The Hockey PDOcast - Breaking Down Saturday Night’s Team USA vs. Team Canada Thriller

Episode Date: February 17, 2025

Dimitri Filipovic is joined by Thomas Drance to get into everything they saw during Saturday night's thriller between Team USA and Team Canada. If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

It's the Hockey PEDEOCast with your host, Dmitri Filipovich. Welcome to the HockeyPedocast. My name is Demetri Filipovich and joining me here in studio for a Sunday special reunited after a week apart. Having to do this show remotely is my good buddy, Thomas Trans, Tom. What's going on, man? Oh, man. Well, it's been nice to take a week off during hockey season and also get that same

sort of whiplash feeling that you get when you go from regular season to playoff. hockey, you know, but you're ready for it when that happens. I don't think people were ready for what this tournament was going to look like, how high the pace was going to be, how different it would feel from game 58 of the regular season in Nashville, right? Like in Columbus, in Vancouver, in Winnipeg. This felt totally different. Magnitudes greater in terms of passion level, intensity, speed, skill level, frankly, of these four teams. It's been nothing. short of thrilling. And kind of climaxing in that Saturday night game between Team USA and Canada, which

were obviously going to spend the majority, if not the entirety of today's show, with all due respect to the game that came before that, Finland, Sweden, which was obviously a really fun, competitive one, Finland won in overtime. But what a showcase this was for the NHL, right? On this big stage, it's a Saturday night stealing the entirety of the spotlight from NBA All-Star Weekend. especially comparing it to maybe previous seasons, even last year in particular, and kind of how apathetic everyone was about the state of the NHL All-Star weekend

and the skills competition and no one really caring or showing any interest or actually trying. And then we flash forward to this. Everyone's watching. Anyone that tuned in got to see the very best playing at such a high competitive level, the best this league has to offer, the product has to offer. And so hopefully it converted new fans that tuned in, the ones that were already watching, I'm sure loved it and were treated to a great show. and we're going to break it all down.

Do you want to go kind of stepwise here through the game in terms of how we frame our conversation? What do you think, or do you want to just go through like the most interesting stuff in order? I've got so many notes. I could honestly, we could probably do a two-hour show on this. We're going to try to cram it in. We've got the, we're beholden to a 50-minute restriction

for the radio side of things. And so unfortunately, we're going to have to cut it off at that. We're going to try to jam it in. Let's get after it. Let's have some fun. Yeah, I mean, look, The three fights right off the hop. Let's just start and go chronologically.

Given the, obviously the political context around this has amped the overall intensity level, but there's something cool about the Kachuk brothers being the instigators of it in particular, right? The fact that their father had some famous, fighting moments in World Cup of Hockey action, the fact that they're both such rare, like, archetypes of player, right? I mean, the idea of the quote unquote power forward, the 25 goal, 150 hits a year, player, and then you look at who actually repeats is that sort of player year over year over year. And it's like, we've had like five guys across this millennium. And it was like Eric Cole, Jerome Ginnla, Alex Ovechkin, and then three guys named Kachuk.

What a shout for Eric Cole. Well, Eric Cole deserves it. Getting involved in the midst of greats. Eric Cole deserves it. Year after year. You know, there was some other guys who got close year after year, guys like Evander Cain. But for the most part, you know, these are incredibly rare types of players. And, you know, the fact that America has two of them that they're related, that they're high-fiving as they go to the penalty box and sort of like critically analyzing their fights.

I mean, credit to them for making such a show of it. Credit to Brandon Hagel and Sam Bennett, you know, for stepping up. And then obviously J.T. Miller taking on... upper cutting himself. Well, uppercutting himself, but, you know, more than that, just like, he fought a way larger man. And he, I mean, he didn't even care who he went with, right? Like, he took off his gloves. He was willing to go with anybody. Like, kudos to all six gentlemen. That was so much fun. No one's going to forget the first nine seconds of that game. And it was because of that energy, you know, really personified by Brady and Matthew. Now,

that said, I think we shouldn't overreact to, like, the Americans have this size edge. and they pushed Canada around in that game or anything like that, because I don't think that's what actually happened. No. But, you know, I do think it's fun, and I do think it's interesting, too. You know, you're going to get, like I saw E.J. Heratic from NHL Network had the funny joke that was like, congratulations to Tom Wilson for making the 2026 Olympic team. And one thing that does stand out when you consider what, like, the World Cup in 1996 meant,

versus this tournament today that we're living through right now, is these NHL-staged international tournaments feel different because they're played on an NHL sheet, because it's bumper car hockey, the North American way, because, you know, the rule standard is a little bit more, a lot more, NHL than it is IAHF. So in some ways, like, you can't have that type of start to a game at the Olympics. Like, there's actually a unique element of bad blood and passion that you can install or create in these games if there, played under the auspices of what the NHL game looks like. And there's actually something unique about that that should be prized.

I know it's been so long since we had best-on-best international hockey that that's maybe a take that takes a back seat. But I do think there's actually a unique value to these sorts of NHL-staged events, especially when it's best-on-best international competition, because in some ways you combine the passion and intensity of this level of competition with, you know, the grudge-match showmanship that the NHL used to be even more capable of, but it's still capable of

it in its best moments. So I was in Whistler all day yesterday, and then I was there in the evening as well, watched this game live at a bar, made a point of getting up super early this morning, so I could gun it back home and rewatch it from the comfort of my home and really kind of get into it the way I typically would a game of this magnitude.

And in rewatching it, I just wanted to note like, it holds up so well. I know it's not that much time has passed. It happened on Saturday night. we're talking on Sunday, but just in terms of rewatching it, you know, you always wonder if it's like, oh, in the heat of the moment, and then you go back and rewatch it, how does it hold up? And this, especially the first period, holds up as an instant classic. And what those first nine seconds did, I think, was help add to the cinematic element of it, right?

