Brittney Griner, the 6′ 8″ Freshman from Baylor who dunks, got suspended this week after punching Texas Tech’s Jordan Barncastle in the head.
Barncastle left the game with a broken nose.
See?
It would appear that women are totally ready to play in the NBA.
Photo by John Biehler
Yep, that’s what U.S. women’s Olympic hockey team captain Natalie Darwitz said when interviewed after her team lost to Canada in the gold medal game. I can sympathize with the sentiment. In Olympic hockey, you don’t win the silver, you lose the gold. I just wish she’d said that—”it sucks to lose the gold”, or just plain “it sucks to lose”—instead of “it sucks to win silver.” It feels… unsportsmanlike, somehow.
The game itself was a thriller, the exciting matchup hockey fans like me have been waiting for since the Games began. Canada and the U.S. are by far the strongest, fastest, most skilled teams in the world, and it showed on the ice last night. Even the refs couldn’t keep up with the speed and intensity of the game, missing several offsides calls and a few more serious ones as well. (The announcers chalked this up to the single-referee system, and the fact that the pool of competitive-level women referees is small. There’s more research and another post in there about why only women can ref women’s games—but calling offsides is the linesman’s responsibility, and there were two lines(wo)men at this game.)
Announcer A.J. Mleczko pointed out a few times that you wouldn’t be able to tell by watching this game that women’s hockey was non-checking, and she was right. It was intensely physical, and there were even a few punches thrown (though there were no gloves-off fights as in men’s hockey). There was more checking, both penalized and unpenalized, than I’ve ever seen in a women’s game before. I am not a fan of checking as it’s practiced on the men’s side and recently declined to join a women’s league that allowed checking, but honestly, the level of physicality in the U.S.-Canada matchup seemed appropriate for the skill level of the teams. If I could play that well and skate that hard, I wouldn’t mind going hard at an opponent or having an opponent come hard at me.
The disappointment of the evening for me (aside from the clunky pace of the bronze medal game, which I had planned to watch first but abandoned in the first period because I knew much better hockey was being played live) was that the U.S. didn’t manage to score any goals. Yes, they only lost by two—the smallest margin by far of any game Canada *or* the U.S. was involved in this tournament—but being shut out was a big, fat bummer. The U.S. women, used to being able to get traffic in front, make trick shots, and have passing lanes and players open at all times, ran into a disciplined Canadian defense—and a goalie with a seemingly magnetic glove—that kept almost everyone and everything out of the slot, even on a 5-on-3.
A.J. suggested that the American players stop shooting high on the glove side, which Canadian goalie Shannon Szabados totally had covered, but often that was the only shot available. When a low shot was possible, it was often blocked or otherwise turned aside, and there were few rebound opportunities.
Speaking of blocked shots, Julie Chu had several, including one where she knelt to block the shot, successfully blocked it, and then popped up, took the puck, and charged the other way. It was probably my favorite moment of the game. My favorite announcer comment—and I’m sorry to say that I can’t remember who made it—was, “wouldn’t you like to see a best-of-seven series with these two teams?”
OH YEAH.
In fact, until the rest of the world catches up, how about next Olympics we just have seven U.S.-Canada games to determine who gets the gold?
Two periods into the USA v. Russia women’s hockey matchup (I’m assuming this will be the only one), I have a few observations to add to my post from Saturday:
Photo by Tyler Ingram
[Photo]
Caroline Oulette of Team Canada (Photo by Tyler Ingram)
I’m writing this post at the second intermission of the Canada vs. Slovakia women’s hockey game, and it’s already 12-0 Canada. I think Canada was kind of slacking in the second period, actually, scoring only five goals.
Poor Slovakia.
This is the bummer of women’s Olympic hockey, one I’d forgotten about in the run-up to the Games, when the U.S. women’s team was taking on Team Canada, the University of Minnesota, and other hockey powerhouses: half the teams in the pool are what USAHockey would consider B-level at best. The scores in the early games tend to be lopsided, especially when Team USA or Team Canada is on the ice.
