International Hockey

Why is it always hockey that brings out the best in America?

The answer is actually quite simple. It's not our sport.

Very rarely do we Americans have the opportunity to cheer for the American underdog. We are usually the superior, the favorite and the hunted.

But, this is simply not the case in hockey.

So when we have moments like tonight, when the underdog Americans with names few of us even recognize, triumph over the world's best and most popular Canadian team, it gives us a rare moment of joy. It's a feeling that we, the most powerful nation on earth, rarely experiences.

As far as Olympic team sports go, there are traditionally only two that generate wide spread buzz. In the Winter Olympics, it's hockey and in the summer Olympics it's basketball.

With basketball, ever since we started sending our NBA players, it has been hard to truly get behind Kobe and LeBron when they pick on the Europeans. They are just so much more superior and too famous in my opinion. Our teams are usually overshadowed by the individuals that make them up.

But in hockey, we never have the superiority or name players that the Canadians, Russians, Fins and Swedes have.

We traditionally just have a "bunch of guys," and they are usually guys that most Americans can in some way identify with.

They are a "bunch of guys" that we have never heard of before the Olympics and most likely will never hear of after the Olympics.

Why?

Because it's not our sport and Americans like it that way. We are obsessed with football, basketball and baseball. We know the big names, the big teams and we know what our expectations are.

But hockey?

Well, it's always kind of brand new to us. We tune in every four years and to be honest, we only tune in, if these "bunch of guys" start winning a game or two.

They are easy to get behind, because 95 percent of America doesn't really know anything about them, other than the fact they represent the USA.

I could guarantee you that 95 percent of Americans couldn't name more than two USA hockey players on this year's Olympic team.

But, oddly enough, that's the way we Americans like it.

So whether or not these "bunch of guys" win gold in Vancouver or even medal for that matter, we as Americans still have reason to give thanks.

For on at least one night, these "bunch of guys" gave us all that special feeling that we, the hated, most powerful, Americans rarely get to experience.

And what feeling is that?

The feeling of the "underdog triumph."

Oh, how rare and sweet it is.

These are the Olympic Winter Games.

And this is men's ice hockey.

In most winter sports—Olympics or otherwise—the difference between a podium finish and a sixth place finish could be as little as a hundredth of a second.

A thousandth of a second.

A single mistake.

Most of the athletes train for four years to make a single appearance.

Some eight.

Some longer.

Despite a tradition that demands such perfection, where world champions like Jennifer Heil can be humbled, where a single slip could ruin or vindicate a decade's worth of determination, Martin Brodeur and Corey Perry showed us how to lose a hockey game. Along with a few others on Team Canada's hockey squad, the effort put forth on the ice was indicative of how coming into a game sometimes you aren't always destined to win games—if your effort shows that you deserve to lose them.

It's not a new theme with Team Canada.

Asleep against Norway in the first period.

Hanging by a thread against the underdog Swiss.

Coming into a match with a hockey rival unprepared.

Can all the individuals on Team Canada proudly say they gave it 110%? Drew Doughty played a great game. Rick Nash was solid. But how many Canadians put forth their best possible performance?

Or was Team Canada's performance well shy of the dedication that other athletes—gold be damned—the silver medalists and bronze medalists in other events that didn't win their sport but walked away proud nonetheless?

For a nation that beholds hockey with such reverence, to let such a game slip away is sacrilege. This is not to take away from Ryan Miller's 42-save performance, or Brian Rafalski's two-goal snipeshow.

Rather, when all the bobsledders, mogul skiiers, snowboarders, and other Canadian events have assembled all the athletes who are already giving their 110% efforts, replays of Perry's last-minute waltz into his own zone will overshadow the work of these other valiant Canadians.

This too could've been a valiant, respectable loss.

When Perry had the game on the line and let Ryan Kesler slip past him to get the empty net goal with a one-handed dive, I could feel nothing but sheer disappointment.

Perhaps "first-to-the-puck" doesn't exist in his hockey lexicon.

Who really knows?

Losing is okay—sometimes. It's not the end goal and the tournament isn't lost quite yet, and sometimes it takes a loss to realize what you need to change to win.

Forget outshooting the Americans.

Forget zone-time domination.

The Canadians tried to do too much too often when a simpler approach was employed by the Americans. A defense-first game centered around blocking shots and shooting lanes, clearing rebounds from the crease and being the first man to the puck—this was the American strategy.

And it worked beautifully.

Furthermore, intensity was an issue, and a matter of too little, too late.

Big Joe Thornton was suspect until late in the game. Brodeur played nothing like the Hall of Famer we expect he will be. And Perry—what else can I say about Perry that hasn't already been said? His effort was suspect in all areas.

Every player on USA (except for maybe Malone, who has been suspect himself) buys into the system and buys into their role.

Entitlement may have led Team Canada to start Martin Brodeur, but perhaps they should start Roberto Luongo, and sit Corey Perry.

This is not an 82-game season.

The Olympic Games are "now or never."

If, like Perry, the others on the team are not ready to stay true to the Olympic spirit—the grind and the sweat that makes the Olympics a celebration of human spirit and the drive for perfection of form, discipline, and dedication, then we can forget about Olympic gold in men's hockey.

If the Olympics Games are "now or never," then we need to see a little more "now" in Team Canada's on-ice work ethic.

More urgency.

More desire.

Less entitlement.

With Canada, all the pre-tournament talk was about how good this team was and how they could ice the best team. Perhaps ice a couple best teams, some would say.

But just because Hockey Canada can ice the best players for Team Canada doesn't mean they can ice the best team.

The Americans taught the Canadians an important lesson tonight.

On the eve of the Miracle on Ice and wearing throwback 1960 jerseys, Team USA made history again.

This time it was against Canada at its own game. It was the first time the US beat their neighbors to the north in Olympic play in the last 50 years.

No one gave the US squad much of a chance again.

It wasn’t the Soviets this time but a Canada team littered with NHL All-Stars.

Just like Jim Craig did 30 years ago, Ryan Miller kept his team in the game with save after miraculous save.

Miller stopped 42 shots and none of the cheap variety. He gave his team a chance to play with the high powered Canadians.

And compete they did!

The Americans took the mostly Canadian crowd right out of the game. Defenseman Brian Rafalski scored just 41 seconds into the contest.

And the Americans knew they were poised for a spirited performance.

The game would go back and forth going into the second period with the score tied at two.

However, just as Mike Eruzione did in 1980 versus the Soviets, Chris Drury scored the pivotal goal that gave the Americans the confidence the rest of the way.

Team USA knew they could compete and win against the more talented and experienced Canadian Team.

A few members of the old American guard, Brian Rafalski and Jamie Langenbrunner combined for the score that put Team USA up 4-2. It was the goal that broke Goliath’s back. The whole country of Canada knew their backs were against the wall.

Even a Sid the Kid power play goal with less than three minutes was not enough. Team Canada didn’t convert on scoring chances and Ryan Miller robbed them at every turn.

The play that completely encapsulated the upstart and gritty Americans was the open net clinching goal by Ryan Kesler.

Getting mugged by a Team Canada defenseman, Kesler outmuscled his opponent to bat the puck into the empty net.

Game.

Set.

Match.

Seeing Team USA celebrating in their old school uniforms, could only make you think of Jim Craig, Jack O’Callahan, and Mike Eruzione embracing one another after beating the powerful Soviets.

Call it what you will.

It looks like karma was on the Americans side on this night in the birthplace of hockey.

In 1960, 1980, and now 2010, it wasn’t a matter of talent. It was a matter of passion, the will to win, and team work.

I bet Herb Brooks was smiling down from heaven.

And he will be smiling ear to ear when they bring home gold.

U-S-A.

Let’s not push the panic button yet just because Team Canada needed to go to the shoot-out to secure the win over the trap-e-zoid Swiss team. Sure, Canada was not at the top of their game, but the Grade “A” scoring opportunities alone were so lopsided it was ridiculous.

