This thread is for all things womens Olympic hockey.
Interesting first period, but the US is down 2-1. The game didn't start good for the US when Ruggerio committed a trunover right in front of the US goalie, and Fins go up 1-0. US women battled back to tie it at 1-1, but the Fins get another goal to take the lead. No panic on the US, as it looks more and more like they are starting to play their game and put lots of pressure on Finland. One thing for sure, is the Fins are gonna get tired sooner or later, as by and large they are being outplayed, with the second period coming up. Personally I am not worried yet as the US is getting lots of chances.

Incidentally congratulations to the Canadian women who beatup Sweden 8-1 today.

Lets GO USA!!!!

US comes from behind to take a hard fought 7-3 win over Finland this evening. US scored 5 unanswered goals in the 3rd and the wheels came off Finland. Cool note: Ruggerio more than made up her first period giveaway which gave the Fin women a 1-0 lead. Next up, Sweden on Friday. Way to go girls!!! Sidenote: I would say almost half of this game was played on a power play and/or penalty kill, and there were at least 3 5 on 3's called, as the Ref. called anything and everything. I really don't care for the difference in rules in the Olympics where as no body contact is allowed. Just my 2 cents worth.

[ February 14, 2006, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

It's not an Olympic rule -- it's only the women who can't bodycheck.

Body check or body contact, really is there a difference? I guess if you don't have the puck and make contact, then you get a penalty.

This game was a special teams event and I hated it. I can't stand when each team goes on the PP or PK every other minute, disrupts the flow of a game and just isn't entertaining.

The US women were in shock for two periods and were outplayed for the most part. This is the first time I have been able to see them play, and I thought after the 2nd period, we're supposed to compete with Canada with this team? I don't think so! LOL

Then the 3rd period came along and what a difference that made. I can see THAT team playing against Canada for the Gold medal. Gunn didn't have a great game in net, but I've seen her stand on her head before and we'll need her to play like that in the final game. The Fin goaltender was very good in this game, stopping point blank shots time and again. Thought she might have a career game and beat the US, though it didn't happen.

On to play Sweden on Friday and that isn't a very good team. I've seen them play twice now and we'll handle them easy.

Bring on Canada for Gold! It's our turn to shine.

Almost forgot to post this, the captain of the US team is a great player! Did you see her stick handle around 3 defenders and get a shot on net? Whoa!

She's got speed, mad skills and a ton of ability. Glad she is playing for us.

#7 is her #, but I don't recall her name. Werner?? Started with a W

Countdown to the 12:00pm game against Latvia today with the US Men, on MSNBC.

Lets Go USA!!

Men's team? I thought this thread was for all things women's hockey? wink

So I screwed up a bit this morning......been one of those here. wink Thank goodness for our moderator.

[ February 15, 2006, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

Being a big hockey fan, and having a lot of respect for both the US and Canadian Women's skill, it pains me to ask this, BUT, should Women's hockey be an Olympic sport at this time, when so little of the world can play it at a top level?

I'm not saying it should be dropped, but I do ponder the fact that a sport in the Olympics should have a decent world following. There is a reason Aussie Rules Football, or Netball, which is big down-under, isn't an Olympic sport.

12-zip, 16-zip. At least, how about a mercy rule?

Yes, there was a time when men's hockey was in the same boat (the news said Canada once won an Olympic game 38-0) But the sport grew. The question is, should it be an Olympic sport while it grows? Comments?

Well, Chuck, I think a similar argument was made about having women's hockey in college awhile back. The response was that having a level to play hockey beyond high school would improve the talent and give some motivation to stick with the sport. It seems to have worked, as college women's hockey is more competitive now than when it debuted. There will be more foreign players coming to play at U.S. colleges, and when they go back home to play for their national teams, it will raise the overall talent level.

I don't think the scores from any of Italy's games should even be a matter of discussion. They got into the tournament because they were the host nation. Those scores are not indicative of the overall skill level. Russia got crushed by Canada too (12-0), but they haven't funded their women's program very well. Their men's team isn't nearly as good as it used to be either.

