Game 4 Felt Like Game 7

by javaball on May 8, 2009 1:09 AM PDT Comment 8 comments

What the Devils?

The Canucks' Game 4 loss to the Hawks was reminiscent of the Devils' Game 7 loss to the Hurricanes. With a one-goal lead into the third and an elite goalie manning the net, only two minutes left, they were so close to winning the series, and then disaster stroke. In the blink of an eye, the opposing team scored two unanswered goals and snatched the victory away. Martin Brodeur and the Devils were shocked. Two minutes turned their entire season upside down.

Luongo and the Canucks were two minutes away from winning the game and taking a commanding 3-1 lead in the series, with a chance to close the deal at home. But a couple of mistakes at the very end caused them the game and changed the whole complexion of the series. Now the Hawks have gained some momentum, and the pressure is on the Canucks to win on Saturday, otherwise they would face elimination in Chicago.

What Went Wrong?

1. The Faceoffs

In the two games the Canucks won, they have won more faceoffs. Tonight the Hawks won more faceoffs, which led to more puck possession and more scoring chances. Sundin, who used to win faceoffs, was ineffective tonight.

2. The Offense

The Canucks' top three lines didn't score a goal, and they were outshot 28-15. You don't win many games if you only score one-goal against a talented team. What happened to the offense? Throughout the entire game, there seemed to be no more than two Canucks players in the attacking zone at the same time, and nobody in front of the net. They were not creating scoring chances for themselves at all, and when they had a chance, they were either too nervous or too stone-handed to take advantage.

3. The Defensive Game

General Patton's insights into how battles are won apply amazingly well to hockey games. "When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, an opponent will get to him eventually." The Canucks went into a 20-minute PK in the third period. Whenever they got the puck, they would just send it down the ice, instead of organizing an offense. They sat back and waited to be beat, and they were.

4. The Breakdowns

Kudos to the Hawks, who kept fighting no matter what. Throughout the series, they have shown more resilience than the Canucks, who seem to lack the killer instinct. The Hawks can come back from a 3-goal deficit in the third period, but the Canucks tend to collapse when they are behind or caught up late in the game. Do they have the mental toughness and physical stamina to really play 60-minute games without breakdowns?

What Now?

It's a best of 3 series now, and the Canucks still have home-ice advantage. But the Hawks have proven they can win at the GM Place, so it's not much of an advantage. Vigneault already conceded that the Hawks have more speed and skill (which was a self-defeatist statement, IMO), so the Canucks can't play "chance for chance", but when they played their defensive game, the Hawks still got more scoring chances than the Canucks. What now?

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Yikes I didn’t realize they lost the faceoff edge too.

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on May 8, 2009 6:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Did the Canucks collaspe when St Louis tied up the game late the 2nd period in game 3, and then late in the third period in game 4? How about when the Hawks came back to tie it late in game 1? The Canucks actually looked good after game was 1-1 in game 4. They just need to play better offensively and not waste their chances.

by SJKel on May 8, 2009 11:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good question. Let's review those games together.

In Game 3 against St. Louis, the game was already decided after the 1st period. The Blues gave all they had with 5 to 6 minutes of PP time, and they only scored 1 goal. Ryan Johnson said the Canucks were ramped up after the period as if they were up 2-0. They believed they were the better team, and proved it. St Louis never had the momentum.
In Game 4, the St Louis had momentum and almost got the lead in the second period. Willie Mitchell, of all people, took a penalty in the worst possible time in OT, and gave the St. Louis a two-men advantage. St Louis’ PP failed them again. A better team would have won that game.
In Game 1 against the Hawks, the Hawks got careless and made a mistake that the Canucks were able to capitalize. Salo put the nail in the coffin. When Salo is in the lineup, he steadies the defense, without him, the defense tend to panic at crucial times. In Game 2, Mitchell again took a penalty which gave the Hawks two-men advantage and the tying goal. In Game 4, Mitchell and other D-men made mistakes that led to the Hawks’ tying goal again.

In the battle of the strong, victory goes to the brave.

by javaball on May 8, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am going to echo your “stone hands” statement, javaball. How many flubbed chances were there on our part?

I’m not worried. They were about 2:00 away from shutting the Hawks out. They weren’t “waiting to get beat.”

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on May 8, 2009 1:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the best defense is to keep puck possession and keep it in the attacking zone.

The Canucks were doing neither. It’s a combination of mental and physical mistakes that caused them the game. Which is why I questioned their “mental toughness and physical stamina”.

In the battle of the strong, victory goes to the brave.

by javaball on May 8, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs