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.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.
I don't like him calling teammates f*** boys.Aho on the winner was all "f*** boys I score let's go home"
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.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.
That's the case with most everything in hockey. Players have to take calculated risks and get judged in hindsight. it's their job to make that judgement and when successful, it's positive and when unsuccessful, it's a negative.We don't really know how likely the move is to be successful, so it's tough to say without the benefit of hindsight. It's kind of uncharted territory statistically.
How did he gamble? He was squared up on the shot, which got deflected by Aho so the rebound came right to Aho who was all alone in front of him. I don't see those as remotely similar.I think the flamboyance of it makes the choice seem more dramatic than it is? Like the Vancouver goalie 'gambled' in OT, and Aho scored a much easier goal than the Canucks did off the Pyotr play.
Like I said, even the coach said he gave them a freebie and can't be doing that. Not sure why some are making it more complicated than it needs to be. Every goalie that has ever played the game has gambled at one point or another. Pyotr's style is on the more aggressive side. Nothing wrong with that, just needs to learn to pick his spots better IMO.But guessing forehand doesn't involve skating out to center ice and sliding around like a fool, so nobody bats an eye.
Like I said, even the coach said he gave them a freebie and can't be doing that. Not sure why some are making it more complicated than it needs to be. Every goalie that has ever played the game has gambled at one point or another. Pyotr's style is on the more aggressive side. Nothing wrong with that, just needs to learn to pick his spots better IMO.
That's the case with most everything in hockey. Players have to take calculated risks and get judged in hindsight. it's their job to make that judgement and when successful, it's positive and when unsuccessful, it's a negative.