daigohgoh]

I too thought this was a trap. But how could it be a trap when 80% of their game was in the offensive zone?

This was by far the weirdest hockey team I've ever witnessed.

I'm used to watching hockey where mistakes happens all the time. It's just the norm.

Players buying into a system...who does that?
No egos...c'mon, really?
Super Short shifts...Never seen it
Good sticks...It was so weird that when the opponent had the puck, it looked like they passed to Team Canada automatically
Awesome goaltending...adjusting to what bigger ice?
Forwards Can't score...Payroll was a combined $150 million
Puck Possession...It was all Canada.

It was so weird. I was thinking, is that what "perfect hockey" looks like? And to think, this all started with just a ball hockey drill to demonstrate the system.

I'll never see it again.

No way our Canadian "B" Team would even come close to what this team accomplish. It was insane.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

It wasn't a trap, Canada just played nearly perfect defensively.

 

[Canuck21t]

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.

I do believe that the big ice still played a role in the reason Canada didn't produce more. Familiarity with the surface brings better chemistry and it was still not at 100% by the final game. I have no doubt that if the tournament was a bit longer, Canada would have gotten even better offensively. It was in fact getting better every game.

 

[Noldo]

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.

Canada played near perfect defensive hockey. As Finnish head coach Erkko Westerlund pointed out, even Canada's decision in offensive zone were determined defence first. Risky options were avoided and dump in or cycling was chosen instead of more aggressive attack in situations where the other choice could have resulted in opponent getting a good attack opportunity.

It worked because Canada had the roster to grind down the opponent, throw attack after attack hoping that sooner or later there will be the necessary lucky bounce that will result in goal even from lesser opportunities, while the defensive focus ensured that opponent would be very unlikely to score against Canada. It was very much gameplan that minimized risks and mistakes and that Canada's stars executed to the perfection.

 

[Thesensation19*]

Canada absolutely implemented a bit of the left wing lock system. Its called proper defense. They did everything right. It was beautiful to watch. Nothing is wrong with implementing this system. Its not boring. Which is an absurd thing to say, and i believe was brought on by media. Because no one talked about it when Scotty Bowman implemented it to win several championships.

People view it as a bad thing for dumb reasons. Hockey is not boring when goals arent scored, hockey is boring when passes cant be completed and the competition is unfair.

Didnt the Devils have one of the best offenses during 1 or 2 of their Cup runs using that trap?

 

[Big Phil]

They controlled the pace of the game, they played like a well oiled machine. Remember when Canada won 2-1 against Latvia and there was some hand wringing? I honestly thought they dominated in that game better than any other one. It was like watching a pro team go against a peewee team. 57-16 in shots and there is a thread about whether or not they played a trap? A team that traps doesn't get 57 shots on net. A team that traps does what the 1998 Czechs did, they get 20 shots on net.

Canada had a relentless forechecking game. A wonderful cycling game and when there was the slightest of error all of their forwards back checked. Not one didn't. That was a team who bought into a system folks. Why they didn't score more goals, well, who knows? It wasn't from a lack of effort. They ran into that Latvian goalie and then Quick with the Americans. Even Lundqvist had a good game against them. If you watched the games, they didn't look like a team who scored more than three goals just once.

 

[ToewsGretzky*]

No, just because they were strong defensively doesn't mean they were a trap team. It was beautiful to watch, they never forced what wasn't there. Even Swedish coach Par Marts said he had never seen a Canadian team play such an great defensive style before, if Canada's WC team could replicate the same thing they will do much better, considering the large ice is foreign to Canada we need to play defence first to be dominant on it.