Kind of fueled the fire that this game already had heading into it, and the building was erupting, right? The atmosphere was incredible. It felt like it matched the talent on the ice. and also what we've wanted this tournament to be or what we've been craving for the past eight years or nine years, elevated it. And so in saying that, I think the story of this game for me,

as we kind of make our entryway into talking about how Team USA won the game, it was a blown opportunity by Canada early on, in my opinion, right? Because you mentioned the J.T. Miller, Golden Breaker, Scrap. One thing that comes from that is an early power play for Canada, right? We saw 12 seconds worth

in the opener of this tournament and how just downright nasty it was. It was like all of our wildest dreams coming true of McDavid to Crosby to McKinnon, highlight real goal. You're like, all right, here we go again. Nine seconds in now. We're going to get like fireworks starting right away. They don't score on that.

Five minutes go by, McDavid puts Charlie McElroy on a poster and scores a classic Connor McDavid goal. Actually reminded me you were in the building for this one. It was like the start of the bubble playoffs, right? Yeah. And I think Edmonton was expected to beat the Blackhawks in that series. They lose game one. There were all these stories about like Connor McDavid didn't show up, like blah, blah, this and that.

And then immediately in game two of that series, he like did this to Connor Murphy, I think, where he was a bit more impressive because he was like stick handling and kind of juggling the puck to himself. But he came down the right wing and roofed one backhand to score a goal. And it reminded me of that. It was like a very similar carbon copy of it. The building's rocking. You're like, all right, we're going to get a classic McClain. David performance, he's just going to go nuke in this game, and Team USA is not going to have any

answers. And then a couple minutes go by, Jordan Bennington lets up, in my opinion, a quite soft goal to Jake Gensel. It's a rush shot, but it's still on the ice through the legs. It's one that your goal he probably should have. I know you can always make excuses for this stuff of, like, the shooter caliber, and, like, he kind of caught him by surprise. I don't think he was expecting the placement there. Calling it a goal that Bennington should have had shouldn't remove credit from Gensel for disguising the shot. No.

You know, everything about the way that Gensel releases that looks like he's going high, and then it's a low shot straight through him. So that's an amazing play, which takes nothing away from the fact that you have to have that. You can't let a shot through in a game where the margins are going to be that type. And the way the game is unfolding as well. At that point, too, right? Like, you've already had Halebuck, Rob, Mark Stone.

I mean, Hellebuck's the only reason. that America has withstood at this point the first 10 minutes of that game. So to give up the lead that easily on, you know, like not a great angle rush shot, disguised well by a great finisher, though it is. Yeah, yeah, that hurt Canada badly. And that summarizes my feeling heading out of the game in general, where it's tough on the one hand to blame a goalie when your own team scores one on the other end of the ice, right?

on the other hand, in a game like this where the teams are so evenly matched and the margins are razor thin, that ultimately proved to be the difference, right? And on the other end of the ice, Connor Hallibuck was predictably excellent. And we've talked about how I think you and I are both in the camp of just individually rooting for him because he's been kind of saddled with this unfair perception that he's a regular season goalie and he hasn't elevated his game or even maintained his level in the postseason setting. And this isn't the playoffs, but it was obviously a very high leverage game. and he shut the door after that.

After that, Connor McDavid goal, stopped 25 with 26 shots, including 10 of 11 high danger chances he faced. I thought he was so calm and composed, tracking the puck. Even like the last great chance that Canada had to tie it with about seven minutes left, where I believe Connor McDavid in the middle of the ice,

and he just like, it looked like he shot it right into him, and I'm sure part of it was like, because of the entire, the way the entire game had unfolded, Team USA was defending so well in terms of taking away time. base that he rushed it a little bit maybe, but also that's Connor Hallibuck at his very best, where he makes saves like that look downright pedestrian because he gets around to it and it just hits him in the middle of the chest and he just soaks it up, right? And so I'm giving him credit for that. I also thought, you know, it's not a hallmark of his game, especially compared to some other

goalies. I thought his puck handling in the game was excellent. It was incredible. You could see the number of times Canada was trying, I think, deliberately to dump the puck in behind the net and try to establish a bit of a ground and pound game where I think they watched the game against Finland the team USA played and Barkov and Ranton when they did have success. It was through kind of like working that low post game and trying to out muscle Team USA's defenders and get the puck to the front of the net. And I think Canada wanted to replicate that. And Halibuck just kept going back, stopping it and either reversing it or buying time for a defender or just kind of clearing it off the glass and getting it out of harm's way. And so they were never really able to like establish that down low presence in that way. And I

thought, I think probably heading into the game, they were probably like, yeah, we're going to be able to buy a couple extra offensive zone possessions just by doing so, and Hellebuck just immediately nullified it. And so just adding that to his game where it's not one of his hallmarks, but he was excellent at it. Canada's forecheck didn't play all game, and I'm sure we'll get into that more. But I think you're right to identify. There was that one sequence, I think it was late second period, like shortly after Team USA had taken a lead, where, I mean, there was no defender around and he literally pulled like a hezzy pass on the onrushing four checker and hit I think it was Slavin perfectly right behind the net there on the left side so I think that's a

good shout by you his his puck handling absolutely made a difference and also I mean it's so cliche of like the big save in terms of like oh you'll remember that one and then the other team goes back and scores but whether it was early on as you said not only the mark stone save and tight but then the follow-up from Harley after that is kind of a rebound. And then before the- The Braden point won in tight as well on the power play. And then on the second, before the second Larkin goal, Harley again, and we're going to talk a bunch more about Harley later on,

he gets lost kind of in between the two dots in the middle of the ice and has a great sort of backhand chance. And Halebuck stops it, and then they go back and score about 10-15 seconds later. And so those were kind of turning point moments for me. Now, as good as Halebuck was, and I do think the difference in the two goalies was ultimately what determined this result. I think we need to spend a lot of time here praising Team USA's defense in general, right? They were so committed and disciplined.

