Quote:
Originally Posted by dauls
The 4-on-4 rule had something to do with the exciting hockey we saw during overtime. Maybe 4-on-4 is the future of the NHL. 
All the expectation on Crosby's shoulders, I suppose it was obvious that he'd score the winner and become a national hero. But he needs at least another 5 years in the NHL and a couple more Stanley Cups before anyone should even start to compare him with Gretzky.
I was out earlier today and had to record the game (set the timer to overrun by 90 minutes to make sure I caught any OT or a shootout). The curse of the dreaded 2-0 lead almost struck again. What is it about not hanging onto 2-0 leads? And finally 2-2 with only twenty-four seconds left, it's more like a Hollywood movie than an Olympic final, though in the movie the USA would've scored the OT goal.
Thankfully today was the first Canada match when my 'favourite' commentator didn't use his "Nash, Crosby but no Stills" joke.   |
I like the 4-on-4 rule, too. It made for an amazing OT.
dauls, you left something out of the Hollywood movie. There would have been some invented connection between Team Canada and either Russian spies or Al-Quaeda. Otherwise, simply beating the team from the north (which, after all, many stupid Americans think is just a very cold part of the USA) wouldn't have been very interesting.
As for the "Nash, Crosby, but no Stills" guy, he needs to spend some time in a jail cell with David Crosby. That would shut him up fast.