Why The Canadiens Lose

I don't know the definitive answer to this question. But I do have a feeling it is a little more subtle than two too many games in September.

Did the Canadiens preseason hurt the team? It's conceivable. But one then thinks back two years earlier, when even more players had to be integrated and a new coach had to set up a new system and notices a team that battled, had two centres scoring and a defensive scheme that put their goalie in the elite of the stats class.


Generally, I think we as fans have to take a cold shower and admit some things about this group of players that the organization has assembled:


1) They are not good enough to play the systems they have been asked to play
When they are asked to play with more energy than the other team, their lack of physical fitness is visible. Line changes are slow as exhausted players walk to the bench. This fitness thing takes a long time to correct, but how long?

Also, let's admit that they can't make up for fitness gaps with skill. There are now players that try on some moves, but just as often as not the puck is lost in the process. And game in, game out, we see how the key to the slot scoring positions elude the forwards on the ice.


2) The systems are stock systems, not custom

It's easy to lay all the blame at the players' feet. But the fact of the matter is that a coach, with a shelf life of two to three seasons, has to face up to the reality that over a tenure, 70% of the players he inherits will make up his core.

We talk about the coach's system and how the coach is trying to impose the way he thinks on the team. But have we yet seen a coach figure out a smart way to use Kostitsyn's slow, big frame with heavy accurate shot? Have we seen in two years a coach who takes advantage of Gomez's zone gaining ability, or Subban's? No. Not fully.

Rather we see the coach restraining or reforming these pieces in order to fit a set mould.

It can work, but it's the more difficult way to do things, and it takes time, and it results in seasons like this one.


3) There's not a star in sight

With all due respect to Tomas Plekanec, Carey Price, PK Subban and Erik Cole, the Canadiens simply do not possess the star power that probably a fair 20 teams in the league do (16 make the playoffs...). There's no natural goalscorer, there's no clutch playmaker, there's no one who turns a game with any regularity, there's no showstopper.

It's worse when one looks through the list of futures. It's possible that Gallagher is a diamond in the rough, but beyond him, it seems like a long list of "more of the same".

What's there is a lot of competent players who are willing to work hard, but who are prone to losing if a bounce goes the wrong way.


4) There's a lot of dead weight

A team of hard working competent players can win many Cups in a row with the right coach. But something that will limit these efforts (and would even limit a Gretzky led team) is players who don't really contribute.

For me, there are too many players for whom you could say a good game is getting more attempts (on net or not) than their equivalents on the other team and just mitigate the damage. I don't need to name the players, we've all got a feeling for this.

Having too many players that are net equals at their best asks those with more skill and talent to outdo their counterparts (the skilled and talented of the other teams. And remembering that some other teams have legitimate superstars, over a season this becomes a very heavy burden for the players it's being asked of.


5) Not enough commitment to development

This is probably the most unforgivable aspect of their neuroses. It is free to develop players well, it costs nothing towards the cap.

The Canadiens, with their warped vision of how much they stand apart from the other 29 franchises in the league make things awfully complicated for themselves when they jettison players for reasons not related to hockey.

A commitment to development for me would mean investing in those players the organization has invested their scouting and picks on. Not only on-ice development, but also off-ice. And importantly, not to expect that minimal effort will achieve enormous changes. One need only think of Mike Ribeiro to understand my meaning. A clear talent who liked to party and was acting up. Too much trouble for the team he was shipped out. And while the addition by subtraction probably paid for short term gains, the loss in quality could be seen as soon as months later.

Through some miracle, the Canadiens have managed to pick a lot of the pieces they needed to compete over the years. But a fear of hard work, or whatever it is, on the part of the organizations overall development mechanism has stripped it of scorers, playmakers and gamesavers over the years.


6) The goal is set too low

Playoff participation? Then anything can happen?

The margin for error when the goal posted on the locker-room wall is playoff participation is harsh. If you come within two points of the 94 you aimed for, you can be on the outside looking in. Teams that aim to win 60 games can fail and still cruise through the last ten games as they ready for April.

For too long the Canadiens have been too satisfied by just making the playoffs. For a while this was reinforced behaviour, because the team did indeed beat unlikely paths to higher rounds. Over the long run, this strategy is bound to turn up a few losing seasons, though.



From the looks of this, it seems that I am being pretty negative. But I prefer to say realistic.

I guess the important distinction is that winning more the 40 games in a season does not necessarily make you a winner. The Montreal team that made the playoffs and were swept aside by Boston in four a few seasons back were certainly not treated as such.

The silver lining is that there are probably fewer than a handful of teams at the moment who don't need to admit to one or all of these flaws. In a league where a small relative gain means leapfrogging over 10 mediocre franchises, the ground to cover isn't immense, at least for playoff participation.

