|
Post by Thomas Elliott on Sept 9, 2006 22:06:38 GMT
Good result!! I'm happy with a point from Belfast, especially as we were 3 - 1 down!! Good to see we're getting plenty of shots away, last seasons problem IMO was the lack of shooting, and you can't score goals if you don't shoot!! Fair enough we didn't convert as many as perhaps we should have, but that has to go down to Minard!! With 42 saves he obviously had a good game!!
I know its off topic but for those intested, I went to the Sheffield Coventry game tonight, Sheffield look quite good, but Coventry were the better team, they completely outplayed them in the first and I thought they looked a brilliant team, but the second period they were pretty sloppy and just look a good side, nothing special!! Scott Ricci was dressed in a suit for the third period, didn't see him get hurt during the game, but didn't notice him during the second so don't know how or why he was off!! And Roman Ndur didn't ice during the third either, although he was still sat on the bench in his kit, probably as a caution in case Clouthier decided to try and start anything!! A good game apart from one man, Boniface!! Called everything during the first period, most were good calls according to the ZT rules, but then in the second and third called absolutely nothing!!
|
|
|
Post by lockerbie on Sept 9, 2006 22:20:14 GMT
Went upto Sheffield too. Ricci got a slash across the wrist and was bleeding quite badly. Bigmouth said later that the had stitches but would be playing tomorrow. Thought Coventry were very good, Sheffield average. Dan Who? Tessier didn't really show for this one, spent the first 10 mins in the box and then did nowt. Sutter, well he was just Sutter nothing more to say .
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Sept 9, 2006 23:19:40 GMT
Well, according a few of the Belfast fans on KOTG we were all over the Giants and it was Minard who saved their bacon. Somewhat contradicting the other Belfast fans who claim that we were pants.... as usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between.
A point away in Belfast, first competitive game of the season? I'll take that....
|
|
|
Post by keckmeister on Sept 9, 2006 23:36:28 GMT
Going to try to be objective here - wish me luck. Hicks was poor tonight - in his usual frustrating way. ZT seemed to be working(ish) - though there were harsh penalties on both sides. Belfast hit the puck over the plexi a couple of times - nothing given. Later on when a Panther did it - 2 mins for delay of game (unless something else happened at the same time) Panthers were all over us in the third, Giants couldn't seem to get 5 men on the ice. Less down to ZT than to Hicks calling an awful lot of checks - yes I'm probably biased, but there were some truly bizarre calls. Belfast penalty kill and Mini were awesome, Panthers were working hard and I'd say the SOG were fairly accurate. Dutiame played a big part on the PK, winning the vast majority of his face-offs. Belfast had a couple of breakaways, scored on one or two, could have had one or two more with a bit more luck. There were a few Panthers fans there, good to see them over - I'm sure there'll be a report soon giving the bias from the other side - and as someone pointed out, truth probably in the middle.
|
|
Fez
Lorne Smith
Posts: 652
|
Post by Fez on Sept 10, 2006 0:13:20 GMT
Well, according a few of the Belfast fans on KOTG we were all over the Giants and it was Minard who saved their bacon. In which case, well done to Belfast. I grew up watching, primarily, Trevor Robins. He saved our bacon SO many times it was untrue. Other teams barely stood a chance. A great Blaiser signing. What I'm trying to say, admittedly badly, is that the fact that Minard stood on his head should not be seen as a plus for Panthers (ie we outplayed them, but...) but a plus for Belfast (ie they were outplayed but still won) Offence wins games..........................
|
|
|
Post by keefe a.k.a Donk on Sept 10, 2006 9:22:16 GMT
Well.... me, sonia, teddyc and pete are in belfast international departures just about to enjoy an ulster fry and another pint of smythicks.... love it here.
Match, well dont be to disheartened.... 1st period we were pants, really pants and most part of the second. but towards the end of the second and the whole of the 3rd we were brill... really effort and forward pressure. Belfast would have lost heavilly if it hadnt been for minard, he stood on his head and some!
Our powerplay needs some real work, no change there really, but the powerplay unit last night just couldnt cut it. Paasing was lovely but a lack of shots on target!
We are going to get caught out alot on our d. 2 breakaway goals last night, all because the d were camped in the offensive zone and had no chance of getting back!
Only 9 of us there last night, but we did the boys proud... a few new chants too.
Post more later
|
|
|
Post by ted on Sept 10, 2006 9:27:49 GMT
It was all Minards fault. He is an absoloutely cracking keeper. One shot clipped the top of his pad as was heading towards top corner but his glove was up and saved.
Giants fans I spoke to last night all said we were the better team. We had a slow start and the D did worry me a bit but overall... if we play every game like we did in the 3rd we will have a good season I reckon.
We did have a couple of really close shots that hit the cross bar and post in OT. Really piled the pressure on.
Simoes hits like a freight train. Even more so than in Bracknell.
2 of their goals came from sloppy D... one was short handed (remember Vezios goal in cardiff when they beat us 1-0 last season with a short hander midway throught the second, identical).