The support from the forwards in particular to help their defensemen man up in space against some of these speedy Canadian forwards, anytime they tried to push the puck up the ice, they would turn it into a two-on-one in their favor, essentially. And so I thought guys like Slavin was incredible in this game, both him in favor played 25 plus minutes. they erased everything around the net, used their reach to contest and kind of wipe out

potentially dangerous opportunities. Noah Hanifan had a few where he broke up a potentially dangerous opportunity for Canada. But I really thought the forwards in particular for Team USA played such a committed and disciplined and structured defensive game and executed their game plan clearly and perfectly. And I think they deserve as much credit as anyone here for really bothering, I think, Canada,

in terms of not giving them nearly as much, ice and freedom to move around as they had in the game against Sweden. I also think with Canada's best rush attackers, which is obviously the strength of this Canadian team, McKinnon, McDavid, Braden Point, I don't care who you are. I don't care if you're Quinn Hughes. I don't care if you're Cal McCall. If it's one-on-one, you're going to lose. You're going to lose. If they've broken through that first layer of your defense and they're trying to take you out wide, like you're already cooked. You know, the best you can do is get a desperation and stick on it. And, you know, American defenders occasionally were able to do that.

But, like, fundamentally, you need to be breaking it up at the blue line with your forwards and how good, especially in the latter 30 minutes of that game were, you know, not that they were perfect at denying those entrances against Canada, but their forwards were on it, like so disciplined. And you just had a lot of guys, you know, and honestly, it was shades of, like, old Jamie Ben and Corey Perry in like 2010, 2014, where you've got these star players, guys who, you know, are absolutely doing a job out there as opposed to guys who the team is built around, whether it's Trocheck or J.T. Miller types, you know, who were so bought in defensively and really clearly expended energy on, like, keep a shift short. Like, they were playing like fourth-line players, but they just happened to be guys who are absolutely capable of giving you somewhere in the range of 75.

to 100 in any given year. And I feel like that's one of the things that's so fun about international hockey is you get to see sort of what it looks like. Like imagine the apex version of a fourth line player and you end up with, you know, a guy like J.T. Miller doing the job the way he did. I got to admit, like live and watching it at my first way through, I felt a bit underwhelmed by Jack Hughes's game purely because my expectations heading in were so high. I spoke a lot about how like just seeing him and Austin Matthews against Finland every

single time they were out there. They were carving them up offensively. It was like high danger after high danger every single shift they had. And in watching it the first time through, I felt like he was kind of getting knocked off the puck. I thought that he was being kind of pushed to the perimeter a lot. And so offensively, I was like, oh, didn't really accomplish what I was expecting. In the second rewatch, I really gained an appreciation for what an effort him and Matthews in particular put forward defensively. The third guy in that line, Jake Ensel, was named the first star of this game. He scored the two goals. He had a ton of good looks, and so he deserves his credit as well.

But just what those two guys did defensively, and I think that ties into exactly what you're saying, maybe for Austin Matthews, who I think his defensive stick and his fevery and all that stuff has received a claim over the past couple. years, so it's not necessarily something new for him, but it was clear heading into this game that combination of those two guys, they got the McDavid assignment, right? And they played the majority of their minutes against him, and their main task in this game was just making life difficult for him. And so what you saw from Jack Hughes is using his speed to close quickly, jumping passing lanes, retrieving pucks. They were so just getting it out of troublesome areas on the ice and kind of living to fight another day at times.

Matthews does this thing better than anyone in the league, in my opinion, of like, he'll almost give you this false hope where sometimes he has the puck, and he just puts it into space, and the opponent gets it on their stick for a second, and they're like, oh, I got it, awesome. And then he just takes it right back, and it's like almost playing with his food in a way. It's so demoralizing, I imagine. And the reason why I bring that up is they got the McDavid assignment. And the one time Canada had success in this game and scored their only goal was one time they were a bit loose in transitioning back defensively, where Matthews, you go back and watch it, he kind of takes this like roundabout angle outside because I think he thinks that the puck's going to go around the boards and instead Dowdy bumps it back up through the middle to McDavid and all of a sudden it's McAvoy on an island one-on-one against McDavid, McDavid blows by him and scores. And that was the only time that really happened in this game. There were a few individual forays by Nathan McKinnon, for example, but for the most part, when those guys are out there against McDavid, he had no real room to actually build up that full head of steam in the neutral zone. Yeah, I think this was a really interesting game.

from the perspective of the Matthew should be considered more regularly or more strongly for Selke consideration for those heads out there. This was an interesting game. And one thing I thought really felt noticeable. You know, and it really triggered for me when you mentioned the Hughes and Matthews minutes, which like you was my expectation. I was expecting that line to be. If they're going to create offensively, they're going to have to do the heavy lifting, I think.

And yet the duo that stands out in my brain, as a partisan who wanted Canada to win, every time I saw Matthews on the ice with Jacob Slavin, that's where it felt like there was this like oppressive blanket put over the ice. Like shades of Bergeron Chara or Barkaaf Forsling, like those Slavin plus Matthews minutes felt, yeah, I mean, the word I'd use is oppressive. It felt oppressive for the Canadians to try and generate in those minutes. and that becomes, you know, a pretty fascinating dynamic, not one that I would have anticipated coming in, where, okay, Canada has this one-two punch,

but if America's going to be able to throw out this Slavin Matthews axis where, hey, maybe we're not going to generate a ton either, but you're definitely not going to. That significantly alters sort of the arithmetic of what this matchup looks like. I felt like those minutes in particular and the performance of the, those two gentlemen in their paired minutes, their self-matched minutes, was honestly, I think, decisive, especially over the latter half of this game. I mean, McDavid played 190-1-5-on-5 in this game, which was more than any Canadian skater,

including the defenseman. Canada was limited to two shots on goal in those 19 minutes, which is unheard of for any Connor McDavid performance. And one of those is the goal, obviously. And the other one was that high danger, high slot shot. So, I mean, at least they were great shots. You're going to take that any day just in terms of not being hemmed in your own zone. and spending like full shifts that bleed into additional shifts.

