Albert Lea at Virginia 1/8/10
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
bluedevils
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:02 am
-
mnhockeynemn
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:14 pm
- Location: Hockeytown, USA
-
gophers101
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:10 pm
-
bluedevils
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:02 am
-
mnhockeynemn
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:14 pm
- Location: Hockeytown, USA
bluedevils wrote:Virginia 5
Albert Lea 3
Virginia came out flat in the first.
Each team had a shorthanded goal in the second.
Albert Lea led 3-2 after the second.
Virginia came from behind in the third with 2 power play goals (5 on 3 and 5 on 4)
Your right,Albert Lea had two pucks in the net in the first minute luckily they were off side on the first one.Virgina needs to step up their defense on their first line. They miss Krebsbach who as been sidelined for the past 2 weeks.They need their 2nd line to step up and put the puck in the net.Their 3rd line needs more ice time.Can't play the 1st line to death.
The game was a lot closer then the final score.
-
bluedevils
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:02 am
virginia made a change we heard after the second period, # 10 chesseer went on the first line with hendrickson and #3 one of the judnicks . made a HUGE difference for the team, line performed like they should. shoulda done that when they played over here game coulda been closer.bluedevils wrote:Shots wereryno44 wrote:Bluedevils-
whats were the shots?
Virginia 35
Albert Lea 14
-
bluedevils
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:02 am
Closer than 5-4???????boblee#2 wrote:virginia made a change we heard after the second period, # 10 chesseer went on the first line with hendrickson and #3 one of the judnicks . made a HUGE difference for the team, line performed like they should. shoulda done that when they played over here game coulda been closer.bluedevils wrote:Shots wereryno44 wrote:Bluedevils-
whats were the shots?
Virginia 35
Albert Lea 14
Yes it would've made a difference, but it was a close game!
Can't Hide Blue Pride
-
PuckRanger
- Posts: 1829
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:15 am
- Location: Iron Range
- Contact:
Let's get real here, folks...mentor wrote:...The game was a lot closer then the final score.
While the score was close, the play certainly wasn't. Virginia held a HUGE edge in play territorially and more than doubled up the shots on goal. Virginia just simply failed to cash in on their chances in the first two periods. If they had, this game probably would have been put into running time.
Albert Lea scored on their first shot of the game from behind the net 24 seconds in. They only put 6 more shots on goal in the rest of the first period, which was by far their best period.
Albert Lea then scored on a shorthanded break in the 2nd period. One of only 3 shots they put on goal in that period.
Virginia outscored Albert Lea 4-1 in the third, and again Albert Lea scored on one of just four shots on goal (two of which Marka put on goal from his own zone a few seconds apart in the first couple minutes).
Albert Lea really had no business being in the game, let alone leading in the third period. Goaltending, a lucky bounce, and two opportunistic goals made it look close, but it wasn't. Other than a few spurts in the first period, Albert Lea didn't put on any sustained pressure at all. Actual scoring chances were probably along the lines of 20 to 5 in favor of Virginia.
-
gophers101
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:10 pm
It sounds like Virginia has rotten goaltending. Albert Lea is not very good and Virginia dominating play doesn't surprise me one bit but again poor goaltending will make games closer than they truly are.PuckRanger wrote:Let's get real here, folks...mentor wrote:...The game was a lot closer then the final score.
While the score was close, the play certainly wasn't. Virginia held a HUGE edge in play territorially and more than doubled up the shots on goal. Virginia just simply failed to cash in on their chances in the first two periods. If they had, this game probably would have been put into running time.
Albert Lea scored on their first shot of the game from behind the net 24 seconds in. They only put 6 more shots on goal in the rest of the first period, which was by far their best period.
Albert Lea then scored on a shorthanded break in the 2nd period. One of only 3 shots they put on goal in that period.
Virginia outscored Albert Lea 4-1 in the third, and again Albert Lea scored on one of just four shots on goal (two of which Marka put on goal from his own zone a few seconds apart in the first couple minutes).
Albert Lea really had no business being in the game, let alone leading in the third period. Goaltending, a lucky bounce, and two opportunistic goals made it look close, but it wasn't. Other than a few spurts in the first period, Albert Lea didn't put on any sustained pressure at all. Actual scoring chances were probably along the lines of 20 to 5 in favor of Virginia.
-
PuckRanger
- Posts: 1829
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:15 am
- Location: Iron Range
- Contact:
I wouldn't say that... The first goal of this game might have been considered a little soft - but it did appear to deflect in off a defenseman's skate. However, the other two were pretty much due to the defense getting caught flat-footed out at the blue line, which resulted in a player skating in all alone on the goaltender. Tough to blame the goalie on those.gophers101 wrote:It sounds like Virginia has rotten goaltending. Albert Lea is not very good and Virginia dominating play doesn't surprise me one bit but again poor goaltending will make games closer than they truly are.PuckRanger wrote:Let's get real here, folks...mentor wrote:...The game was a lot closer then the final score.
While the score was close, the play certainly wasn't. Virginia held a HUGE edge in play territorially and more than doubled up the shots on goal. Virginia just simply failed to cash in on their chances in the first two periods. If they had, this game probably would have been put into running time.
Albert Lea scored on their first shot of the game from behind the net 24 seconds in. They only put 6 more shots on goal in the rest of the first period, which was by far their best period.
Albert Lea then scored on a shorthanded break in the 2nd period. One of only 3 shots they put on goal in that period.
Virginia outscored Albert Lea 4-1 in the third, and again Albert Lea scored on one of just four shots on goal (two of which Marka put on goal from his own zone a few seconds apart in the first couple minutes).
Albert Lea really had no business being in the game, let alone leading in the third period. Goaltending, a lucky bounce, and two opportunistic goals made it look close, but it wasn't. Other than a few spurts in the first period, Albert Lea didn't put on any sustained pressure at all. Actual scoring chances were probably along the lines of 20 to 5 in favor of Virginia.
As I said before, it was just a couple of opportunistic goals and pretty good goaltending on the Albert Lea side that made it appear close. The biggest issue from a Virginia standpoint was their inability to cash in on some pretty good scoring chances. Those three goals wouldn't have looked like much if Virginia had a 10 on their side of the scoreboard.