Lindsay did alright to save a few he did, Penalties.... Ive never seen a keeper meet a player half way for one of those!
Powerplay suffered from lack of shots... but boy was there a lot of powerplays. We have done alright adapting really. not many on us at all.... Hicks was calling a lot though. ZT will take some getting used to but I think most score lines last night reflected how it opened the game up and more goals all round (assuming most werent PP goals!)
Oh well... i got a pint of smythwicks waiting for me!
See you all tonight!
|
|
twix
Lorne Smith
Posts: 754
|
Post by twix on Sept 10, 2006 9:36:37 GMT
Going to try to be objective here - wish me luck. Hicks was poor tonight - in his usual frustrating way. ZT seemed to be working(ish) - though there were harsh penalties on both sides. Belfast hit the puck over the plexi a couple of times - nothing given. Later on when a Panther did it - 2 mins for delay of game (unless something else happened at the same time) Panthers were all over us in the third, Giants couldn't seem to get 5 men on the ice. Less down to ZT than to Hicks calling an awful lot of checks - yes I'm probably biased, but there were some truly bizarre calls. A lot of people seem to be confusing 'zt' ( or rule emphasis as the IIHF prefer) with the usual few changes to and new rules which we have around the start of every season. I'm pretty sure I read a couple of weeks ago about a new one concerning the puck leaving the playing area. I can't remember the exact details but I imagine the Panthers managed to fall foul of it and the Giants didn't. It happens, players, coaches and refs all have to get used to the new rules even more than they have to get used to 'zt'. 'zt' has nothing to do with new or changes to rules. It's simply about enforcing existing rules concerning dangerous or hold up play (hooking, slashing, hits on players not carrying the puck) more fully. Once the players and refs learn to play within those rules it should actually make the game more flowing as it allows the more skillful players a chance to really show what they can do. The delays at the moment are because some players just can't get it into their heads that if they do something they were never meant to do they'll definitely end up on a penalty kill rathr than it just being a possibility. A lot of fans who watch the NHL avidly (I'm not one of them) have commented on how great the NHL was to watch by the end of last season as a consequence of these rules being implemented. There's a short document from the IIHF detailing what zt means this season here I was one of the fans complaining about the interference calls on apparently legal mid ice hits last week in Bracknell. The rule has apaprently changed slightly (can't find the copy of it rule at the moment but I had it the other day) and the check will be called as interference if the player making the check had a chance to pull out of it (in the refs opinion) after the puck was released by the player being checked. Hits on players not carrying the puck have always been classed as interference... Refs will always make mistakes some pretty awful ones but they have to get used to the new rules to. On the other hand, particulalrly at the start of the season, fans often complain about bizarre calls which turn out to be exactly as laid out in that season's rules. If you're unsure why a ref called something you could always try asking him/her. Chances are they'll explain which rule it relates to or apologise if it was a genuine mistake.
|
|
|
Post by MrsMorley99 on Sept 10, 2006 9:41:51 GMT
well heres loking forward to tonight! seems like those of you who went over had a good time........ alcohol, teddy and keef......who'd of thort it!!!! hehe! 2 points tonight pleeeeeese, fingers crossed, and obviously a defeat for shuff!!
|
|
|
Post by keckmeister on Sept 10, 2006 9:58:55 GMT
... I was one of the fans complaining about the interference calls on apparently legal mid ice hits last week in Bracknell. Hits on players not carrying the puck have always been classed as interference... That's fair enough, but the really bizarre calls weren't given as interference - it does slightly explain some calls where I wasn't sure what had happened, but not the ones which really ticked me off
|
|
|
Post by dirtyden on Sept 10, 2006 10:41:06 GMT
It is difficult at the moment(zt), but in my opinion the game will always be stop start, tes more goals but not as free flowing as you would like it to be. The one rule that will slow it down is the holding rule, as soon as a player takes one hand off the stick and touches a player with his free hand, a penalty should be called for holding, this in my opinion will be the rule that will cause most problems.
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Sept 10, 2006 10:47:40 GMT
this in my opinion will be the rule that will cause most problems. It'll only cause problems if the players persist in breaking it. I've seen loads of criticism for Ref's across all the club forums, but ultimately, they are only doing what they've been instucted to do. If the players won't comply, how is that the Ref's fault?
|
|
matt44
David Clarke
Posts: 3,085
|
Post by matt44 on Sept 10, 2006 10:48:46 GMT
My friend who is a Belfast fan was texting me updates last night and he was saying how perfectly legal checks were being penalised! Which cant be good surely! Some of us like a bit of rough n tumble. It will ruin the game of players cant get within 3 feet of eachother! lol
|
|
|
Post by smart6 on Sept 10, 2006 10:56:27 GMT
Having a last drink in Belfast, after last nights game no worries for tonight providing they start to play in the first period, like they played in the last period.
As posted above the main problem is D not getting back in time leaving Lindsey to face 1 on 1's.
Hope Keef has some voice left for tonight. There may only have been 9 of us but he still needed to help the Belfast fans keep up with us.
Personally I'm alot more comfortable with Lyndsey now I've seen him play. Was worried with the comments that he will be the weak link but he did some great saves IMO.