I'd say give them another couple of Olympics, and then evaluate the game. It takes time to develop the talent pipeline.

It's a very legitimate question. I have been talking to some of my hockey friends about that very same thing. There is Canada for the gold and probably the US for the silver. After that, I have seen nothing. Since the women's tournament got going first, I've seen more of they than the men. There is poor shooting and poor goaltending. The penalties are crazy... Consistent cross-checks and hooks when the puck is nowhere near... I was really hoping that countries like Sweden, Finland, and Germany had finally caught up to make these games competitive. But, nothing... Why don't they save time and money and let the US and Canada play for the gold, and let the rest play in a tournament for the bronze?

What I find interesting is seeing the reaction the IOC and countries feel in regards to a sport that is dominated by one or two countries.... softball and baseball were axed from the program when the rest of the world was getting closer to the U.S. in softball....

We will see what happens in hockey....

Todd--the captain's name is Krissy Wendell. She attended the University of Minnesota, and also is only 24 years old.

Here's the link to her bio: http://www.nbcolympics.com/athletes/505826...266/detail.html

Am I the only one who's been paying attention to the US Women's Hockey Team?

Call me skeptical (just don't call me late for dinner....) but if the two dominant nations weren't the US and Canada, do you think women's hockey would be an Olympic sport? Let's imagine the two powers were Liechtenstein and Andorra, neither of which provide the Olympics with the amount of money the US does, would the IOC endorse the sport?

I think this also explains why sports like freestyle skiing and half-pipe--invented in the US--are recent additions to the Olympics. We rule!! wink By the way, it just doesn't seem like a womens' hockey game without Cami Granato.

~Adam

[ February 15, 2006, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Adam ]

Couple of thoughts about the question of women's hockey as a medal sport at the Olympics:

1. Historical example. Basketball. From 1936 to 1984, the US earned gold in every Olympics except in '80 when the US boycotted. (The US was denied the gold in '72 due to terrible officiating.) Yet by 2000, Vince Carter was raising his finger for #1 after the US beat Lithuania in a game in Sydney. It took time, but the sport became competitive at the Olympics, even with US pro players competing. As mentioned before, men's hockey was similar (Canada and the Soviet Union dominated). Women's hockey could follow that track.

2. I thought the Olympic planners were committed to providing more opportunities for women to compete. Adding a women's version of a team sport certainly increases the number of women competing at the Olympics. I realize that doesn't answer the Q about women's hockey, but the winter Olympics have limited opportunities for team sports.

3. I accept the inclusion of "new" events. For me, the question would be more significant regarding its being a sport or a competition. Both of the new events mentioned are judged events. While I enjoy watching them, adding more judged events is shakier. Straight up athletic competition of scoring more goals/baskets/runs, or run/skating/swimming faster, or jumping higher, etc., is easier to recognize. But the Winter Olympics has a number of classic events that are judged, figure skating and ski jumping for example, and they have held up over time. There should be room for dudes at the Olympics.

Adam, I completely agree! I just caught the US teams last game and during the first two periods, I thought to myself, did Cammy Granato suddenly suck worse then what I'm seeing here?

She was the heart and soul of the team and until the 3rd period, I wondered why she wasn't in a USA uniform.

Friday's semifinals:

11 a.m. USA vs. Sweden on USA Network
3 p.m. Canada vs. Finland on MSNBC

As has been stated many times wink , no one expects anything but a USA-Canada final.

does any one here happen to know if any of the woman on the usa hockey team are out? i really would have to think at least 25% must be.

25 percent? Are you one of those people who think all female athletes are lesbians?

Anyway, there aren't any Olympic athletes in any sport who are known for a fact to be out.

Not counting the grrrls I've bumped into at gay/lesbian bars in Montreal. Not that that means anything. wink

Edit: I said "cunting" instead of "counting." Freudian, much? Moi?

