12/21/24
February 17, 2006
Sweden vs USA Women's Hockey Semifinal: Spoiler inside.
I'm a little disappointed in team USA. But that throws the "it's always between Canada and USA" argument right out the window.
posted by njsk8r20 at 12:46 PM on February 17, 2006
Thanks to whoever it was who posted this before. Things of note in the box score: Swedes come back from 2-0 down (!) Shots: SWE 17, USA 39 Shootout: USA shut out (!) Penalties USA 6, Sweden 11 Did anybody see this? Any comments on the officiating? Sweden look like geniuses for not using Kim Martin against Canada in the preliminaries. As previously noted, the last time she played against Canada it was 2-0 (50-10 in shots on goal).
posted by Amateur at 12:47 PM on February 17, 2006
Of course, the fact that it's posted on the front page is spoiler enough, eh? Hey, I tried to be as subtle about it as possible ... not even an exclamation point. Sorry if I ruined it for anybody.
posted by Amateur at 12:48 PM on February 17, 2006
I watched the entire game. The officiating was outstanding, should be no complaints there. Bad turn-overs behind your net will kill you everytime, especially with the heart shown by the SWE women. They ran into a hot goalie... she was outstanding.. Great leadership by Rooth and you end up playing for a Gold.... congrats to SWE....
posted by skydivedad at 12:51 PM on February 17, 2006
My third comment on this in five miuntes on three threads - but I am totally blown away by Kim Martin. What a performance (even though the Americans appeared to hit two posts and Ruggiero missed a wide open net on her second chance). This may be the 'new' Miracle on ice. I feel a little bad for the US team - they have some phenomenal players and real champions on that team, and they did dominate the game from what I saw. One goalie makes all the difference in the world. Wanna bet the Men's team gets really pumped from this too? Beware the rise of Sweden.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:52 PM on February 17, 2006
I should grudgingly acknowledge that Don Cherry called that one too. When asked by Brian Williams whether Sweden should have used Martin against Canada (some had been commenting that they "gave up" the win), Cherry said that "sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war." I hate it when Don Cherry looks like a genius.
posted by Amateur at 12:54 PM on February 17, 2006
Any comments on the officiating? I only saw the 3rd period, OT, and shootout, but only saw one bad call. A Swede grabbed the jersey of a USA player, then the USA player stuck her stick out in front of the Swede player with the puck. The penalty was called on the USA player.
posted by njsk8r20 at 12:56 PM on February 17, 2006
Here is the CBC story on the game. They seem to be adding to it every few minutes.
posted by Amateur at 12:57 PM on February 17, 2006
What the heck happened in the 3rd period? The one stat that really stands out is the US only had 4 shots during the entire 3rd period in which they also had 2 power plays. The shot totals don't add up so I'm thinking this is a typo... anyone confirm? Either way while I feel bad for the US team this is the best thing that could happen for womens hockey as a whole.
posted by camcanuck at 12:59 PM on February 17, 2006
Keep in mind that the shot stat is shots on net. That does not count the shots that went wide and the Swede defense did a great job blocking shots.
posted by njsk8r20 at 01:02 PM on February 17, 2006
i don't know women's hockey enough to understand the magnitude of the upset, but from what I can tell it seems monumental. if weedy, my hockey expert, compares it to the Miracle on Ice it has to be monumental. it seems that this loss, and the dumbass snowboarder falling at the finish is symbolic of the dissapointment the US olympic team has endured in these games. you can also dominate a game but if you can't put an inferior opponent away or play a full 60 minutes, you don't deserve to win.
posted by erkno11 at 01:02 PM on February 17, 2006
I saw the 3rd period & Overtime. It was great hockey. End to end action. Tough break for the USA team. Great story though.
posted by directpressure at 01:04 PM on February 17, 2006
Actually, the Swedes packed all 5 below the hash lines. With Martin having such a good game this gave them density down low, and the way they were diving all over the ice to block shots, kept the Americans from getting many quality chances. When they DID, Martin came up HUGE (think Jim Craig, and yes, this qualifies as a miracle of that magnitude).