I feel Slovakia’s pain. My hockey team was Slovakia in the equivalent of a game against Canada tonight. We didn’t play badly; in fact, we played quite well. Our goalie was awesome. And yet we lost 12 or 13-0. (I don’t know the exact score. The scorekeeper stopped posting goals after 9.) We were just completely outmatched by women who could skate faster, shoot harder, and control the puck better than we could.
Oh man, 14-0 now. I swear, every time they go to commercial, Canada scores. Wait, now it’s 15-0. I think I just missed one when I was typing that last sentence.
While I was adding a title to this post, Canada scored another goal. They’ve now tied the record for the biggest goal differential in Olympic hockey, set by none other than Team Canada in a match against Italy in 2006.
For what it’s worth, Slovakia’s goaltender, Zuzana Tomcikova, has been excellent. The score is more a reflection on the defensemen in front of her, and on Canada’s speed and experience, than on the goalie. She’s made some amazing saves—sometimes multiple saves in a row. (In the time it took to confirm Tomcikova’s first name and comment on the quality of the D to my husband, Canada scored two more goals, making the current score 18-0.)
I should make clear that while I think it’s a bummer for the spectators (and for the losing team) when the score is so lopsided, I don’t think the stronger team should hold back, especially in a tournament setting like the Olympics, where you’re likely to face equally strong opponents in future games. If you play down to the level of the weaker team, you risk losing your edge—and losing to a worthier opponent. I say this even as a member of the usually-weaker team in my league.
Okay, the carnage is finally over. The final score is 18-0. Jaina Heffer had 4 goals, the most ever by an individual player in a single Olympic game, but I think Captain Haley Wickenheiser said it well when she responded to a question from the NBC reporter about who impressed her the most: it’s hard to say in a game like this, when there are so many opportunities, so much room to maneuver. Everybody ends up looking good because they don’t have to work as hard.
She also mentioned that games like this one are dangerous, as they give you a chance to fall into bad habits—and she’s right.
Speaking of that, Sweden defeated Switzerland 3-0 in the Pool A early game today. Commentator Cammie Granato (who’s great off-camera, but absolutely terrible on—hello, affect?) rightly observed that Sweden wouldn’t be able to pull some of the tricks they’d been employing against weaker Switzerland when they matched up against Canada. At the point I had to leave for my own game, I think Sweden’s defensemen had more blocks than their goalie had saves. Cammie remarked that blocking the shot wouldn’t be enough against Canada, that the Canadian skaters would just pick the puck up again and go around the defensemen—and from what I saw in the game against Slovakia tonight, she’s right. I’m now really looking forward to Canada’s game against Sweden on Wednesday.
I’ll probably skip the Canada vs. Switzerland matchup.
[Photo]
Last week skier Lindsey Vonn was in the news because some jerk in the media suggested that Vonn would have an advantage in the downhill events because she was carrying extra weight, so I was pleased when I saw this week’s cover of Sports Illustrated because I thought Vonn looked terrific.
See? Adorable. The assholes who said she was fat should feel stupid and mean. She looks great right?
This whole thing should be so exciting, women athletes rarely grace the front cover of Sports Illustrated. Hell, women rarely appear on the front cover of SI unless it is the swimsuit issue. I was very pleased when I saw this, a woman athlete, an olympic sport this close to the Super Bowl! Not that I am knocking the Super Bowl in any way. I love the Super Bowl almost as much as I love bacon but it was nice to see something different for a change.
Sadly, things just couldn’t stay nice. People can’t just shut up and be happy for a nice all-American skier, can they? Nope.
“Oh,” cry the women, “she is being objectified!”
No. She really isn’t.
That is what skiers wear. Yes, the pose is exaggerated but it is photography. The photograph is cool. If you see that magazine cover and think about sex maybe the problem lies within because when I see that picture I think about skiing.
As my friend Laurie put it when we were discussing Lindsay Vonn yesterday, “she can’t win, obviously – she’s either cheating to win because she’s fat or she’s hot bending over.”
Women athletes are objectified all of the time - don’t even get me started on Danica Patrick or Anna Kournakova - this is not one of those times.
Let’s all take a deep breath and be excited for the Olympics and skiing and Lindsey Vonn.
© 2010 Draft Day Suit | These words are only our opinions, but they mean a lot to us. Please don’t steal or copy.
