Posted by CloverHill Your post isn't so much a question; more like you're passing judgment. Please reread it. It's loaded with indicting rhetoric. Since no one else is willing or cares, FWIW . . . "Is anybody else wondering why Savage didn't pull a Patrick Roy here?" - Nope. Nor did I hear the words: "pull the goalie" or "pull 'em" during the game. In addition to the dozen or so folks in our group, I spoke with 3 sets of parents after the game and the issue didn't come up. Besides, Wayne is mature enough to both understand and handle it. - Sorry, but you had to be there to know why ... the vast majority weren't his fault: #'s 6&7 came on the same Major PP; 1 of the later goals was scored by our own defenseman. - Nope. You're making a generalization. Looking at the game, if a goalie switch was to have been made, it should have happened to start the 2nd. In hindsight I applaud coach S's move since the team did mentally regroup and rallied back in the second. He let them go again in the 3rd. Putting in Justin when you say would have been WORSE. He used the game as a learning device: even if Roy was between the pipes Sunday the result would have been the same. We were down 2 men far too many times. The goalie change wouldn't have 'shaken up' and/or motivated the team. You can't be arrogant and play undisciplined or without regards to the new enforcement of rules, especially against the best team. Better to have learned this in October than in March. Need I even say this stuff .
on 10/20/2005, 4:45 pm, in reply to "Why was Savage on for all 14 goals?"
69.158.75.226
Hi Beats,
"He's obviously not Roy in terms of talent but I'd be pretty upset if my coach left me in net to get trounced like that."
"I know rest for Peters is important but shouldn't there be a mercy pull after giving up seven or eight goals ... ten at the very most!?"
"Maybe I'm alone here ..."
- Yep.
Give it some thought,
CH.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread