OT: Switzerland vs Canada

Submitted by weasel3216 on February 18th, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Game is about to go into OT and i can already said that this is the best International hockey game i have ever seen. I am only 21 so i was not alive for The Miracle in 1980 and do not really remember any Winter Olympics until Salt Lake in 2002.

Hiller, Swiss goalie, is playing a hell of a game; especially the last 5 minutes or so. I am really hoping for the upset being an American an all, even though i love what Babcock and Holland are doing with the Wings.

UPDATE: Canada wins in a SO, god damn Crosby got the winner, Hiller with 44 saves.



February 18th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^

Group Winners and one Wild Card get byes to the quarterfinals.

everyone else is seeded (bunch of tie breakers) by points so 5 plays 12, 6 plays 11, and so on...

then those 4 winners in the first elimination round face the teams that get the bye.

USA clinches group A with a win in regulation or overtime sunday night


February 18th, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^

Jonas Hiller played tremendously well. This said, shots and scoring was dominated by Canada; the Swiss didn't have any scoring opportunities for the last 5 minutes of the game and were just hanging on to get to the shootout.

Thank you Sidney Crosby.

Six Zero

February 18th, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^

Certainly gives us some stories to brew on leading into Sunday. I wonder if the refs will put the whistles in their pockets for that one, too.

Looks like Crosby's legacy just wrote a new chapter tonight... Love 'em or hate 'em, that was big.


February 18th, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^

Alot of what Hiller did should be illegal. He was nasty all game long, especially those two late in the third. Great game, USA leads group A with 6 points to Canada's 5. A win for the USA in regulation or overtime Sunday night clinches them Group A and a bye to the quarterfinals.

I am so pumped up for Sunday. GO USA


February 18th, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^

I worked at CERN on the Franco-Swiss border for a few years; other than Federer (who does not need the support) I have adopted the Swiss as my go to Euro underdog.

Also, too bad I missed the whole thing putting in 14 hours at work...


February 18th, 2010 at 11:27 PM ^

I disagree that this game was a positive for Crosby...he was invisible most the game and he only scored the game winner after missing an earlier shot in the shoot-out. There were several 5-6 minute stretches during the game when I wondered if he had even taken a shift, his line clearly isn't Babcock's main scoring line. Good player obviously but he just doesn't dominate the game the way Ovechkin does...I think at this point the debate over which one is better is hardly even a question anymore.

Have to say Brodeur was impressive though, neither goal was his fault and he was money in the shoot-out. I was a little surprised they chose him over Fleury but so far that choice is looking pretty good.

Blue in Yarmouth

February 19th, 2010 at 8:14 AM ^

If you do watch hockey, I can honestly say that you have never played or have any idea how the game works. Crosby looked invisible because every time he got the puck the Swiss dedicated 2 men specifically to him.

He was being grabbed, hooked and high sticked the whole game and still ended up with a few good chances where he shook his two defenders and made something out of nothing.

Finally, to say the first shootout miss was somehow a failure shows me that you really know nothing about hockey. On a breakaway the goalie has the advantage and the best players in the NHL are well under 50% when it comes to scoring in a shootout. Coinicidently, Crosby is one of the best and he showed it on the second attempt.

I guess what I am trying to say is if you don't like a player, that is fine, you don't have to like them. However, if you don't know anything about hockey, don't come out and slam one of the two best players on the planet in a manner that suggests you have more than the miniscule amount of hockey knowledge that you do.

Also, FWIW, Mike Babcock is an ass and is bar none the worst coach in at these Olympics (I know you Detroit fans are going to be angry about that, but it is true). He has won in Detroit because Detroit has had great teams. Now that Detroit isn't head and shoulders above the rest (talent winse) in the NHL you see what Mike Babcock can do as a coach.....nothing. If Canada doesn't win the gold medal it will be because of two Detroit Redwings; Steve Yzerman (who selected this group and left many far better players out) and Mike Babcock.

All that said, it was a great game and I look forward to the game Sunday. In my opinion, hockey has changed from Canada's game with only eurpoean challangers to being a North American game, period. I think the gold goes to Canada or the USA, the two best hockey nations in the world today.


February 19th, 2010 at 9:10 AM ^

who do you think should be on the team other than who is there??? as a redwing fan i disagree with what you said about babcock but you are entitled to your opinon and we'll leave it at that...

lupe, i agree with you, crosby needs to shoot the puck... there was plenty of times in the 2nd period where he had an open shot and tried to make a pretty pass...