Matthews had the one where like he got on his horse. He got back defensively, broke up the, Brandon Hagle had the puck on a stick coming down the right wing on a two on one, knocked it away from him. Jack Hughes had another one where like Canada strung together. Finally two or three passes to get into the zone. And then they tried to go through like a kind of a cross seam one to stretch the ice. And Hughes just jumped in the lane and took it away and got to go into the other way.

So I just thought those guys were phenomenal in sort of their assignment and what they did. And speaking of Matthews and my offensive expectations, this is eight games now where he hasn't scored a goal in a row, going back to his games with the Leafs, of course, came as close as you possibly can. Like in the first game he gets the crossbar and this one, I think it was the first period on the power play, right? He had an empty net where Binnington was out of position. He kind of just flubbed it and missed. And then at the end, he had a chance to seal it with an empty net. And Thomas Harley broke it up. So it's obviously going to come from.

But I think finding ways to contribute and make this big of an outsized impact defensively as a forward. without scoring goals, which is obviously your bread and butter, is a testament to, I think, how bought it and dialed in they were to what their job and assignment was in this one. And how well-rounded Matthews has become, I think, as a center. I mean, I do think we need to... The thing is, is he generates shots and goals like this generation of Etchen, right? There's an argument to be made that he's not just a great player,

but like an evolutionary great player. you know, if you wanted to like drop a Stefan Curry sort of thing based on how everyone has copied his drag shot and young players coming into the league have mastered it and, you know, there's been like an evolutionary impact of Matthews's unique skill level on goal scoring. Now, if you wanted to be less charitable, I guess you could throw the James Harden comp. But the point being, you know, I do think he is as a result of that and as a result of the Leafs like lack of playoffs, the high-octane style of play that they used to have, I do think he's been overlooked for the unique combination of sort of like physical assertiveness,

that the strongest stick in the league and all-world anticipation. And when he sort of puts that together, which he often does, frankly, in the service of sort of defending, it is, it's pretty incredible to watch. Well, so Spore Logic had the stat where the puck was in the U.S. defensive zone, for 26 minutes. Right. It was only in the Canadian defensive zone for 19 minutes, right?

And so you'd look at that and you'd be like, all right, well, Canada kind of dominated the flow of play in terms of possession and in terms of territorial advantage. I think to me it actually speaks to exactly what we're talking about here where Team USA entered this game

with a clear game plan. They got everyone to buy in. They were incredibly diligent about it and they executed perfectly. Now, the reason why I noted off the top that the story for me here was that first 10 minutes and how Canada's let the opportunity

slip away. it's a lot easier to perform that when you get into the second period, tied 1-1, and then you go up 2-1 in the second period, and you can actually execute this perfectly. Whereas if you're down 2-0, 3-1, whatever you want to say, all of a sudden now you start pushing more offensively, your guys start getting more split apart, there's more space in between them,

and then you start seeing guys like McKinnon and McDavid marching through the neutral zone, creating. I just think it looks like an entirely different game. So I feel like the neutral game script here heading into the second period is ultimately the reason why this game wound up turning out the way it did. I agree with you. The one thing I would note, though, so there was a lot of talk about America's size advantage in this game, and I do think it played to an extent in certain facets of the game.

And one area where I think it did matter was in the second period especially. And I'd say really the last five minutes of the first and sort of throughout the second, it did feel like the United States was able to pretty regularly stack. some heavy shifts one on top of the other and at least do the, we're defending by holding the puck 170 feet from your own net. Shift after shift after shift. And one thing I'd note there is they didn't actually generate much, not even in terms of like high quality chances, but even like good point shots through layer traffic or deflection attempts. You know, the Canadian team was under pressure, but they weren't by any means under duress. But I do think it took the air out of Canada.

rush attack for a significant heap of the game, after which America had a two-one lead and went into the second period and were able to sort of play like meatwagon defensive hockey and ultimately emerge with the victory. So I do think that the American zone time, you know, it's not just the aggregate time, it's like where it arrived in the game, right? It arrived in the game.

Yeah, in like a 25-minute span, during which America took the air out of Canada, attack and I think also, you know, obviously emerged from the other side of it with the lead. Yep. I got one more note on Team USA, then we're going to go to our break and then we're going to talk about some of the Canadian side of things, I think, a bit more. I wanted to shout out Larkin and Boldie as well here, right? Can we start by saying, I agree with you that the goaltender has to have the first Team USA goal. But that Larkin shot, and he's got a passing option,

and he's going a million miles per hour, and he places it perfectly. Not that a hellabuck maybe allows it or whatever. Obviously, you'd love to get a save off any unscreened rush shot, but sometimes it's a great player making a great play, and that was a brilliant, a brilliant shot. Yeah, I think it depends on your perspective, right? Because if you ask a forward, if you hit your mark there above the pad but under the blocker,

and you're able to execute that way, like you're going to score. And I think every shooter feels that way. Yes. If you ask a goalie, a two-on-one, where a guy's at the top of the circle, like pretty high up in terms of when he released it, obviously coming in with speed, of course, but coming in, puck on stick as well,

he's the puck carrier, no pass, it's just a one-on-one versus the goalie. I think the goalie's expected to make that safe. Like, that's their job. It's like the defender takes away the pass, you focus on the shooter, and it's up to you to be better than the shooter. Now, in this case, Larkin was obviously better, and I do think, like, he deserves more of the credit for the shot because it was perfectly placed.

But the reality is that it's like, because Sandheim was putting a bit of a tough spot there, right? Because Harley, after a really good offensive zone shift, goes off for a change, Taves is hustling to get back on. All of a sudden, Crosby turns it over. The puck's coming back the other way. It's a two-on-one. And Sanheim's in this spot where it's like, all right, I'm just going to kind of get on the ground and try to prevent a pass. And Larkin executed. Yeah.

And so. For me, that's a great play. are making a great play in a memorable game, and you'd off your cap to him for hitting his mark that pinpoint at that sort of speed with that sort of velocity on the shot. Like, that was brilliant work from Larkin. And within the team context, right, in the first game against Finland, Larkin plays like 11 minutes or something.

Isn't really used in a very high leverage premium role by any means. Boldie's only 12, 13 minutes himself. In this game, in every single period, they made some sort of impact, right? In the first period, they create that two-on-one where Crosby has to take the hook and draw a powerplay for them, and they really should have scored on that power play because they got a couple great looks. Then in the second period, the Larkin goal,

I think it was his second period as well. Larkin got in alone, hit the post, and then in the third period, Boldie off a four check where they pin Paraco against the wall. He turns it over trying to clear it. Boldie gets a great look that's trying to seal it, and then Larkin makes the play of the blue line to set up against Lempty Netter,

which ultimately is the final nail on coffin. And so those two guys, you're talking about third liners in this environment on this team, and in minimal usage they're used to playing much more, especially Larkin, where he'd get into the 20s on that Red Wings team as their number one center, finding ways to chip in when you're out there the way they did. I thought they were clearly, I mean, they carry them offensively,

and they created every time they were out there. So I thought they were phenomenal. Yeah, and as a tease for what we're going to talk about in part two, I really, in watching this, I was like, man, Canada really desperately, this version of this Canadian team needs a Matt Boldie type, a bigger winger who is so efficient, is connecting plays, is doing all these little things to get the puck off the wall, and they haven't really had that. We're going to speak much more about that when we get into Team Canada in part two in segment two. Let's take our break here.

You're listening to the HockeyPedio cast streaming on the Sportsnet Radio Network. All right, we're back here on the HockeyPedio cast, joined by Thomas Transfer on Sunday special Tom. We're breaking down Saturday night's thriller between Team Canada and Team USA. we spent pretty much the entirety of the first walk, I think, getting into how TMC USA executed, why they won this game. We're going to close out the show here, talking from Canada's perspective,

in terms of individual performances we saw, what went right, what went wrong, what adjustments you need to see, where they're kind of lacking in terms of why they lost this game. Do you want to start with the positives and talk a little bit of Thomas Harley? Well, yeah, let's do that, but also I want to say globally,

I thought there were a lot of positives for Team Canada. Like, I know that the outcome is disappointing, so everyone does the hand-wringing thing. Right. You know, the, they should have brought Tom Wilson thing. The symposium. The symposium thing, right. And I don't know that that's warranted, given the chances Canada generated, given the fact that it was a one-goal game, just given the overall level of play of that game.

That really was a contest that could have gone either way. And there's a lot of things, you know, for example, I see a lot of people wondering about, like, should Jarvis have been a big guy, should the Tampa Bay trio have played as much as they did and on and on? And like, first of all, those, those, those, that Tampa Bay trio, they're all dogs. They should have played more. They should have played more. They were some of Vancouver, sorry, some of Canada's best skaters. And secondly, um, and secondly, like, Canada's speed didn't result in as many goals as it easily could have in that game and credit to the United States for doing as good a job denying them on entries as they did. But when this

teams in full flight, their speed is devastating. Like, there may yet be a moment where the fact that Canada maxed out on speed up and down the lineup proves to be decisive in this tournament. So I do think it's important. It's a short tournament. Every game matters. The book's not written on this Canada team yet, and we should avoid discussing it as if it is. Of course.

And I didn't mean to do so, especially in light of- For sure. I just wanted to make that outright declaration. Especially in light of Kel McCarnaw, not being present. And we're going to talk about his replacement here. but just purely because that advantage you're talking about and kind of where they would be at their best, he's one of, if not the best, especially at that position, pace pushers and guys who could not only create rushes himself, but also accentuated by joining it and just stretching out the defense and causing a wide array of problems for them.

So him not being here totally changes the calculus in terms of how that rush attack looks like. Especially when there were some hero ball moments where it didn't feel like there was a, you know, defender skating up ice to, be the trailer and capitalize off some of those rush chances, right? I mean, that was one thing that certainly was noticeable watching Canada try to break the United States open in the third period. That's like exactly what Kel McCar is designed to do with this lineup. Now, Thomas Harley gets put on standby this week following the Shay Theater injury, right? Then he gets called up to play finally when Kel McCar can't go with his illness.

He plays 1860 in this game, 17 and a half of which came at 5-15. In that time, high danger chances. were 8-0 for Canada, and they had a 91% expected goal share. I thought he was phenomenal. He was right at the center of pretty much every good thing that happened for them. He was crashing the net as a trailer to follow up that stone chance in the first. He was calm and poised, retrieving Pucks behind his own net and reversing it to Dowdy and getting out of harm's way. He was firing breakout passes. He had that recovery in the second period where he like slipped up and fell and it looked like Kachako was going to get a breakaway and he knocks down the past and forces an offside.

He like stood up, Jack Hughes on an exit at the blue line and completely knocked him on his backside. I thought he was incredible, all especially the offensive zone possessions where Canada finally did establish his own time and was kind of moving the puck around. I thought every single one of them was a shift involving Thomas Harley and his ability to like keep moving the puck but also get involved in terms of the movement and like just getting into weird areas of the ice that you could tell defensemen typically aren't in he's so good at that and has been even on dallas it wasn't a perfect game from certainly right i thought that on the gensel goal we haven't really talked about this component of it yet but duontase gets caught pinching and so it's harley and ryanhardt back defensively right on this two

on two harley i thought it was a bit too cautious in terms of letting and this respect of ickel's speed and his ability to beat you in so many ways off the rush but he kind of let him get into the zone, gain possession, and then pass it off to Gensel, and maybe if he's more aggressive on that play, it might have been if it was him and Taves back, all of a sudden that play never even materializes for Gensel. Obviously, on the second goal, he has a great chance. They're like, they're humming in the offensive zone, and then he's tired after a minute a half or whatever the duration was, and so he gets off the ice, and unfortunately the Crosby turnover happens, and so he's kind of caught in no-man's land, he gets off, Taves can't get back on time.

So there is that, but I just thought the circumstances and the, the stage and also the fact that people, I imagine there were probably people that were like, oh, Thomas Harley, like, that was kind of an unexpected call up here. I would have thought it be Uighur or Taneb or Bouchard or any number of defensemen. I mean, he's obviously been phenomenal. We've been talking about him a lot of the PDO guys, but I thought in this game, he really showed every single thing that makes him such a special defenseman. It felt like he stabilized those doughty minutes, too, which in that Sweden game, like going

into this game, I was a little bit nervy about them. And it felt like his speed. His ability to be an outlet made a huge difference. So that pair ended up being Canada's best throughout the evening. So I thought there was a level of like instant chemistry or fit that just made a sense immediately when you looked at that duo. Yeah, Harley was great, man. Harley was really, really good. And, you know, as much as as I think Canada's size up front has been a talking point in the wake of that loss,

I also wonder if the speed on the back end should be more of a focus, given sort of what it looked like when Harley was on, given how much this team is leaned on Josh Morrissey, given how good Devon Taves has looked, I know, at fault on two of those goals, but also immense for Canada in this tournament so far. You know, I think there's a template that Harley offers as well that I think's worth paying attention to because there's a lot of other Canadian defenders who I think. think have that skill set. I mean, he got to the point. He was playing so well. There was about seven minutes left in the third period. They're down one.

There's a TV timeout. Offensive zone draw coming. And I'm like, John Cooper has to get Harley on the ice for this. And I think they lost the face-up clearly. It was cleared, so it might not have even mattered. But as soon as I saw it was pre-equam or I see, I'm like, that's a mistake.

Like, this is not going to result in what Canada's striving for here. I thought Sandheim, too, was good. Really good. I think the interesting thing in both these guys is that they were so active involved, but also clearly unafraid. of the moment as well. And I think it'll be pretty easy to be pretty nervy, considering you haven't played in a while, right?

You're not even expected to be playing a role in this team. All of a sudden, you're just like thrown into big minutes in this crucial matchup against really talented players on the other side. And I thought both guys held up there in the bargain. And what final note on Harley that I wanted to talk about with you here? And the reason why I love environments and events like this beyond obviously just how good and fun the hockey is,

is I love this sort of wrinkle to it moving forward of the long, lasting impact that it could have on a guy like Harley here, right, where he's this 23-year-old defenseman. He's been thrust into a bigger role in his own club because Miro Hiscan went out. He played a couple 26-minute games that he logged right after that happened. He's going to go back, and with Mero out probably for the rest of the regular season, he's going to be their number one defenseman. And I know he hasn't really been around this team this entire time because he got the call up and there's all these weird rules of the NHL is enforcing for some reason. We might not even see him the rest of this tournament because if Kail McCar is back, he's

not going to be eligible. I don't understand why these own self-imposed rules are being governed so strictly. It's like, this is an entertainment product. I think we all want to see the best players that are available on the ice. Thomas Harley's clearly one of Canada's best six defensemen. He's already ditched Cabo. Like at this point, just let him play. He's there. But I love this idea that like just being around this team and seeing how like some of these other tall players prepare and like how they approach the game and even in the practices or whatever, just like picking up little tricks and just being around some of these guys that he's not around. I love the idea that he's going to go back to Dallas with this whole newfound swagger

and it might not pay dividends the rest of this season, but I find it hard to believe that it won't benefit him long term as he keeps his ascension towards whatever his peak's going to be in a couple years, right? And so I just love that from like young players soaking this up and absorbing it and benefiting from it when they go back to their clubs. Yeah, and I think he's an interesting guy to spotlight like that because for the most part, these are very veteran teams. Yeah, there's not too many guys like that.

They're like... Maybe Jarvis? Yeah. You know, if he has a big moment. But for the most part, these are very veteran teams. Faber, Brock Faber, I guess, on the U.S. side. So for the most part, these are super veteran teams. So I think Harley sort of being thrust into this environment, you know, almost by happenstance.

And then excelling like that and then tracking sort of what it means, you know, the fact that you can be a stand. hand out in a game at that pace. I don't think that, like, I think that's a meaningful data point in terms of what a player who, you know, not unlike Devon Taves, we've sort of looked at as benefiting from playing with Miro Hayeskin. Right, like a complimentary guy as opposed to his own outright. But, I mean, how many times have we looked at a guy like Jake Muzin that way or what have you?

And then as the years go by, we come to appreciate that, hey, this guy's legit a one, like, a first pair defender in his own right? Sam Reinhardt. I've been very disappointed by his two games he's played in this tournament. But you'd say that for that whole line. But the reason why I would say that is because it's been so uncharacteristic for him because the area he struggled to my eye more than anything is that initial first touch when he gets the puck,

especially after McDavid or Marner have had it for a while, and they like bump it to him, whether he's in the slot, or even on the wall, he's, like, really struggled to, like, corral pucks and, like, do something functional to keep it moving in the right direction. And he's bobbled a few, turn them over. It just hasn't really been productive with those touches he's had. And that's just so uncharacteristic because that's an area that he, the past couple years, has been one of the best players in the world at. And that's also an area that I feel like when you look at the way Team Canada has been playing and maybe where some of their struggles have come offensively in this game, that's a player they really could have used. Sam Reinhardt at his best the way he's played in the past two Stanley Cup final runs for Florida

is exactly what this team I think needs in terms of solving some of these problems and especially against a defensive shell that the team USA posed in front of them, they didn't really have a lot of answers for like getting into the middle of the ice and he's a guy that typically should be able to help you construct some sort of game plan for doing so. And so that's why I kind of highlighted them as a disappointment for me because I just I've come to expect more from him. Yeah, and then there's the Mark Stone side of this too, because I think Stone's had better chances than Reinhart. In fact, Stone's probably had more great A's than any other Canadian skater.

But I do think you're feeling that lack of, from the getting inside perspective and to come back to the boldy conversation we had in the first segment, right? You are feeling that there is an extent to which Canada could use an additional big body or two on the wings to sort of help you. it's not enough to just be a big body. You also have to have a tremendous level of skill. And so as I'm sort of overreacting, okay? And now to overreact to a one game outcome in a game that was functionally decided by a goal with an empty netter added onto it.

You know, I do think looking ahead to 2026, like if Canada's going to be at its best, I do think the progress of two guys in particular stands out to me. One is Dylan Gunther, and one is Adam Fentilly, right? In terms of just having a couple of additional horses who have the size, have the ability to play two-way hockey and win battles, but also the speed to potentially complement, you know, truly the three horses that... The best table-setters, yeah.

Yeah, well, and really, it's Point McKinnon, McDavid, right? I mean, that's sort of the theory of this team is you put one of those guys on each line, and you should be able to attack with lethal force off the rush. And when Canada's, you know, through the first two games, I think we've seen that in abundance, honestly, just not in sufficient abundance in the third period against the United States on Saturday. So, yeah, I mean, I do think the progress of those two players,

in particular with an eye toward Milan, is going to loom large in my imagination. I think having that player, having that answer, to what Team USA has in their bottom six with Boldie or J.T. Miller. I do think that's going to matter for Canada here. Especially Gunther, because he's going to be like almost 23, I think by the time that event kicks off. And his ability to kind of play off the puck,

but also do a lot of these things you're describing, I think is going to be crucial. So, like, he's someone who, if he stays in the trajectory, I think is going to be a no-brainer fulfilling that role. He should be. Do you want to, okay, so an interesting note on this, and then we're going to move on to a couple of, other players is, you know, in searching for answers, John Cooper started tinkering with his top six

in the third period, right? And then I think he got to it too late, and it wasn't even maybe the ideal final landing spot, but he eventually put point up in a top six role to just looking for more speed to try to kind of break through. And I feel like that is the next logical conclusion to reach here, right? And so I'm curious to see if that carries over both to the next game and if there is a final rematch here. Yeah, I'd like to see him play with McKinnon. I think McKinnon needs, given the way that McKinnon has sort of played so aggressively and so downhill, I think giving him someone who's keeping up with him or has the ability to keep up with him

as a way of trying to maybe get a little more east-west that's not him deeking through a bunch of guys, I think might be helpful. So I'd like to see that because we mostly saw him play with McDavid once they sort of shuffled it up, but I feel like if you're going to put an additional neutral zone driver into your top six, I'd like to see them paired with McKinnon. Yeah, McKinnon had an interesting night

at the office, because he had a couple scintillating rushes. Like in the first period, splitting the defenseman on that power play, and then missing wide, yes. In the third period, he like evaded a McAvoy check along the wall and kind of carried it in. It was like, man, this guy's

a freak is incredible. He also looked frustrated to me because of exactly what we're saying where especially without the opportunities to just gallop freely in the neutral zone, whether they would get in the offensive zone, team USA was doing such a good

job of packing the middle and sort of just like with their sticks disrupting whatever sort of cross-seem passes they were trying to accomplish he was forcing the issue a little bit in that way and in particular I don't know if you noticed this but like when he would get into the zone he would circle

back and unfortunately for him because of the way team USA was playing in that support that we talked about from their forwards he would skate back the relief pressure but unfortunately he would skate right into an awaiting team USA forward and like kind of skate himself into trouble and so it was this very maddening sort of just like loop of like he would like do two things well and then all of a sudden the third would fall apart I think part of that is finding the right line mates to sort of maximize that well is right like Crosby was obviously incredible in the first game I thought he lost quite a few battles in this game, which is very uncharacteristic for him, of course, had the really bad turnover where he looked a little slow. Marshan played only 822 in this game. And I thought

Marchand played really well. I thought he was certainly trying to make something happen in the third period. He had a couple like individual rushes where he was dangling around. I thought he looked a little slow on them. And you would think that in this type of environment, his ability, like, with emotions so high, to go to the opponent into doing something stupid. or buying an additional power play opportunity for his team. Like this was a match made in heaven of like why this guy exists is for this type of game. And there was none of that. Like he was so uninvolved in like any sort of shenanigans there.

And so I don't know what was going on there. But that was a bit disappointing for me just purely from the perspective of like you would think that in this type of game, that's where his ratty behaviors would come to shine and there was just none of that. And part of it might have just because he only played eight minutes. Like he just wasn't on the ice. So, yeah. No, I mean, I will say, too, like, I thought the guys who played pretty infrequently for Canada in that game, like, I thought, you know, I'm not, I've not typically been the biggest, like, Sam Bennett stockholder over the years, mostly because I think there's some sort of offensive limitations there that, you know, playing a lot with Cichuk and Huberto, for example, have helped disguise for the public. That said, I mean, I mean, he played a run through a wall type game. Yeah.