But, as you know we dream of the highest standards on this blog. We fantasize about a time when the Canadiens, inspired by their great past (managerially speaking) will outstrip their rivals in every allowable department not directly related to restricted spending limits. In the realm of the salary cap, I think this is how a dynasty would have to be built, to get out of the Oiler-Penguin cycle of lottery luck.

Sure, we can paper over the cracks and say there was some bad luck, a few injuries and a busy fall. It is factually accurate. But in your heart of hearts, wouldn't you admit that even a team that started 5-3 with Andrei Markov was never going to post a 120 point season?

On Cammalleri

By now, you have all no doubt heard about Cammalleri's comments on his team playing a loser's brand of hockey.

It's caused quite a stir. And so it should have.

The stir as seen from the Antichambre (half-baked, generous assessment of baking duration) point of view is that players who call their teammates losers are losers. They are losers because one should never say anything bad about their t4eammates to anyone outside the group that makes up the team.

I adhere to this too. But only for so long. I would be upset with Mike if this was the first expression of these thoughts about losing hockey. I'd also be very surprised if it was.

My feeling is that he probably intentionally sat down with journalists he knew would make this an important and wide-reaching story because he intended to cause a stir. Why? Because saying it in the locker has failed yet to do so. Probably on multiple, maybe regular attempts.

What then to do to make the teammates take notice? Cause a storm that they can't help to hear outside the Bell Centre walls.


Losing

What Cammalleri said contained nothing novel in it at all. This every observer has seen and known for quite some time. This his teammates must deep down have known too.

I was once part of an underdog team that ended up losing in a final of a tournament by a closer than expected margin. The player who had refused to stick to our special strategy (because he thought it was stupid) and ultimately cost us the game absolved himself with a comment something like this: "We were always going to lose, no matter what we did".

It was especially flagrant during the sting of loss. but it made me realize an important difference between winners and losers. Winners win because they believe they can affect the outcome and follow through on what they believe will do that. Losers lose in part because they don't fully commit to the winning.

When a team loses despite committing to winning, one might see shrugs and hear all that about luck turning, etc. When it's losing for lack of winning commitment, it's good that at least some can see it.

We see it in constant early deficits, and frequent sagging comeback attempts. The Canadiens have plenty of excuse for losing to the Blues (they are a good team now), but they have no excuse at all for only putting two serious tests to the Blues net in their own arena.If I only take the example of missing the net on so many occasions. What will it take for a team that rarely comes back to make their challenges on goal serious and not just numerous but wide?


Was it Cammalleri's place?

No player would have got off the hook entirely with this act, but some might have had more leeway.

But I think it's cop-out to read this as Cammalleri's excuse to the city of Montreal for his goal total. Cammalleri likely doesn't think he owes the city of Montreal anything of the sort. And he certainly knows as a veteran of the sport and this city what the implications of this action would be (brouhaha-wise)

The Cammalleri goal production discussion probably does need to take place, but let's not ignore that it was the weight of losing and the perceived reasons for this that probably led him to put a much bigger media bulls-eye on his back. There's no smoke without fire. And because of media bullying there's no smoke outside the locker room without a blazing inferno.

We've seen it. Pundits have repealed it nightly. Coaches at times have mused it. Now a player has said it. I'm glad someone did. I'll call it his tenth goal.


What next?

The first thing is that I hope the players notice this. It was the clear intent, and it would be a real flag if the coaches feared so much for character of players that it could be broken by a call to try and win more.

Cammalleri will get backlash from "I played and I know" types, so it would be nice if his teammates backed him up. In words and with action.

Trades may need to be considered. But let's not assume I'm talking Cammalleri. If losing is endemic, the ones happy to continue should be questioned as future stalwarts.

Then, wait and see.

Could The Habs Do A Losing Season?

Over the weekend, I was watching TSN and was surprised to see a feature on a Canadiens prospect at the Canadian junior camp. It was Louis Leblanc again, of course, and the story revolved around his decision to pull out the stops by playing in the QMJHL. Part of the report noted that good old Louis had had a great little scrimmage at the camp. Apparently, he’s been creating some one-game chemistry with Sean Couturier.

Sean Couturier? This is when my ears piqued. Sean Couturier led the QMJHL in scoring this past season. He played on the Drummondville Voltigeurs. He was born in Phoenix, but grew up partly in Quebec to Quebecois father and former junior hockey star Sylvain Couturier. He’s 6’4” and 193 lbs, is still 17 years old and is touted to e the first overall pick in the 2011 draft.

In short, the Canadiens might be interested.

The problem for the Canadiens is that since the draft started, or at least since they had a canny GM, players like Couturier are only available through a deft trading hand or the old-fashioned way, with a bit of losing. Gauthier has shown his hand at the swaps already, and it ain’t deft, so that leaves the losing.


Could the Canadiens be a loser?

Last season the Canadiens made the playoffs by a single point thanks to an OT loss in the last game of the season. While that proved to be a critical point looking back on the conference finalist season, we should not forget that it could have been so different.

So what you say? Here’s what. Had the Canadiens missed a single point it would have been early misery for Habs fans this spring. But 14 points less and it gets really interesting – the Habs would have tied the maple Leafs in points and been in line for a top two pick in the NHl entry draft.

14 points is a lot in the NHL. But 14 points can escape quickly too.

Imagine Benoit Pouliot had not stormed the barricades upon his arrival, but rather settled into his Minnesota Wild and his latter Canadiens form. Imagine Sergei Kostitsyn had been banished on a permanent basis and the Canadiens toiled some more with Pacioretty and Maxwell. Imagine Gainey had insisted on giving Carey Price every on ice learning experience he could gather, while ignoring the value that time on the bench could bring. Imagine Andrei Markov had healed like a regular human with a completely severed tendon. Imagine the Habs hadn't won so many early season OT games as they did.

I’ll admit, it’s a lot of what ifs, and it doesn’t account for corrections that could and probably would have been made to make a salvage attempt for the season. But suffice to say, it wasn’t that far off.

So remembering all those what ifs, have a look at this upcoming season. Pouliot isn’t changing teams this year (yet) and may still be playoff Ben. Sergei is gone anyway, Pacioretty and Maxwell look due some time. There is no Halak to take starts away from Carey Price anymore. And, Andrei Markov is already injured, though he may be healing just as well as before. Everyone else is healthy as I write, but injury, late night whining on French language chat shows, is an inevitability, not a variable.

The 88-point Canadiens team that just made the playoffs last year could very well be outsiders this season, and they're not many slips away from a 14-point tumble. They could be a loser.


Could the Canadiens really be a loser?

Upstairs, I postulate that it is mathematically possible for the Canadiens to be a loser. 74 points is not out of the realm of possibility. 68 points either. The team as it stands is an 88-point team that traded its best player and looks to be relying on rookies and temperamental wingers to carry significant pressure.

But in Montreal mathematics means little. What matters more than that is tolerance for loss. The tolerance of fans, coach, GM and owners. Because the opening day Canadiens will not necessarily be the closing day Canadiens.

We know a bit about fan tolerance. It’s close to nil. If 2 losses can sway millions, imagine a hopeless February and March. Tolerance from Martin might not be at its height either. This isn’t Ottawa 1995, this could be Martin’s last stand and he’ll not relish the role of lottery leader. The same must be true of “interim” GM Gauthier. He’s inherited a job without test and has moved boldly to already put his own neck on the line. I’m not sure he could rationalize the losing to save his own hide. Finally, the owners. While it may be best to take a crack at lose-win cycle that works for other teams, it may not fit with the Molson vision for the Canadiens as a fat calf.

Decisions in a losing Montreal Canadiens organization rest on a hair trigger, with movement, perhaps at a great future cost, often seen as the perfect mean to relieve the dissonance.


Could you stomach a losing season?

For me there are two competing interests in my heart on this question. Ultimately, only the Cup remains as a goal. For one, I see the cold practicality of losing badly if the team is to lose at all (that is to miss the playoffs anyway). Juxtaposed with that is the memory that the 88-point Canadiens made the conference final and were beaten by the 89-point Flyers, mediocrity in the season means less in the arena of the playoffs. And seasons of pain don’t guarantee anything at all (hello Thrashers and Blue Jackets fans).

Still: “Leblanc. Leblanc remet a Couturier. Couturier contourne Orpik. Couturier a Dumont. Et le but.” You have to admit it has a certain ring.

What do you think?

The Canadiens Need A Rethink

The other night was a mess for the Canadiens. But of the many ways to lose, 6-0 is not the worst. In fact, Don Cherry joined many a fan in thinking that a drubbing may be just the medicine for the Canadiens to open this series. A call as to what they need to expect and how far they have yet to go.

It’s a theory I have heartily bought all my years. When rivals of equal measure meet, the lopsided defeat is often the sounding of the turnaround alarm. An OT defeat, as Cherry points out gives too much optimism, sometimes warranted, often not.

It is the binding hope of all Habs fans today that Pronger, Leighton, Carle and Gagne will be so sure of their plans and abilities that they’ll forget the Canadiens are allowed to play better. It is the hope fed by that win that Carcillo and Hartnell will be unleashed, listening no more to their coach (and restrainer) as they try to get in on the act, while taking their eye off the prize.

Not minutes after a rare meeting of minds between Cherry and me did Elliotte (still dying for someone to answer a question) Friedman chat with Daniel Briere in the hallway of the Wachovia underbelly.

It was there the spanner in the works. It was there I realized that the Canadiens must beware not Briere’s shot, but his realism. For, while he succeeded in pointing a screened effort into the top corner in the second, most shots do not go in. But realism in the face of what should be bald-faced optimism by all Flyers is disturbing.

Briere would not take the bait from Elliotte on Halak, though he did admit they had looked at tape. Briere instead chose to invoke luck and timing rather than take the heaps of credit 6-0 victors usually reserve for their celebrations. It was fortune that felled Halak and fortune that prevented an answer from the bleu, blanc, rouge.

Not taking credit is nothing new. Players often credit their teammates, their goalie or their coach for what has clearly been successful exploits of their own. Players too often thank their luck.

The problem here is, rarely do I believe them.

In Briere’s case, there was too much matter-of-fact to sense it was rehearsed. He believed what he said, or so I thought.


The hockey playoffs are a race to the finish line. Each series a heat where a competitor must outrun another to succeed to the next.

As a racer, I learned a lot about psychological advantage, mind games. Most competitors have a breaking point, the point at which a lead cannot be covered, a comeback unattainable. Most competitors also have the inverse, a comfort zone from which they can drive the whole affair. The games come in with the strategy; sometimes a racer will allow his rival to lead to exploit the comfort that the lead induces, conserving energy for the strike that takes the tape away.

We’ve seen already that both these teams are plucky. Neither will roll over and die if there is a shred to hang onto. If the Canadiens, like their fans and Don Cherry, hoped that lulling the Flyers into a sleepy series was their key, I think they’d better think again. If these Flyers look to Daniel Briere in the least, they are a focused bunch.

Come On Habs Fans Plenty of reason to be positive

If you watched the games this weekend, you'd be feeling down enough. But the Montreal media, the blogosphere and frothing pessimists have taken this 50-game mark as a definitive opportunity to kick all optimists while they're down.

I have to concede that we do join in the fun. In my case, I tried to limit the sucker punch to the area of your cranium reserved for feelings of pity and/or NHL forwards incapable of, well, going forward. But in general I think we try to portray our general and misguided optimism that once led us to believe the Habs would score 5 goals in 20 minutes to keep the playoff series against the Canes alive and still leads us to believe that anything is possible in 2010.

On that note, I direct all the pessimists to read the latest doom and gloom churned out from Pat Hickey and Eyes on the Prize. I invite all left (optimists, I presume) to consider all the good stuff ahead:


1) We won't need 93 points this year

A lot of articles point to the wins the Canadiens will need to achieve their 2009 point total which saw them into the playoffs on a tie-break. Don't believe the hype. Because the whole East has done a tremendous impression of the Southeast division this year, the West has won 96 of 170 contests. That means there are less points to actually go around.

Because some games are East vs. East, there are a minimum number or points left to be spread around us and our rivals. By my count the minimum is 392 points (or about 26 points each), but that would mean no OTLs and losing all games to the West form here. The maximum is 788 points (or 52 each), which means winning all Western games and going to OT each and every time out in intra-conference games – just as nonsensical.

Consider this, though, if trends continue as they've been going then there are 537 points to go around all Eastern teams. That means about 36 points each. If the Canadiens steal points over and above 36 from the right teams (or if Western teams, top Eastern or bottom Eastern teams do) then we're in like Flynn.

So banish 93. I won't promise 86 points will do it, but it could well suffice. 18 wins from 32 games doesn't seem impossible. Neither does 15-11-6...


2) More interesting games

I'm not only referring to Habs games here – those are always interesting. But maybe you'll all join me in becoming the newest big fans of New Jersey, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Washington and every Western team playing the East.

At the beginning of the year, I couldn't care less about Sabres v. Panthers or Caps v. Isles. But now these games take on a new sheen. If the Canadiens had put more points in the bank, what would I worry about when Sportscentre fires up on off days?


3) Some GMs are ready to take the dive

In Montreal, it's unheard of. Tank a season? No chance. But as parity is shown to be for the mediocre, teams that see little chance of Stanley's Cup may look to the lottery ball instead. Teams like Tampa who need more young core, Florida who can't alienate anymore fans and Hurricanes who might finally tank it properly all could go for it. We play these teams. We can win these games if they let us.


4) Teams will start playing their back-ups

It goes hand in hand with the above, but winning teams will also join the ranks. When planning for long runs of games and expected playoff workloads, back-up goalies start to see the light of day. If you were choosing teams to send Yann Danis against, wouldn't league worst in shots for look good? Ah, our clever ruse...


5) More features on Latendresse, Koivu and Kovalev

At first it seemed like we may miss our old friends, but as the Habs slip while others flourish (more or less), we get constant updates on how our departed heroes are doing. It makes it seem like they never left.


6) You can enjoy the Olympic hockey for the hockey

Imagine if you can being a Pens fan. The Olympics are a nightmare. First of all, your country entrusted player selection to a crack team of GMs who haven't seen the happy side of 90 points in some time. Next, all your best players are going and playing for countries you've barely heard of, let alone can point to on a map (Canada, Russia) and risk injuring themselves in a pursuit you don't understand.

The Habs have no such conundrum. Firstly, many players played poorly enough thus far to ensure a lengthy beach volleyball tournament will be their only chance at injury in late February. Secondly, what's the difference? The Olympic medal will be the only award anyone of the players gets a chance to look at this season. No one, after Pat Hickey has confirmed our doom, need worry about a twisted ankle ruining a Cup run.


So you see there's plenty to keep your spirits up. A few are reasons to believe this mediocrity will be enough, some that the mediocrity will bring benefits and then the final consolations of the Olympic tournament.

It's not as bad as the naysayers say. Keep the chins up Habs fans. Go Habs. Go.

Cue The Imitators

When Anaheim won the Cup in 2007, all those who had been convinced for so long that big and nasty equated with unbeatable were vindicated.

Then last year, Detroit won. So everyone was re-educated to realise that puck possession with a perfect specimen anchoring the D was the way to go.


Now this. Pittsburgh (or should I say Pittsburg Magnitogorsk) have proven the real way to win is different.

First you have to commit to 5 years of absolute futility. That will get you the 5 top 3 draft picks you need to build a team. Obviously, you need to be careful to time this so you don't get Kovalchuk and Stefan, but Malkin and Crosby. More helpful would be if you timed a lockout. That way, one season of losing gets you two top picks.

The next thing you have to do is fire the coach that got you to the final the year before and hire someone with no NHL experience. Not too early though. Probably February to be safe.

Next, name one of your first overall draft picks the captain the minute he steps onto the ice. If he's 18, all the better.

Make sure you scout Russians well -- they are the key You'll need a dominant one to be the best forward over the season and the playoffs. You could probably use one to be your best offensive defenceman and a feisty playoff winger that scores timely goals would be nice too (for flex we'll let you get away with former Soviet for now). This strategy is key, because when you're down, you'll find out how Russians can lift your team of indifferent Canadians with their long thirst for a sip from Stanley's mug.

For the rest of your team, don't fret too much. It doesn't matter. You can make trades for any Islander, because you have centres who've learned from the master at how to make anyone (Rob Brown) score. Depth is overrated, so you can make all the silly trades you want (provided you keep those 5 top picks). Just fill the holes with names.

Also, don't worry about losing too much as the draft picks start to come through. Don't get edgy when your fans stop coming and the team might fold. This is all part of the recipe. If you need money, get that player who you never paid his full salary the last time you were bankrupt and get him to chip in.

There you go, Cup in ten years time guaranteed.


What about Detroit?

Clearly made too many mistakes. Sticking with that discipline and patient system was a mistake. Can you believe they didn't fire their coach with all the signs they had (i.e., January turning into February)? And can you believe they signed the second leading playoff point-getter and goalscorer from the year prior (a known choker)? No one else was so stupid to offer him a contract.

All this franchise has done is shown us now how to be the #1 loser. How to be the ones crying on the ice when the Russian overlords parade the trophies. A smart team has been honing their golf together after their players return from playing for Denmark and Switzerland in the Worlds.


Quick, someone tell Brian Lawton before he trades that pick.


Mocking aside, congratulations to Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh fans (Darren). This makes the league more interesting - and more excruciating for a team trying to come out of the East.

Right On CuePundit Panic Button Pressed

They lost. They panicked:

Is it time to panic yet? (Arpon Basu):

Um, yeah, I would say so.

About last night... (Mike Boone)

I hate to sound like an alarmist, but YOUR MONTREAL CANADIENS ARE IN TROUBLE!

They are six points out of eighth place in the Eastern Conference – and eight points out of 10th.

Predictable as a Brisebois' zone clearance strategies.

Had they read yesterday's post: Streak Three; then the illuminated ones would know that steaks happen. Streaks are good and streaks have to be endured.

All this blowing up the roster BS is nonsense. Pittsburgh didn't blow up the roster, and mark my words, they will be in the playoffs – despite that nasty losing spell of theirs over the holidays. The Habs have solutions at their fingertips, and are just waiting for their timing to get them streaking the other way again.


Bandwagon

I have been tracking the website traffic for more than 2 years now and I have been compiling a fairly good study on the bandwagon. It's better data this year with more readers.

I can tell you fairly definitively that about half as many people are reading this site now compared to the heady days of our past winning streak. Of course, the hysteria of the playoffs (first round) is still the pinnacle of game review viewing).

If you are reading this post, on a day after the fourth loss in a row, you can rest assure you are a getting dangerously close to the core of Habs fandom.

Sorry I don't have it today, my correlational study on bandwagon traffic is in the statistical gears for the moment...


Benoit Brunet

It's not all optimist from me. I'm annoyed too. If Benoit Brunet claims one more time that what the Habs must do to erase a 2-goal deficit and vast margin in play:

"N'est pas complique"

I think i will explode. It is complicated Ben. The other teams have plans to beat us and we are getting foiled by them. Someone will work them out, but it won't be a matter of dumping the puck in.

That my friend is just about the single easiest play to defend.


It's complicated, but it ain't dire.

In the illustrious words of The Hitchiker's Guide: DON'T PANIC

ApologiesPrevious Post Is Messing With Me

I had written a nice long post for everyone, but putting it on the site makes the sidebar go all funny. I am trying to correct the problem right now.

[All sorted out now, was just an uncooperative header. The piece below is back online]


In the meantime, know that Habs fans are not alone. The formerly red hot Sabres and their fans are suffering too.

Nice to know others can overreact as well...

Habs losing – Overreacting for the cause

Canadiens uber-captain Saku Koivu has gained quite a bit of wisdom over a long NHL career so far. He's been the regular season scoring leader at times, playoff scoring leader at times, Olympic scoring leader at times, played on lines with 40 goalscorers, played on lines with defensemen, missed seasons, missed playoffs.

Anyway, he's got a lot of experience, both winning and losing, success and disappointment. So, I put a lot of weight on what he says. On the last game, Koivu had this to say:

"You can look at it two different ways. You have time to regroup and regain the focus but, after a poor game like (the one in New York), you'd like to get an opportunity right away tomorrow to bounce back."

While he said you can look at it two ways, his quote only actually gives us one way to see matters – the positive position.

The negative position, left unsaid, is the backlash that the team received from everyone, including us here (guilty), about that loss on Saturday night. With a day to cool, I find myself on the same wavelength as our captain – sometimes a loss can be a good thing – the important thing is the way you respond.

In my opinion, a blowout is a better way to lose than a close battle. Why? Because after a blowout, players need to really question the way they do things, make real adjustments, listen to their coaches. There is no consoling yourself after a blowout, no palatable excuses. That doesn't mean everything should be changed. Far from it. Only that the game should be analysed, errors considered and ideas generated to take things forward.


Then, there's the media response.

We (Tobalev and I) have always maintained that the Habs will be losing a lot of games this year. There was never any inkling that this would be a record-breaking regular season. So, we try not to overdo the headlines after a loss (like some of the meltdown headers I've been seeing). I do, however, have a new theory as to why others do:

The writers (press, etc.), actually get bored of winning and the headlines that go with it.

As such, I think if the Habs lose after points in 10 games in a row, the people following the team are absolutely bursting to use terms like meltdown, disaster, no-show, etc. After all, there is much more to write about when the team loses. We can write about changes, about what we think is going wrong, about Brisebois.

My initial response is to call the response an overreaction, because that's what it is sometimes. But then I thought, it's not necessarily a bad thing at all. In fact, in many ways, I think it will compound the effect of what may have otherwise been a forgivable loss. The media can contribute to the loop and ensure that the self-analysis happens throughout the roster. Overreaction for the cause, so to speak.


I for one, am willing to accept the challenge of finding things to write about through the winning. I don't need the losing for material (you may all have a different opinion on that...). And, now I am anxious to see what the Habs will do next game and whether I will have to write a thank you to the media for creating an impetus for 2 points.

Based on what Koivu has said, I predict that the response from the players will be noticeable to us watching when they take to the ice vs. the Islanders.

Overtime losing has it's benefits

Robert L at Eyes on the Prize has the sneaking suspicion that the Habs recored may be fooling everyone into thinking they are better than they are.

Well, he's right isn't he?

Overtime losses do skew the results a little, but I would like to point out a few reasons we should at least be optimistic about the Habs:

1) Many of their OTLs were actually shootout losses. So they didn't actually lose those games. Let's say they tied, with the opponents getting a bonus point. The Canadiens are 2-5 in the shootout, so let's say then that they are 17-13-2 with 5 ties and 2 bonus points. As you can see it's above .500 in actual game play.


2) As much as we dislike them, OTLs do count for points. As I've harped on and on about, in the end points are all that matter in the regular season. I would rather get a point for losing and have a skewed feeling about where we stand than not. I bet the Islanders and Leafs didn't mind beating us last year on the strength of 5 and 6 more OTLs each.

3) Nothing is more disheartening than a 4-0 loss. So, any game that goes to OT is a game we played well enough (or almost) to win. 26/39 is very good in that light. Take into account there were a few games lost before OT that the Habs could have won, then the picture looks alright. Of course, most Eastern teams could do the same exercise for a feel good exercise, but that's why you go back to Point 2 (above) and give less credence to rationalizations like this and more to concrete points.

4) The Habs have 19 wins out of 39. If points were only awarded for winning, we would still be in playoff striking range (T8).

5) The Habs are just below the pace for 96 points (94.6 to be exact). With 3 points in the next 2 games, the Canadiens would be halfway to a 96-point season – the very target I set out. I think we'd all agree that 96 points would be a success and a good step towards improvement and possible playoff success.

Come on Habs fans. Chins up. The kids are alright...

Montreal Canadiens 5-Game Review (#5)

[Montreal Canadiens 5 Game Review takes a look at the last 5 games from an objective standpoint, with tabulations from Tobalev's game reports]

Date: Saturday, December 1st, 2007


The last 5

Opponents: New York Islanders, Buffalo, Buffalo, Toronto, New Jersey

Record: 2-3-0
Home record: 0-1-0
Away record: 2-2-0

How it happened: W - L - L - W - L

Goals for: 9
Goals against: 15

Conference ranking (Season): 5
Conference ranking (5 games - i.e., 11/19 to 11/30): T9





Stack of pucks

Alex Kovalev (7)

Cristobal Huet (4)










Play of the set
Contender for play of the year...

A simple demonstration of how to score from somewhere other than the point on the PP (The 2006/07 may have used this to better effect and made the playoffs had they not forgotten they were allowed to pass elsewhere):

Kovalev was in good control of the puck on the PP at his usual right-wing, half-board position. He saucered a pass to Markov at the left point. Markov faked the shot and slid it right back to the un-marked Kovalev. Having the whole Toronto defence as well as Toskala committed to Markov's shot bought Alex some time. He, however, used none of the extra time given to him as he unloaded a top-corner, far-side, one-timer to put us on the scoreboard.

See the play (within the game highlights).



5-game domers

F: Begin (1/5); Kostitsyn (2/5); Kovalev(4/5)

D: Hamrlik (3/5); Markov (3/5)

G: Huet (3/5)








Kovalev's 5-game Assessment - Good

Was starting to lose sight of the rest of his team, so he's come down a few hundred feet. Would be happier with a copilot. Anyone?




Scoring and statistics (Top 5 over 5):

Goalscorers: Kovalev, Plekanec, Higgins, Begin (2); Latendresse (1)

Point-getters: Kovalev, Higgins, Smolinski (3); Plekanec, Koivu, Markov, Streit, Dandenault, Brisebois (2)

Shooters: Kovalev (18); Ryder (17); Higgins (16); Streit (13); Hamrlik, Begin (12)

+/-: Brisebois, Begin, Bouillon (+1); Hamrlik, Latendresse, Kostitsyn, Grabovski, Gorges (0)

GAA: Huet (1.52); Price (3.26)
Save %: Huet (.962); Price (.906)

On Brisebois

I've always had a little bit of trouble explaining exactly what it is about Brisebois I dislike so much.

You know, I can live with a player who gives the puck away. I can live with a player who is not strong enough to win the puck on the boards, or clear the zone. Goodness knows we all lived with a whole corps of them for many of the past 15 years.


No, with Brisebois, it's always been the way he reacts to losing the puck, to passing it directly to the opposition.

I watched his interview today on RDS, and, to give him credit, he comes across as a very well-spoken player with a good idea of his place on the team at the moment. But there was one moment that ruined the whole interview for me, made me remember exactly what it is about him I can't stand; and why, ultimately (despite his articulate and mature take on things), I would like to see the back of number 71 before Xmas if possible.

The moment comes at a point when he is speaking about his racing. The question is put to him about the differences between racing and hockey. Then the interviewer implies that despite those, the two are probably very similar because of the aspect of team play.

Patrice responds, as if not hearing the bit about similarities, and explains why he likes racing because in the car, he is the only one in control, he is the only one who determines the outcome. In hockey, he states (and I'm paraphrasing and embellishing a tiny bit here) the team plays a more important part in the individual’s game:

"Sometimes when your partner on defense is not ready, he can make you look like a fool..."

?!?!?

It's that hands in the air time again – Rivet didn't cover for me, Quintal didn't cover the man in front, Bouillon pinched too far – they made me look like a fool.

This is what I dislike about him: how he plays the victim, fails to take the blame. And, most importantly, because of that dismissive attitude, doesn't take the necessary steps to learn from his mistakes.

Just thought I'd explain that. If you want, watch for yourself.

A New Season: A New Attitude

Hi all, I'm back from the Greek Isles and ready to sit down and watch this season unfold. As it's the first season of Habs hockey behind the keyboard for me, I have taken the time to consider how to approach each game, each win, each loss.

I used to be like nearly everyone and getting probably a little over-excited after each win and over-exasperated after each loss. But, my rethink led me to the conclusion that what I am after is a Cup. I want to recreate the exhileration that I took for granted in 1986, 1989 (most of the way...) and 1993. I want to see this team win the Cup. That's it.


I'm not here for 82 regular season victories and 3 playoff round sweeps if it ends in a summer sans Cup. That's why I'm taking the practical approach - 96 points, however and whenever they want to get them. Building and learning to be a Cup winner, not a playoff attendee (Atlanta).

So, how about this start?
From my point of view: good. 3 points from 2 games is better than the pace we need to keep to get it done.