Blue in Yarmouth

February 19th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^

Vincent Lecavalier, Steven Stamkos, Jeff Carter, Jordan Staal (to take the place of Morrow), Dion Phaneuf, I could go on forever.

The problem with Canada and Hockey I guess is the same as the USA with basketball. It doesn't matter who you pick you will always be second guessed. I just think this Canada team is lacking something.

The problem right now is they are not playing physical. They have physical players, they just aren't playing physical and I think that is down to the coaches.

Lupe, I agree about Crosby and Getzlaf. You are bang on in both cases.


February 19th, 2010 at 9:50 AM ^

as canadian hockey fans we can sit here and 2nd guess who should be on the team, that is our right as fans... after the first game in 2002 i was ready to cut half of the team and hang cujo... as for the physical play, i do agree with you... it was almost like canada was afraid to hit last night... but i'm not going to put that all on the coaches... one thing canada has to realize is that every team is coming after them and will do whatever it takes to win as the swiss proved last night...


February 19th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^

say that the US pounded the swiss... miller bailed the US out a couple of times to keep the score where it was... after that game the american commentators weren't to excited with they way the US had just played... and norway is just plain bad, but the US did look better in that game...


February 19th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^

Hold on everyone, to say Canada left a bunch of better players behind is irrelevant. You can't just take 21 best players, you have to have a team, anyone who thinks you take the best players is crazy. And saying Getzlaf has been dreadful is also retarded, Perry and Staal have been terrible, not Getzlaf.

the_big_house 500th

February 19th, 2010 at 9:42 AM ^

Yes Canada is a great team filled with talent and superstars that I agree with. I also agree that their powerplay was garbage and Hiller in my opinion was the MVP, I don't care about the loss because he stood on his head and then some to get the Swiss to a shoot out. Now it's safe to say the Swiss were screwed right from the start of the shoot out because NONE of them could figure out Brodeur. Stopping Towes and Crosby in a shoot out is hard enough but to do it twice? Nah ah, one of Crosby's shots will go in, its only a matter of time. Point is this opening round is just and opening round. The CAN AM game will prove who is truely the best in pool A but if your are implying that the Canadians are the best right now then to quote Paul Newman from Slap Shot "your fucked" because teams like Sweden and Russia both have more than enough skill and talent to put Canada in its place and if you think I'm joking then watch Russia play in their games and see the difference in both passing and shooting. I'd be terrified of a line of Datsyuk, Ovechkin and Malkin and if your not then you are insane. Same goes for Sweden too. Got a long way to go before anybody's declared the gold medal winner.


February 19th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^

They Just look SLOW. Very few odd man rushes, their lack of speed is what will ultimately kill them. Probably the best pure shooters in the tourney but both Norge and CH have been up to speed without NHL skaters. If they don't start getting open looks and cleaner shots, there could be a national sized temper tantrum.


February 19th, 2010 at 7:34 PM ^

Yes, against a committed neutral zone trap and against a team playing only defense with no high forward for the last 10 minutes and all 5 minutes of overtime...against that strategy they did look slow. That's the point of the trap. I remember, sadly, all those years of the worst NHL led by New Jersey. To identify a team lack of speed on the Canadian team demonstrates some real ignorance in looking at that roster. The Swiss trapped to get into a shootout; they didn't have the goods once they got there.


February 20th, 2010 at 1:58 AM ^

So, if they were not playing for the shootout then why run a 5 across trap without one forward releasing from the defensive zone? This is pure 100 percent defensive hockey with no real intention of scoring. By not sending a forward out they committed totally to a defensive last 10 minutes and all 5 of overtime. The possession, shots on goal and scoring chances were also clear indicators of this strategy. Clearly playing more open with a Canadian team that was getting chances on their all defensive strategy was not an option so they played for the shootout. Certainly, compared to the Canadians they lacked skill in that area (although I am surprised they did not use Dominicelli as a shooter).


February 19th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^

Detroit has almost the same players that they won the cup with. If they aren't great talent-wise today, then they weren't that great talent-wise two years ago. I think that Babcock was a huge part of that dominant cup run. They were a very hard working and disciplined team in addition to having lots of talent. Babcock also took the Anaheim Ducks to the Stanley Cup Finals. In addition to his one Stanley Cup, he has made it to the finals two more times and the conference final once. He's the worst coach in the Olympics? He's got to be better than Ron Wilson.

Coaching is probably a minor factor in this tournament anyways, since these teams don't have any time to practice and for the coach to enforce a system.