posted by elovrich at 01:04 PM on February 17, 2006
It's not quite Miracle on Ice yet, They need to win the Gold for that comparision to ring true! It is however monumental in the history of Womens International Hockey...
posted by skydivedad at 01:06 PM on February 17, 2006
The officiating was outstanding, should be no complaints there. I just noticed that the USA scored both their goals on the power play, and Rooth scored the tying goal shorthanded. This gets more improbable by the minute.
posted by Amateur at 01:07 PM on February 17, 2006
you can also dominate a game but if you can't put an inferior opponent away or play a full 60 minutes, you don't deserve to win. I do not know about domination, after the first period the Swedes played equal to the Americans. The shot total does not tell the true story in this case (see above comment). Either team could have/should have won. It was a very good game.
posted by elovrich at 01:07 PM on February 17, 2006
It's not quite Miracle on Ice yet, They need to win the Gold for that comparision to ring true! It is however monumental in the history of Womens International Hockey... Actually, wasnt the "It's a miracle" comment made at the end of the US/USSR game? In the semis? So many people people forget that the US Men still had to go on to beat Finland....
posted by elovrich at 01:09 PM on February 17, 2006
True elovrich.... but they did go on to win the Gold against the Finns. Hence the Miricle had some Golden Meaning.
posted by skydivedad at 01:12 PM on February 17, 2006
I think the 1980 victory over the USSR would have been (unfairly) forgotten if they hadn't gone on to win the gold medal. This one will resonate for quite a while even if the Swedes lose in the gold medal game. In fact the Swedes are guaranteed to get all the international attention now, unless Finland wins the gold medal.
posted by Amateur at 01:14 PM on February 17, 2006
Yes, and now the Finns just need to beat the Canucks to REALLY make it a golden moment *smiles*. Oh what a day if the Maple leaf falls. It will keep all this embryonic talk of dropping womens hockey from continuing.....
posted by elovrich at 01:14 PM on February 17, 2006
You really think that if the US had not won Gold in 80 that the story of a bunch of college kids whooopin up on the Great Red Machine would have been forgotten?
posted by elovrich at 01:15 PM on February 17, 2006
Hey, I tried to be as subtle about it as possible ... not even an exclamation point. Sorry if I ruined it for anybody. I wouldn't worry about it, Amateur—this kind of news travels fast. It was just an amusing thought that occurred to me.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 01:16 PM on February 17, 2006
Actually, in my experience a lot of casual fans think that the orginal Miracle on Ice WAS the gold medal game. I think it would resonate just as much had the US team taken silver. It wouldn't have been as cool, but I think it absolutely was about those college kids taking down the Big Red Menace and all the outside-of-sports implications that had.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:20 PM on February 17, 2006
Where in the hell is Cammi Granato when we need her?
posted by Desert Dog at 01:21 PM on February 17, 2006
Pernilla Winberg, 16 year-old, scores the eventual game-winner. Anyone care to argue that some of the most compelling moments in modern Olympics have involved amateurs, even in this age of aloowing pros to play?
posted by elovrich at 01:22 PM on February 17, 2006
I watched the whole game, on and off at the beginning, but with greater interest once the Swedes tied it. Very exciting game, played in typical fashion by an underdog willing to win: collapse around your net, rely on an outstanding goalie, and capitalize on mistakes. The officiating looked fair to me. I think the refs are calling way too many penalties, but I'm not that familiar with women hockey's particular rules, and the penalties were dished for similar offenses to both teams. Pernilla Winberg, 16 year-old, scores the eventual game-winner. Kim Martin is just 19, too. They've got a future.
posted by qbert72 at 01:39 PM on February 17, 2006
Yeah, the officiating was fine. Sweden just bent without breaking, and Kim Martin stood on her head. The Americans didn't choke, they just didn't win. It happens.
posted by chicobangs at 01:58 PM on February 17, 2006
ok,time to go watch the Canucks and the Finns, will update for those that need it
posted by elovrich at 02:04 PM on February 17, 2006
i don't know women's hockey enough to understand the magnitude of the upset since international play started in 1990, the US and Canada had only lost to each other.
