Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's definitely a take, anyway. One team plays better for 3 quarters, the other for 1 and loses, and the latter showed they were the better team?Anonymous wrote:My take on the Madison/battlefield game.
BF: strong goalie play and aggressive defense. Good clears and opportunistic in transition. They were a complete team last night.
JMHS: for the first three quarters madison stunk up the joint. Terrible goalie play, unorganized defense, poor shooting and failed clears. Madison had all the markings of a team that was unready.
Madison showed in the 4th Quarter that they were the better team. I have no doubt if there was a fifth quarter Madison would have won. However, terrible first half performance put them in a hole that only battlefield mistakes could have gotten them out of. And Battlefield did not make mistakes last night.
Madison has had a great run, and probably has more in store for the future.
Not a bad write up, BUT I would say that Battlefield let them back in the game. This would have been a 4 goal win, if not for a 2 min non releasable on the BF starting goalie. (No slight to the G, as he plays fantastic)
If Madison does not have the man up and NR- they may not get two goals there and we are talking about a 4pt win. I would not say they showed they are a better team, as you are supposed to score with man up and score multiple with 2min NR. I would say they took advantage of a situation and capitalized on it.
What was penalty (just curious), not trying to pile on at all but more curious if it was in crease or slashing outside crease (NRs on goalies not that frequent..)?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's definitely a take, anyway. One team plays better for 3 quarters, the other for 1 and loses, and the latter showed they were the better team?Anonymous wrote:My take on the Madison/battlefield game.
BF: strong goalie play and aggressive defense. Good clears and opportunistic in transition. They were a complete team last night.
JMHS: for the first three quarters madison stunk up the joint. Terrible goalie play, unorganized defense, poor shooting and failed clears. Madison had all the markings of a team that was unready.
Madison showed in the 4th Quarter that they were the better team. I have no doubt if there was a fifth quarter Madison would have won. However, terrible first half performance put them in a hole that only battlefield mistakes could have gotten them out of. And Battlefield did not make mistakes last night.
Madison has had a great run, and probably has more in store for the future.
Not a bad write up, BUT I would say that Battlefield let them back in the game. This would have been a 4 goal win, if not for a 2 min non releasable on the BF starting goalie. (No slight to the G, as he plays fantastic)
If Madison does not have the man up and NR- they may not get two goals there and we are talking about a 4pt win. I would not say they showed they are a better team, as you are supposed to score with man up and score multiple with 2min NR. I would say they took advantage of a situation and capitalized on it.
What was penalty (just curious), not trying to pile on at all but more curious if it was in crease or slashing outside crease (NRs on goalies not that frequent..)?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's definitely a take, anyway. One team plays better for 3 quarters, the other for 1 and loses, and the latter showed they were the better team?Anonymous wrote:My take on the Madison/battlefield game.
BF: strong goalie play and aggressive defense. Good clears and opportunistic in transition. They were a complete team last night.
JMHS: for the first three quarters madison stunk up the joint. Terrible goalie play, unorganized defense, poor shooting and failed clears. Madison had all the markings of a team that was unready.
Madison showed in the 4th Quarter that they were the better team. I have no doubt if there was a fifth quarter Madison would have won. However, terrible first half performance put them in a hole that only battlefield mistakes could have gotten them out of. And Battlefield did not make mistakes last night.
Madison has had a great run, and probably has more in store for the future.
Not a bad write up, BUT I would say that Battlefield let them back in the game. This would have been a 4 goal win, if not for a 2 min non releasable on the BF starting goalie. (No slight to the G, as he plays fantastic)
If Madison does not have the man up and NR- they may not get two goals there and we are talking about a 4pt win. I would not say they showed they are a better team, as you are supposed to score with man up and score multiple with 2min NR. I would say they took advantage of a situation and capitalized on it.