February 19th, 2010 at 12:15 AM ^

advances to semi-final thanks to Canada's win over Swiss. Canada game will be a measuring stick on how much of a gap that USA has to overcome for the next Olympics in '14.

I don't like the rule in a penalty shootout where a player can shoot twice which Crosby did. I prefer that they do it once unless everybody already shot once. Canada have so much depth that it's weird that they have Crosby do it twice. JMO.


February 19th, 2010 at 12:54 AM ^

Canada will always be the measuring stick for where the Americans are in hockey. As far as the penalty shoot out rules...this is an international thing (you see it sometimes in the "world championships" in the spring). Despite some posters takes on the matter (evidently Wings fans) Crosby is the real deal so he shoots twice.

As for the earlier poster discussing Ovechkin v. Crosby...how many rings has Ovechkin?


February 19th, 2010 at 1:05 AM ^

does not determine on which player is better. It's a team achievement, not individual achievement. I'd understand if you're talking about NASCAR(I don't consider it a real sport but whatever), Tennis, Golf, etc., then you can use it as your argument.

Crosby is good but Ovechkin is better IMO. He's fearless, dynamic, great scorer and can mix it up. IMO, Malkin is better than Crosby. I'll give that Crosby is a great passer but scoring is not his forte unlike Ovechkin.


February 19th, 2010 at 7:41 AM ^

That must be why Ovechkin is blowing Crosby out of the water in goals scored this year. Oh wait...

They're both great players, but in my opinion Crosby is more complete. He kills penalties and plays a much better two way game.


February 19th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^

I've always thought the Crosby-Ovechkin debate ultimately comes down to what you look for in a player. Ovechkin's talents are more rare in that he scores goals at a rate far beyond anyone else in the league right now while also playing a power forward type game. Remember, he's played 7 fewer games than Crosby due to injuries, but he averages 0.78 goals per game to Crosby's 0.69. Over an 82 game season, that's almost 8 goals.

Crosby is better in terms of 2-way play, and has turned into an extremely dependable faceoff guy. He also arguably has a better team around him (Washington's offense is unparalleled, but leaves a bit to be desired defensively, whereas Pittsburgh has a great offense and an above average defense), which helps come playoff time. Remember, for all of Gretzky's skills, he couldn't win one after leaving the All-Star-esque Oilers.

Heck, until this season, Lidstrom easily could have been in the "best player in the world" discussion. Nobody in the league combined his defensive abilities with his offensive prowess, especially at his age. I think it's too hard to compare players at different positions who play different roles to definitively say Player A is better than Player B.


February 19th, 2010 at 7:48 PM ^

Hm...a whinny pussy...no one has ever said that before.

Anyone who thinks Crosby dives and whines doesn't watch hockey. And his character? Really? What types of things does he do? Does he repeatedly stick his knees out putting other players in dangerous situations? Oh whoops, I forgot, that's Ovechkin.

Look, I love Ovechkin's passion for the game. And if I had a small market team that needed something special to put fans in the seats, he'd be my guy. But if I wanted to build a championship team around one player, it would be Crosby.

None of the things you listed really have anything to do with being a 2 way player. I'll give Ovechkin a little credit. He has been better this year, actually using his body to block shots (awkwardly, but better than nothing I guess), but he doesn't play defense like Crosby.

You can dislike a player because they play for a rival team and still respect them at the same time. As a Red Wings fan, I hate Sakic and Forsberg but I sure as hell respect them as hockey players.


February 19th, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^

Comparing players with similar skill sets (excepting Crosby's leadership and defensive side responsibility) Ovechkin gets you 8 or 10 more goals per year...and Crosby's leadership and total game wins cups.

Ovechkin is fun to watch but it kind of ends there. He won't win a Cup in Washington. Raback that.


February 19th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^

I wish I could say I loved this game, but CNBC missed two out of the four regulation goals. That's half the scoring, for those of you in Columbus. I never thought I would see sports coverage that sucks harder than ESPN, but I think I might have been wrong about that.


February 19th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^

Then how the fuck is everyone else managing to do it? They could at least require shorter commercials or show quick ones without cutting away from the broadcast (CBC does this or at least used to do this). They could even tape delay the goddamn game ten seconds and then make up for it by making the period intermissions smaller. It's not like anyone would miss those. Worst case, they could do what has been done for soccer and have a sponsor's name next to the score box. Showing every second of relevant action should be a requirement for the broadcast rights for every sport.


February 19th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^

You guys are hating on the Canadians. The Shark line has been incredible, Crosby hasn't been playing his best, but you actually think that will last? Plus the Canadians will get physical, and play fast on Sunday.