[ February 16, 2006, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Seph ]

Spoiler alert!!!
Don't read if you have taped the game.
Talk about a time screwup.( my fault) I just happened to turn on the TV on USA and were are late into overtime then go into a shootout where the Swedes have defated the US in a shootout!!
Well I am just stunned right now. Ruggerio had no less than 2 shots as one was disqaulified for some reason, and she still couldn't get it by the Swedish goalie who was spectacular.
Big, big, big disappointment for the US ladies as Canada will go on to play Sweden for the gold. Congrats to the Swedish women hockey team, and for the US women, you tried hard, but it just wasn't meant to be today. I am stunned.

[ February 17, 2006, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

this was quite the upset, and it was signed Martin (the Swedish goalie). She was awesome.

It's great for women's hockey because they've been facing so much criticism because only 2 teams apparently have a shot at the gold and silver medals.. wink

When you have a hot goalie, anything can happen. Anything except beating Canada in the finals though, i seriously don't think Sweden will have any chance of winning that one.

On french TV they said Ruggeiri (sp?) got a second shot in the shootout because the goalie was apparently out of the net way too early on the first shot (no, that doesn't make sense).
:confused:

It is good for the sport since having only 2 teams dominate gets boring and hurts growth. The US blew a 2-0 lead and made 0 shots in the penalty shot.

There wasn't much chatter from any of the US players afterwards, and I can understand why. But one of them thought they got a bit too "fancy" while leading 2-0. I just wonder if they caught themselves thinking past this game already to playing Canada. Guess we will never know. I am still stunned. I give the Swedes no chance against the power of Canada. But I will be watching the Canadian women here in 15 minutes though in their game today.

How long was the overtime period? A full 20 minutes, I hope.

That shootout is a terrible way to decide a game -- I've been saying that through the whole NHL season -- and especially an important game. Certainly a great win for Sweden, though.

It was 10 minutes.

And that's what happens when you don't run up the score.

Well, it does show that the critics who said women's hockey shouldn't be in the Olympics because there are only 2 competitive teams. I never felt that was really a good argument anyway, because you wouldn't have had men's hockey in the Olympics either...Canada had very little competition in the first few Olympics.

From a column in today's Phila. Daily News:

Ray Ferraro on NBC just ripped Ben Smith as well for not having the best players on the team -- after first making the disclaimer that Cammie Granato is his wife and saying "I emotionally tried to separate myself from" the disappointment over her being cut from the team.

Not only was she cut from the team, but I remember reading in The Hockey News that it was done in such a classless way that Cammie Granato could barely talk about it. Team USA wanted to move in a new direction. Well, they did...

Yes they did, in the wrong direction. frown

One has to ponder the question if Granato's skills had deterioted to the point that she wasn't any better than the team we selected.

That said, I cannot believe that she doesn't have the skills to be on this team. Let's face it, there are two really skilled forwards, Parsons and Wendell and the rest are retreads. Rugerio is good too, but she was playing mostly defense for the games.

Gunn was supposed to be a stellar goaltender, who was to backstop the US for a long time. The only thing I saw was a weak netminder who couldn't get the job done. The game against Finland, she was awful and played so so against Sweden. We had no shot at Canada in the Gold medal round with this team, so maybe Sweden can pull their own miracle on ice 2006.

I don't know why the coach likes the umbrella power play set up. They have a blistering shot in Rugerio from the point, so get some bodies in front!

Unless we get some new and talented ladies playing USA hockey, we won't have much to talk about in the coming years.

[ February 19, 2006, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Todd ]

I guess we get the bronze medal game today between Finland and the US, as far as I know. Would any one else not be too surprised if the US lost it today?

Good news, Tom! We are up 3-0 in the first period with time still remaining. I highly doubt they lose two in a row and better bring home the bronze medal.

I see the coach took my advise and deciding shooting from the point is a good thing and it scored our first goal!

We should be on the podium, but I am rooting for Sweden to pull the biggest upset of women's hockey! Go Sweden!

There are indeed lots of signs of life with the US women Todd, which is good to see and heartwarming. US is overpowering Finland in many area so far. Lets go Ladies!!!