Never mind the shots on goal (18-3), how many times in the third period did Jonas Hiller come up with spectacular saves to preserve the tie? Make no mistake about it either, the Swiss were playing for the tie.

When the opposition plays the trap, and clogs up the neutral zone, it does not make for a very free-flowing game, and Canada at times had problems being patient with that.

Marty Brodeur was good in goal, and the shots that beat him...well I don’t know any goaltender that can stop a shot that goes in off the goal post—and the other was a fortunate goal for the Swiss, going in off a Canadian player.

Not to sound like sour grapes, but Drew Doughty was interfered with on the first goal, and I was surprised at how many of the interference-type penalties went uncalled.

Team Canada players have yet to gel, and that’s not uncommon for a short series of this nature. They have only had a few practices and two games to find that chemistry. In saying that, I was disappointed in some of the performances. 

Rick Nash, all 6’4”, 218 lbs. of him, needs to compete for the puck a lot better than he did last night. Way too many times he lost the battle for the puck, and that shouldn’t happen to a guy with his size, especially against players much smaller than him.

Take a look at how Sidney Crosby competes and come out of scrums with it. If Nash had the same intensity, he would be downright scary. Someone needs to light a fire under Nash for him to be effective or else Babcock should shift him down to the fourth line.

Brendan Morrow, with the little ice time that he had, was way more effective on the fore-check, banging bodies and creating energy. Did anyone even notice Jonathan Toews or Jerome Iginla last night? Neither of them had a shot on goal. What’s with that?

Chris Pronger is looking a little slow out there, and this could be a version of “Fright Night” when he meets up with the flying U.S. Team on Sunday. 

Team Canada players also need to get a little more selfish with the puck and start shooting when the opportunities are there and quit trying to set each other up.

Best line to date, which makes sense since they play together, is the San Jose Sharks trio of Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, and Dany Heatley. Crosby’s line will be just fine when Coach Mike Babcock figures out who’s going to play with him.

Personally, I like Patrice Bergeron or Brendan Morrow and Eric Staal with Crosby. When Ryan Getzlaf’s line starts clicking than the three lines will be hard to match up against.

Not sure what has happened with Brent Seabrook, as he only played 8:28 last night when he was expected to be Keith Duncan’s partner. I have not heard any reports about him being hurt. Looks like Babcock thinks Drew Doughty is the better player, but not with what I saw last night.

Right now, I do not see why Brodeur would not be the starting goalie for the game against the U.S. If Canada had lost, then we may have seen Roberto Luongo, but don’t expect Luongo to play any more unless Brodueur goes in the tank or gets hurt.

In closing, I am hoping that Team Canada’s defense plays a whole lot better this Sunday, or Brodeur will have to be at his very best, especially against the Ryan Kesler line.

We got some dramatics in men's ice hockey, with Switzerland taking Canada the distance, but faltering in the shootout, while Slovakia did the same to Russia, but the Slovaks were able to take the win from the Russians.

But we are all in for a treat this coming Sunday (02/21/10) as we get a day (almost similar to NCAA's rivalry week) that has three rivalry match-ups. This is the day where we will most likely see each of the group winners and runner ups determined.

While it may not seem that important, it is. The three group winners and the best second placed team get a first round bye. Also, the top seeded team has the potential to face the lowest seeded team (barring any upsets between teams five-twelve).

Russia V Czech Republic 3:00pm EST

The Czechs will be coming off a game against Latvia, and the Russians will still have a bitter taste in their mouth after that shootout loss to Slovakia. Barring any surprises, the Czechs will come into this game with a two point lead on the Russians for the group lead—a two point lead the Russians will look to erase.

The Russians boast the better team on paper, but we all know games aren't played on paper.

Thomas Vokoun will guard the net for the Czechs, and he is quietly making a case for a Vezina trophy this season, playing for his Florida Panthers. Russia has two great goaltenders in Nabokov and Bryzgalov, but both have played just OK in these Olympics (Bryzgalov was in net for the loss to Slovakia).

I'm not sure who will start, but I don't think it will matter—both should be able to get the job done, but both could have a not so stellar game.