posted by goddam at 02:05 PM on February 17, 2006
A journalist and a US hockey official who are hiding their heads today: "[USA Hockey executive director Dave] Ogrean said the International Ice Hockey Federation, comprising 74 countries ranging from Belarus to Brazil, is trying to beef up women's programs worldwide through a women's committee chaired by Walter Bush Jr. Canada, Ogrean noted, has hockey embedded in its national soul. America, he said, 'by virtue of the Title IX culture, always gets out in front in terms of women's sports.' For other countries, it has been a struggle. 'They don't all have their heart in it to the degree that we do,' he said. 'But we'll drag them kicking and screaming, and if they can sniff a bronze medal, they'll get going.'"
posted by Amateur at 02:09 PM on February 17, 2006
"rely on an outstanding goalie, and capitalize on mistakes" The USA team made two huge mistakes and the Swedes capitalized on both. Ring any bells? Same thing happened to the men's team in their first game. Only difference is the men's team pulled it together in the third period. As in most team sports: You can dominate in every aspect of the game but make mistakes (get cocky) and you will always pay.
posted by inmyopinion at 02:41 PM on February 17, 2006
2-0 CAN end of 1st over FIN
posted by skydivedad at 02:45 PM on February 17, 2006
Both of those goals were on the power play in the last 2 1/2 minutes of the period, and Canada starts the second period on the power play too. Developing...
posted by chicobangs at 02:53 PM on February 17, 2006
Is there any channel currently showing anything? No wonder the ratings are down, no knows what/where/when to watch!! As for the women, jeez, was Peter Forsberg's sister playing for the Swedes?
posted by GoBirds at 03:14 PM on February 17, 2006
3-0 CAN PP Goal Late 2nd period...
posted by skydivedad at 03:19 PM on February 17, 2006
GoBirds the Game is on MSNBC if you have cable...
posted by skydivedad at 03:19 PM on February 17, 2006
4-0 CAN Oulette PP Goal 16:48 2nd
posted by skydivedad at 03:20 PM on February 17, 2006
GoBirds, you need to move up north where we get CBC on our cable....
posted by elovrich at 03:20 PM on February 17, 2006
New meat in the Finn net
posted by elovrich at 03:22 PM on February 17, 2006
FIN change at goalie
posted by skydivedad at 03:23 PM on February 17, 2006
4-0 after 2
posted by elovrich at 03:27 PM on February 17, 2006
Is there any channel currently showing anything? If you want check your local listings: U.S. Residents Oh Canada
posted by wingnut4life at 03:29 PM on February 17, 2006
If you want check your local listings: U.S. Residents Oh Canada >>>>> And those in the U.P who an get it
posted by elovrich at 03:45 PM on February 17, 2006
I think that from an American standpoint, this is still a good thing for women's hockey as a whole. Obviously there has been talk of women's hockey being taken out of the Olympics as there hasn't been much competition. However, now that Sweden has proved that the USA and Canada are not unbeatable, I think that this has the potential to be a big boost for women's hockey.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:55 PM on February 17, 2006
On my satellite I just do a search for "olympic" then press the info button on each listing.
posted by njsk8r20 at 04:00 PM on February 17, 2006
According to CBC Radio even Ruggiero has been quoted as saying that in the long run this is a good thing for Women's hockey. Teams like Finland and Sweden have to start competing for this to become a real world sport. I think Russia is still too far away unfortunately - very few players there, it seems.
posted by mikelbyl at 05:22 PM on February 17, 2006
Ruggiero said it would be good for women's hockey, but she also said she hoped it didn't happen while she was still playing.
posted by goddam at 07:19 PM on February 17, 2006
Ruggiero said it would be good for women's hockey Funny thing to say since it was Ruggiero who passed the puck to the Swede player for the tying goal.
posted by inmyopinion at 08:22 PM on February 17, 2006
Of course, the fact that it's posted on the front page is spoiler enough, eh?