I also don't mind the loss. To the Leafs - even better in a way.

Am I crazy?

The Leafs got 2 points, we lost to a division rival. Very true.

But, in my opinion, this team has more than a few things to learn before they can win a Cup. And as painful as it may be for all of us sitting on tenderhooks night after night, players will inevitably do their best learning after a loss. Why is that? Human nature, maybe. Coaching nature, perhaps.

I'm not sure how many have been able to catch a bit of the Rugby World Cup in France (Canadian TV is making it hard enough for anyone to do that). It's been fantastic, and in many ways proves the point here. Each rugby team played 4 round-robin games to qualify for the second round; and, each game was separated by a significant number of days in between. The teams that came to the tournament in top form (New Zealand and Australia) played very well in their first games and cruised through the rest. Others came in and slipped (France, England) but tweaked their approach and most importantly their attitudes. Well France and England play each other next week after both putting in upsets of top sides NZ and Australia, respectively. Had it not been for their earlier losses, I don't see how those upsets could have occurred.

It is the same way with the Canadiens, a painful loss to the Leafs. Giving up the lead in the third. Losing in OT. These are all unforgiveable errors. All things that they need to work on. This game put that into focus. A few more losses will reveal the size of these holes as well as others. Review of the game will lead to creative solutions. And, over time, given the players want to improve, they will.

Even the miracle 93 Habs knew this, taking a couple of devastating lessons in Quebec before setting off down to Buffalo, Long Island and LA. At the time, I wish they'd have learned a few things about scoring on QC in the regular season instead though.

I'm not quite at the point of hoping for losses, but as the Habs inevitably lose a few (there are many losses even in a 96 point season), I'll be calmer this year. Mybe not as calm as the gang on 110%, but hey, I'll try.

Canadiens loss is good news

Two games down. A win and a loss.

With the first loss, we all went from full analysis of every aspect of the game to it's only exhibition season in 48 hours. The media (which would now include bloggers read a lot more frequently than myself) is driving all Habs fans into frenzy with a headline and cherry-picked quote driven campaign.



Fair enough. Newspapers need to get more and more sensational to attract readers. They go way beyond the reporting of yesteryear and stretch for interesting twists and stories within the games that often just aren't there.

If we only look at the headlines, the cuts for the Canadiens camp would be simple. One group turned up, won the game and talked about intensity in every game, even in September. The other group, well they lost a "meaningless" game, but let's be honest, they could all just be cut right?

Canadiens fans, media and bloggers are bgetting a bit carried away this pre-season, I feel. I think Canadiens fans need to get their feet on the ground. Cup dreaming is one thing in late May and June, quite another after a single game in September.

There's no question players should approach every game with intensity and designs as to how they will win. But the wonderful thing about sports is that, on most occasions, both teams do this every night - giving us the spectacle of the game. A team that looks outplayed may well (dare I say) have played to the best of their abilities with full 100% (no 110% here) effort. Sometimes, our beloved Habs may lose to a better team.

By most assessments, and a recently-completed 82-game season, the Penguins are a better team. Beating them anywhere close to 50% of the time is an anomaly, and a great success. I'm not suggesting the players approach games with this inferiority on their minds; I am, however, suggesting that fans keep it in mind in undertaking their analyses. As fans, these exhibition games offer a chance to see what we're in for this season and prepare for some winning and some losing.


So losing is OK?

I, for one, happen to think that loss last night was a very good thing. And, not because it made decisions for cuts any easier. But, because some important lessons would have been learned by the coaches and players.

Don't try to lose... there's nothing to learn from that.

Change centremen and wingers around - find the best combinations.
Try new things on the PP - learn that they don't work.
Start the playoff goalie when he's tired - find out how much he can take.
Resist making a trade to fill a hole - see if the others step in.


The perspective I try to take is that the game the Canadiens are in is the Stanley Cup game, and only one team wins every year. There are five big stages in the game, with many little points to be won along the way.

Looking at past seasons, and excluding a league-wide OT loss conspiracy, a team should be looking at 95-100 points to assure comfortable qualification for the playoffs (stage 1). So, basically we are looking for 45 odd wins, and hanging on for a few OT losses. Let's assume (45 wins and 5 OT losses) – that leaves 32 losses (the horror).

Getting past stage 1 is relatively easy with a bit of concentration – win a few more than half your games, and steal a few points along the way. Winning the next four stages is hard. Better get the lessons in while you can (i.e., now!).

We all need to learn that not every game is do or die. Win when winning is there for the taking, and learn from the losses. Most games (i.e., more than 60 I'd say) are winnable up to the last 10 minutes. To win a Cup, the Canadiens need to build a resilient and adaptable group of players who read from the same page. This is how an unbeatable force gets built, not through trades, not through free agency.

If you want to boil it down, how about this (as stolen from the 2004 Flames): Let's never get beaten two games in a row.