This should be a game with a ton of skill—Ovechkin and Jagr, Kovalchuk and Elias, Datsyuk and Havlat. It will definitely be a treat for the eyes.

I think this one will go the distance. It's hard to pick against the Russians but I think Vokoun can outplay his Russian counterpart and the Czechs take it four to three in a shootout.

Canada V USA 7:45pm EST

Simple for both teams, win and you take the group. Canada's two points instead of three against the Swiss will only affect them when every team is seeded after the group stages. If the Canadians fail to win this game they will most likely be facing what seemed impossible—losing out on that first bye.

The Canadian team has more talent and more depth than the Americans, but the Americans do have speed. The Americans bring the youth factor, but the Canadian team has it's fair share with Crosby, Toews, and the twenty-year-old defenseman Drew Doughty.

In the nets it's Brodeur V Miller (Miller has been confirmed as the starter for the tournament, and Canada Head Coach Mike Babcock has confirmed Brodeur will get the start in this game).

Miller was playing out of his mind, posting Vezina numbers, but has recently slipped in form along with his Buffalo Sabres. Brodeur hasn't posted career numbers (something hard to do with the career hes had), but he's been solid for the high-flying Devils, who are sitting second in the Eastern Conference.

Heading into this game, both teams have seen scores that haven't reflected their play. The Americans beat the Swiss three to one, and the Norwegians six to one, but they weren't spectacular against Norway until a three goal third period led them to the win.

The same could be said for Canada. The big thing in Canada's camp right now is execution—in the scoreless first period against Norway, and in the whole game versus Switzerland, Canada had all the chances in the world, but couldn't put the puck in the net.

Though, for the most part, Canada's misfortunes against the Swiss could be attributed to the play of Anaheim Ducks 'tender Jonas Hiller.

So we have two teams who aren't really playing to potential, although Canada's potential is greater than the Americans.

I think this game will be really close. I see the Americans up to the challenge of facing Canada on Canadian soil, but I doubt they can get all three points. I say Miller and Brodeur both have great games, but Crosby and co. will be too much for the Americans to handle, and Canada gets it done three to one.

Sweden V Finland 11:55pm EST

A repeat of the final at the 2006 Torino Olympics will see the winner of this one take the group.

Neither of the teams have slipped up (Sweden is currently leading Belarus, and Finland will take on Germany later today) so the loser of this game has a good chance of being the best second placed team and getting a bye—but by all means both teams will be looking to capture all three points.

The Swedes seemed to struggle a little bit against the Germans, and probably should have scored more than the two goals they scored. Backup goaltender for the Sharks Thomas Greiss had an excellent game, and was a big factor in the scoreline not getting inflated above two.

Finland looked solid against a weak Belarus team, only allowing one goal on twelve shots.

Both of these teams have solid defense and solid goaltenders.

Miikka Kiprusoff of the Flames and Henrik Lundqvist of the Rangers will be in net for Finland and Sweden, respectively.

Of the two, Kipper is playing better, and night in and night out gives his Flames a chance to win...but the same can be said of Lundqvist. Who knows where the Flames or Rangers would be in the standings without their star goaltenders.

Both these teams play some great defense, but I would not totally expect a complete defensive battle...but I'm not sure the puck will be in the back of the net a whole lot. Like with Russia, it is hard picking against Sweden, but I am picking Kipper to marginally outplay Lundqvist and Finland to squeak by Sweden two to one.

*After a little scare, Sweden defeated Belarus by a score of four to two

As you have seen in my article, I am a firm believer any team can beat any team—as long as their goaltender is hot. In a knock-out tournament your best player should be your 'tender if you want to take it all.

I hate Pierre McGuire. Just plain hate the guy.

He's Don Cherry minus the flaming suits and great white receding hairline. He's simply a good ol' fashion Canuck homer, who'll do anything to put down the efforts of Canada's greatest rival, Team USA.

Not only that, but his unsightly little bald head is a terrible eyesore during stoppages of play when the NBC cameras go "Between the Glass" to hear his insight about what the players on the end of the bench are saying.

