GDT: caning

[HisIceness]

Aho on the winner was all "f*** boys I score let's go home"

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

It’s funny to claim that he “caused” that last goal. Say he had stayed in the net and Sprong simply sniped one past on the breakaway. Would he still be the cause of that goal?

He took a situation where he had a ~70-80% chance of making a save and turned it into 0% chance. The team in front of him putting him in a situation where he has to make a save doesn’t absolve him.

Similar to the first goal. Losing his stick and sitting on his ass in the net turned a high danger chance into an almost freebie.

In the end, it didn’t matter as they got 2 points and gave up 1 to a WC team, but he has to learn.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

He took a situation where he had a ~70-80% chance of making a save and turned it into 0% chance. The team in front of him putting him in a situation where he has to make a save doesn’t absolve him.

Similar to the first goal. Losing his stick and sitting on his ass in the net turned a high danger chance into an almost freebie.

In the end, it didn’t matter as they got 2 points and gave up 1 to a WC team, but he has to learn.

It doesn’t absolve him, but it isn’t accurate to say he “caused” the goal. I’d also argue about semantics of calling it a 0% chance, since we’ve seen him successfully pull that move off in the past (Raanta has as well in the Canes uniform, IIRC), but I assume you’re simply being hyperbolic for dramatic effect.

I don’t disagree that he has to learn, but as I said originally, I don’t think the lesson is “stop doing that” and more “choose the right times to do that.” The times he’s been burnt by it have come in the third period, when the opposing team had all the momentum. Not the best time to be trying the high risk play, though perhaps he believe(s/d) that succeeding on the high risk play would spark his team/demoralize opposing teams.

 

[Lempo]

Aho on the winner was all "f*** boys I score let's go home"

I don't like him calling teammates f*** boys.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

It doesn’t absolve him, but it isn’t accurate to say he “caused” the goal. I’d also argue about semantics of calling it a 0% chance, since we’ve seen him successfully pull that move off in the past (Raanta has as well in the Canes uniform, IIRC), but I assume you’re simply being hyperbolic for dramatic effect.

I don’t disagree that he has to learn, but as I said originally, I don’t think the lesson is “stop doing that” and more “choose the right times to do that.” The times he’s been burnt by it have come in the third period, when the opposing team had all the momentum. Not the best time to be trying the high risk play, though perhaps he believe(s/d) that succeeding on the high risk play would spark his team/demoralize opposing teams.

He made a choice, and it was a poor choice in that moment, period. There’s really no debating that. That choice left him with almost no chance of stopping a goal. Thus the statements about “causing” it.

Whether he was successful trying something similar in the past is irrelevant because the situations aren’t the same. He misjudged this particular situation, gambled and got burned. Even his coach said he gave up a freebie, which is essentially what many are saying here with the phrase “causing it”.

I never suggested he needs to stop doing it, he just needs to learn from it. He made some great saves as well.