Belfast fans friendly, worth a visit. Plus a nice B&B if you ever decide to take the trip.
|
|
matt44
David Clarke
Posts: 3,085
|
Post by matt44 on Sept 10, 2006 11:00:23 GMT
Didnt Elliss sign Lindsay because he was good at 1 on 1's? I thought he meant on Penalty Shots, but maybe not! lol Maybe he knew that the way he was planning on playing, that their would be alot of breakaways.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyden on Sept 10, 2006 11:00:44 GMT
Peacock, I did'nt say it was the ref's fault, but it is a rule that is open to most interpretation and the easiest to get wrong, hence stopping and starting and players getting fed up.
|
|
matt44
David Clarke
Posts: 3,085
|
Post by matt44 on Sept 10, 2006 11:38:50 GMT
I am worried that with the team being 3-1 down, Shmyr didnt start on one of thier players.
IMO he shouldve taken a couple of their players out to get our guys fired up.
Now feel free to shoot me down, but I thought that was part of an Enforcers job role.
Luckily we managed to come back......this time! lol
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Sept 10, 2006 12:23:07 GMT
I am worried that with the team being 3-1 down, Shmyr didnt start on one of thier players. IMO he shouldve taken a couple of their players out to get our guys fired up. Now feel free to shoot me down, but I thought that was part of an Enforcers job role. Surely going out to start a fight just to fire things up is plain goonery, even thuggery - not 'enforcing'? Anyway - they pulled back from 3-1 down without that. I'd far rather see our players hammering them time after time with legal checks (like Simoes was apparently doing).
|
|
|
Post by belak on Sept 10, 2006 12:30:44 GMT
I am worried that with the team being 3-1 down, Shmyr didnt start on one of thier players. IMO he shouldve taken a couple of their players out to get our guys fired up. Now feel free to shoot me down, but I thought that was part of an Enforcers job role. Luckily we managed to come back......this time! lol Guess your logic could go two ways (and I'm not criticising you for suggesting it mind.) 1) The opposition gets riled up and lose their composure (allowing Panthers to gain an advantage.) Or 2) Panthers get too physical and dig themselves in a bigger hole than they're in already...
|
|
Rich
Paul Adey
Go hard or go home
Posts: 6,691
|
Post by Rich on Sept 10, 2006 12:38:16 GMT
Hmm I think Shmyr is more of a reactive enforcer than a proactive enforcer, he plays hockey first, doesnt back down to people but isnt the type to go out cheapshotting people.
Why are people so surprised about Minard? On his game hes the best goalie in the league imo, check his stats out from before he went to belfast. Like the rest of the team tho hes got to stay injury free or they are screwed!
|
|
matt44
David Clarke
Posts: 3,085
|
Post by matt44 on Sept 10, 2006 12:39:23 GMT
I am worried that with the team being 3-1 down, Shmyr didnt start on one of thier players. IMO he shouldve taken a couple of their players out to get our guys fired up. Now feel free to shoot me down, but I thought that was part of an Enforcers job role. Luckily we managed to come back......this time! lol Guess your logic could go two ways (and I'm not criticising you for suggesting it mind.) 1) The opposition gets riled up and lose their composure (allowing Panthers to gain an advantage.) Or 2) Panthers get too physical and dig themselves in a bigger hole than they're in already... Yes, I get what you are saying, but thats all part of the tactics and team discipline I guess. A few times last season I was watching Colorado Avalanche play and on a couple of occasions they went a few goals down. On came Brad May and Dan Hinote to start a couple of fights, not go round gooning it up. The rest of the team got on with their normal duties and it seemed to do the job as both times they came back.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Sept 10, 2006 12:50:03 GMT
On came Brad May and Dan Hinote to start a couple of fights, not go round gooning it up. Surely going out to start a fight is one of the core elements of "gooning it up"?
|
|
twix
Lorne Smith
Posts: 754
|
Post by twix on Sept 10, 2006 13:30:56 GMT
On came Brad May and Dan Hinote to start a couple of fights, not go round gooning it up. Surely going out to start a fight is one of the core elements of "gooning it up"? Of course it is! IMHO An enforcer's job is NOT to go out and start fights it's to protect the smaller faster players so that they can do what they need to do. If Belfast's players were going around trying to knock our skill guys all over the ice then fair enough Shmyr should have sought retribution in an attempt to stop it continuing. Going out and starting a fight just coz we can't find the back of the net as often as our opposition is pure goonery. Where's the enforcing in that act?
|
|
|
Post by Alf Garnett on Sept 10, 2006 19:41:53 GMT
On came Brad May and Dan Hinote to start a couple of fights, not go round gooning it up. Surely going out to start a fight is one of the core elements of "gooning it up"? Exactly. The sort of thuggish behaviour Maxwell and co resorted to when they were losing.
|
|
SS12
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 50
|
Post by SS12 on Sept 11, 2006 10:01:49 GMT
Like the rest of the team tho hes got to stay injury free or they are screwed! Isn't it pretty much the same for all teams?
|
|