In his, I mean, it wasn't a lot of time, but what, seven minutes and 40 seconds, a five-on-five ice time. He obviously had the fight with Kachuk, like the bigger Kachuk, which is a terrifying thought, held his own. And then I just thought, yeah, played the sort of game where I was watching it thinking, well, this is why everyone wants to go to war with Sam Bennett, right? I loved what he brought to the Canadian lineup, albeit in a sort of limited role. I thought the physicality just in general in the first period was a size.

to behold. Forget the fights. Yeah, the McVoy hit on McDavid. MacGovoy on McDavid. Brady-Cachuk on Dowdy. Slavin had like a reverse check where Bennett tried to get him

and Slavin just knocked him down as well. Like it was, there was so much happen. Everyone was flying around. It was an incredible game. Do you want to quickly, we got a couple more minutes here. It's interesting looking ahead to it,

right? We're recording this on Sunday. There's going to be the matinee game on Monday and then the second one as well involving Sweden and Team USA. it's unfortunate timing in terms of the scheduling for the NHL here because there's a very realistic possibility that the second game involving Sweden and USA

is completely irrelevant for both teams, right? Because essentially Sweden needs Canada and Finland to go into overtime. Right. And then they have to win in regulation themselves. Team USA already has the first spot locked up. So in theory, like we know Matthew Kachuk, who we haven't really talked about, didn't play the final, whatever, 16, 70 minutes in this game.

He's not playing that. He's not playing. That'll be an interesting one. Team USA doesn't really have that much to play for. And would you blood Jake Sanderson with an eye toward the Olympics? Yeah. Yeah. I think they should. Yes, they should. Certainly. Especially considering they use Slaven and in favor, for example, so much in this game, right? Yeah. So yeah, that'll be interesting. I'm looking forward to this. I, as a game shift to Boston. The Team USA's defense looked like this. And then when they play on international ice in Milan,

they'll be able to air drop presumably Sanderson and Hughes, two guys who are. were basically designed to dominate international play in particular, right? Because this is the thing. When you move to an international sheet, right? Like every year it was like, and the best player in the tournament is Doughty Eric Carlson or what was the guy, Sammy Vattenin? Yep. From the Anaheim Ducks.

Remember how Darwin he was in Sochi, right? You moved to international ice and put Sanderson and Hughes with this team. I mean, Jesus. Well, apologies to Sweden and Finland, because that was a really fun game. play too. But there was just so much juice in this Canada-USA game that I feel like we had to, we had to devote a full show. 100%. The only real question now is, is do we get, do we get it again? Yeah. And I think everyone who likes hockey wants to see it again, because that was as pure

and powerful a hit of hockey brilliance, you know, the passion, the physicality, the skill level on display, you know, everything, like, even if you don't like, even if you don't like, hockey. You tuned into that game and knew that you were watching something pretty special. I mean, games like this one are why we watch sports. Yeah. And also why you and I do the show, because we have an opportunity to a platform to geek out about it and really get into the details and hopefully provide like level-headed and balanced analysis. Because obviously, when you have games like this, there's going to be takes flying around that it feel like pretty extreme and maybe too like reactionary. I think we did a pretty good job of parsing it in a very level-headed

manner. Yeah, and kudos to the PA and the league. Oh, they're going to say kudos to us. I'm like, yeah. Well, kudos to us. No, but kudos to the PA and the league. I mean, putting this together, um, you know, I know it's been too long, but I also think, you do not under any circumstances have to hand it to them. I disagree with you. I disagree with you. You absolutely do. And I think it's important that they, I think the NHL of the league itself is wearing the long gap between Sochi and this, because for me, it's an 11 year gap, not a nine year gap. That World Cup of hockey was fun but totally different.

Doing it in mid-season compared to trading camp when guys are working in the way to show. It is so different. And so, but, you know, I think that really obscures how bad a deal going to the Olympics is. You know, you're like,

the league doesn't get to use highlight videos on social channels or on NHL.com. You don't get to sell jerseys. Yeah. Like, the commercial limitations on the NHL for loaning literally billions of dollars worth of talent and shuttering their own league are wild.

Like it took years to negotiate the IOC covering insurance for these guys. Like it was a bad deal. The league opted out of 2018 as a result of it. They wanted to go in 2022, the Omicron sort of thing and the fact that players would have to be in a bubble and had no appetite to do so after the NHL bubble and the bubble season. But like that's what killed it a couple years ago, not. anything else. So I don't know. I just kind of look at this and think, I actually think the NHL's had too much guff. The idea of like Bill Daley and Gary Bettman stole best on best from these

players for a decade, it's like, it's a little more complicated than that. And the IOC is just as much a bad guy. I'd add that watching the NHL product, because this is a more NHL product than an Olympic product as a venue for Best on Best. I started the show with this. I'm going to end it with this. Like, I know that for players, especially European players, but North American players too, The Olympics has this stature, but man, I don't know. I think if you could ever convince the players that actually it's better when we keep all the money, do it in North America and do it with NHL rules, I actually think you get a product that's arguably better than Olympic hockey.

And that's where I think they deserve credit. I agree. Well, this is really fun. Hopefully we do get a rematch, just purely because I want to see 60 more minutes of this, at least. And if we do, we'll see with scheduling, but maybe we'll have to do a third. Thursday special or a Friday special to break that down. Because I feel like, you know, we were doing the post games for the Stanley Cup final last June. And this isn't the Stanley Cup final, but man, it's the stake, just like the quality of it,

I feel like warrants that sort of special treatment from our perspective. So we're going to make something happen for that. That's probably the next time you're going to hear from the two of us. I'll be back in a couple days here. Everyone follow Tom at Thomas Strance, listen to Canucks Talk on the Sports Network, read his articles at The Athletic. And thank you for listening to the HockeyPedia cast streaming. on the Sports Night Radio Network.