What was penalty (just curious), not trying to pile on at all but more curious if it was in crease or slashing outside crease (NRs on goalies not that frequent..)?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's definitely a take, anyway. One team plays better for 3 quarters, the other for 1 and loses, and the latter showed they were the better team?Anonymous wrote:My take on the Madison/battlefield game.
BF: strong goalie play and aggressive defense. Good clears and opportunistic in transition. They were a complete team last night.
JMHS: for the first three quarters madison stunk up the joint. Terrible goalie play, unorganized defense, poor shooting and failed clears. Madison had all the markings of a team that was unready.
Madison showed in the 4th Quarter that they were the better team. I have no doubt if there was a fifth quarter Madison would have won. However, terrible first half performance put them in a hole that only battlefield mistakes could have gotten them out of. And Battlefield did not make mistakes last night.
Madison has had a great run, and probably has more in store for the future.
Not a bad write up, BUT I would say that Battlefield let them back in the game. This would have been a 4 goal win, if not for a 2 min non releasable on the BF starting goalie. (No slight to the G, as he plays fantastic)
If Madison does not have the man up and NR- they may not get two goals there and we are talking about a 4pt win. I would not say they showed they are a better team, as you are supposed to score with man up and score multiple with 2min NR. I would say they took advantage of a situation and capitalized on it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's definitely a take, anyway. One team plays better for 3 quarters, the other for 1 and loses, and the latter showed they were the better team?Anonymous wrote:My take on the Madison/battlefield game.
BF: strong goalie play and aggressive defense. Good clears and opportunistic in transition. They were a complete team last night.
JMHS: for the first three quarters madison stunk up the joint. Terrible goalie play, unorganized defense, poor shooting and failed clears. Madison had all the markings of a team that was unready.
Madison showed in the 4th Quarter that they were the better team. I have no doubt if there was a fifth quarter Madison would have won. However, terrible first half performance put them in a hole that only battlefield mistakes could have gotten them out of. And Battlefield did not make mistakes last night.
Madison has had a great run, and probably has more in store for the future.
Not a bad write up, BUT I would say that Battlefield let them back in the game. This would have been a 4 goal win, if not for a 2 min non releasable on the BF starting goalie. (No slight to the G, as he plays fantastic)
If Madison does not have the man up and NR- they may not get two goals there and we are talking about a 4pt win. I would not say they showed they are a better team, as you are supposed to score with man up and score multiple with 2min NR. I would say they took advantage of a situation and capitalized on it.
I have no need to have to focus on Robo. Or affiliations.Anonymous wrote:Maybe focus on Robo instead of complaining about a write up of last night’s game?
Anonymous wrote:That's definitely a take, anyway. One team plays better for 3 quarters, the other for 1 and loses, and the latter showed they were the better team?Anonymous wrote:My take on the Madison/battlefield game.
BF: strong goalie play and aggressive defense. Good clears and opportunistic in transition. They were a complete team last night.
JMHS: for the first three quarters madison stunk up the joint. Terrible goalie play, unorganized defense, poor shooting and failed clears. Madison had all the markings of a team that was unready.
Madison showed in the 4th Quarter that they were the better team. I have no doubt if there was a fifth quarter Madison would have won. However, terrible first half performance put them in a hole that only battlefield mistakes could have gotten them out of. And Battlefield did not make mistakes last night.
Madison has had a great run, and probably has more in store for the future.
That's definitely a take, anyway. One team plays better for 3 quarters, the other for 1 and loses, and the latter showed they were the better team?Anonymous wrote:My take on the Madison/battlefield game.
BF: strong goalie play and aggressive defense. Good clears and opportunistic in transition. They were a complete team last night.
JMHS: for the first three quarters madison stunk up the joint. Terrible goalie play, unorganized defense, poor shooting and failed clears. Madison had all the markings of a team that was unready.
Madison showed in the 4th Quarter that they were the better team. I have no doubt if there was a fifth quarter Madison would have won. However, terrible first half performance put them in a hole that only battlefield mistakes could have gotten them out of. And Battlefield did not make mistakes last night.