Team Canada Womens Hockey thumps Team Italy 16-0

By Allan
in The Sporting Arena

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Cherry slams Canadian women for scoring too much

Canadian Press

Toronto ? Hockey commentator Don Cherry criticized the Canadian women's hockey team Wednesday for running up the score against their weaker opponents at the Winter Olympics.

He was referring to Canada's 16-0 shellacking of host Italy to open the tournament Saturday, followed by a 12-0 victory over Russia on Sunday.

Cherry, speaking from Toronto on CBC-TV, said the women made a big mistake.

?To run up a score like that, that is wrong,? said Cherry. ?First of all, it is not the Canadian way.?

Canada has outscored the opposition 36-1 over its three preliminary-round games, while the U.S. has an 18-3 advantage.

Cherry wasn't the first to criticize the Canadian women's team. American defenceman Angela Ruggiero, considered the best at the position in women's hockey, told SI.com, Sports Illustrated's website, earlier this week that she was upset that ?Canada has been running up the score, especially against the host nation.?

Canada wants to be the home team and have the last line change should it, as expected, make the gold-medal game. If two teams are tied in points, the seeding is determined by which team has the highest goal differential.

Knowing the U.S. would post lopsided scores in Group B, the Canadians say they couldn't let up in their Group A game Saturday with Italy.

Cherry said that Europeans run the Olympics and if the Canadians don't stop, then they will remove hockey from the Games like they did with baseball and the Summer Olympics.

?If you run up scores like you're running up scores now, and beating all these Europeans' teams like that and making mockery of their hosts. . . If you keep it up, you're committing suicide, they'll throw those games out.?

Canadian women's hockey team coach Melody Davidson has received e-mails from Canadians praising the team's performance and others disapproving the runaway games.

?Your character is being called into play,? Davidson said Tuesday. ?That group of girls in our dressing room is a tremendously professional group and I know deep down it bothers them that people think they would do that.

?There's been no malice meant and no intent to disrespect. We're just going about our business and getting ourselves in a position to be in a medal game.?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ory/Sports/home

Mentor

u_diddy

Posted
Posted

You know what.....throwing it out of the olympics wouldn't really be a bad idea. Not only is it boring to watch at the best of times, the fact that only 2 teams (Canada and the U.S.) can actually have a competitive game is pathetic. Get rid of it.

Mentor

bigbluepride35

Posted
Posted

The goal differential argument may work for the first game but seeing then that the U.S. games were much closer did they have to rout the Swedes in the last game? I hate running up the score in ANY sport. Always have and always will. The games just become really boring and not fun to watch. When you can turn a game off after it's about half over? IMO it's just unnecessary.

Grand Master

qdave

Posted
Posted

You know what.....throwing it out of the olympics wouldn't really be a bad idea. Not only is it boring to watch at the best of times, the fact that only 2 teams (Canada and the U.S.) can actually have a competitive game is pathetic. Get rid of it.

absolutely right! at least they could get rid of till the time other countries have trained their hockey players till 'playable' level.

now its just waste of time and money.

Mentor

MikeFu84

Posted
Posted

Well we are finally seeing some other nations stepping up their game. US almost lost to Finland the other night and they DID lose to Sweden today in the semi-final. This will be the first time (that I know of) the final of a major tournament will not see Canada vs. USA.

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

060217_oly_sweden2_300.jpg

Sweden's Maria Rooth gets the clincher, and the Americans fall.

Sweden saves women's game

Upset of U.S. changes balance of power, earns shot at Canada in Monday's final

Feb. 18, 2006. 01:00 AM

DAMIEN COX

TURIN, Italy?Better it happened to them than us.

But better that it happened period, and on the biggest stage that there is.

Women's hockey changed yesterday, and maybe permanently.

It won't be ? ho-hum ? Canada and the U.S. jousting for Olympic gold on Monday one more time.

Sweden emerged as the long-awaited third world power in the women's game yesterday, upsetting the Americans 3-2 in a semifinal shootout in what was the most important game in the history of women's hockey.

"We couldn't sit around waiting any more. People were getting really impatient with us," said Team Canada captain Cassie Campbell.

"We really needed one of us (Canada or the U.S.) to get knocked off.

"People were tired of having Canada and the U.S. always in the final, and, quite frankly, it's refreshing to play another country in a final. It's refreshing to no longer be able to take anybody for granted."

Canada hammered Finland 6-0 to qualify for a third gold medal game in three Olympics, but based on yesterday, they'd better beware of a Swedish goalie named Kim Martin and a terribly skilled forward, Maria Rooth.

Quite clearly, however, the Canadian game was the secondary headline on the day, and even the gold medal game will be pale in significance compared with that which unfolded between the Swedish and U.S. national women's teams yesterday.

On the very day when IIHF president Rene Fasel vowed to make changes to the women's Olympic format to inject a badly needed element of competitiveness, the Swedes went out and fixed the problem themselves.

The moment Rooth snapped a wrist shot past American goalie Chanda Gunn to ice the game yesterday, those who had found it increasingly difficult to defend the legitimacy of Olympic women's hockey ? like yours truly ? had been given an invaluable gift.

"People have been talking about taking (women's hockey) out of the Olympics," said Canadian forward Hayley Wickenheiser.

"After tonight, you can't talk about that any more."

If the Swedish upset had happened at a Four Nations tournament, or a world championship, it would have been significant.

But the Olympics count a lot more. Results tend to reverberate.

To be sure, the women's game still needs other countries to improve their programs, as Canada's 42-1 advantage in goals over four games in this event suggest.

But the Swedes will now return home with at worst a silver medal after winning bronze in 2002, and countries tend to reward those sports federations that deliver results with improved funding and added resources.

"We grew into the game and got as strong as the U.S.," said Swedish coach Peter Elander. "We have to thank the U.S. and Canada for the possibility of playing against them. Sweden is now part of the league of the top women's teams."

For years, it appeared the likeliest candidate for a third power in women's hockey would be the Finns, and between 1996 and 2000 there were multiple occasions on which they came close to beating Canada or the U.S., including one-goal defeats to Canada in the semifinals of the 1997 and 2000 world championships.

The Swedes, on the other hand, came close to pulling out of the 2002 Olympics because their results had been so poor. But after being thumped by Canada 11-0 in Nagano, they beat the Finns for the bronze and now have reached a new level.

"They had to take responsibility for themselves," said Campbell. "This is huge for the Swedish program, and maybe the Finns can see some light, as well."

Perhaps the Russians, bronze medallists at the 2001 worlds but not very impressive here, will also bolster their efforts. China was seemingly getting closer to Canada and the U.S. for years, but they didn't even qualify for these Olympics.

Canada's goodwill towards the Swedes, of course, ended by about midnight last night, and now they'll spend two days figuring out ways to attack the technically impressive Martin, who did not play against Canada in a 8-1 drubbing earlier in this event.

It's nice to have another rival, after all, but gold is gold.

Much nicer than silver.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=970081593064

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Well I'm looking forward to Monday's game. Hopefully the Swedes have picked up their game since the last time we played them.

Their #1 goaltender was injured when we last played them. She played very well against the USA.

Grand Master

Allan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's because Canada are the only country that really plays it....

*hides*

:p

Darn right! We invented it and we dominate it! :p You can hide out here in Canada if your afraid of the "big bad" American Hockey Players (over half of whom are REALLY Canadian!)

Guest craft660

Posted
Posted

Darn right! We invented it and we dominate it!:pp You can hide out here in Canada if your afraid of the "big bad" American Hockey Players (over half of whom are REALLY Canadian!)

canada didn't invent ice hockey, the brits did! or 2 b more spec. british soldiers stationed in canada in the mid 1850s, but all of the ancient civilisations have played sim. sports.

mhmm

Veteran

R-Flex

Posted
Posted

canada didn't invent ice hockey, the brits did! or 2 b more spec. british soldiers stationed in canada in the mid 1850s, but all of the ancient civilisations have played sim. sports.

mhmm

Irrelevant. The sport was invented, not as a race, but in the eventual evolution of the game by Canadians. It is similar to Canadians taking pride in basketball; yes, it was invented by a Canadian, but it is an American sport.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.