During yesterday's preliminary round matchup between the Americans and Norway, McGuire was in rare form. He constantly criticized the American defensemen for not only joining the rush, but carrying the play themselves into the offensive zone.

"Doc, Edzo (Ed Olczyk), someone explain to me what's going on! This is not the time in the game to be sending defensemen into the rush, you've got a 3-0 lead!"

Only problem is, he was right.

As I sat there and watched Team USA, whom I picked to win the gold medal prior to the tournament , try to stretch their lead over the Norwegians at all costs, I wondered what could possibly be going on behind that bench?

Then it hit me. Ron Wilson had let John Tortorella run the defense. I guess over the course of consuming countless Miller Lites during the opening game against the Swiss in honor of Ryan Miller,—take that IOC!— it must have gotten past me.

But there it was in the second game of the tournament, as clear as anything, the biggest flaw in the Americans' game. Time and time again, defensemen would carry the puck deep into the offensive zone, leaving their post at the blue line often vacated.

This had to be a staple of the "Run N' Gun" style of offense Tortorella loves to implement with the New York Rangers , right? Yeah, because outside of Marian Gaborik, it's been working so well for you, John.

It seemed as though yesterday the red, white and blueliners spent more time in front of the other teams' net than they did trying to clear the path from out in front of their own. It looked like a 30+ over mens' league exhibition where there was little-to-no systematic attack. Just a series of "Well, I have the puck. Let's see how far it takes me."

Maybe David Backes' end-to-end goal against the Swiss was ultimately a bad thing for the rest of this team to see. Now they all think they can do it.

Now granted, I understand that goal differential could potentially play a big role in deciding which teams will see each other in the quarterfinals. I appreciate that a squad like Team USA wasn't satisfied with just three goals halfway through a game against Norway.

But the only time Norway scored was on a defensive breakdown on the power play, in which Jamie Langenbrunner blew a tire and allowed a 2-on-1 break to go the other way.

Actually, "Captain America" looked like he got taken out by Lee Harvey Oswald while receiving a backhanded pass from Patrick Kane that would've all-but-surely put the US ahead 4-0.

The chance was there, and you can't be too angry about a play like that. If Langenbrunner scored, everyone would've called it brilliant. But when Ryan Suter chips the puck into the offensive corner, then goes and gets it and tries to score from behind the net, it's a different story.

Both McGuire and esteemed NBC analyst Mike Milbury made points to say that if the Americans brought a similar effort to the table Sunday against Team Canada, that they'd be burned.

I couldn't figure out what had me more heated. The fact that the Americans were playing so poorly, or that I found myself agreeing with the two hockey personalities I loathe as much as anyone.

Make no mistake—Canada's inability to secure three points against Switzerland last night will serve as a wake up call. To many uneducated spectators, they now seem vulnerable after surviving a four-round shootout against the Swiss. However, they will come out Sunday with something to prove to the 19,000 Canadian supporters in Canada Hockey Place, to the Americans on the other side of the ice, and most importantly, to themselves.

Part of me wants the Canadians to have their way with Team USA on Sunday. It's not a must-win game. Maybe the Americans would be better served losing to their rivals, and getting a similar wake up call the Canadians received last night.

I'm just worried that with Tortorella behind the bench, the call would go right to voicemail.

Team USA only came to play for a period and a half this afternoon, but it was enough to defeat the Norwegians by the score of 6-1 at Canada Hockey Place.

Based on this performance, the United States will have a lot of work to do over the next two days to prepare for Team Canada on Sunday night. It should not be too difficult to get up for that game, but effort will only get you so far. Execution is key and there wasn't a whole lot of that in today's contest.

Patience, please, everyone. Can we suspend judgment for now?

Someone who missed Team USA’s 2010 Olympic hockey opener Tuesday afternoon against Switzerland might have this morning read Russell McKenzie's piece on Bleacher Report and thought Brian Burke’s young team played at a level above and beyond their somewhat low expectations.

They didn’t.

Someone else who didn’t watch might have read Matthew Hogan's piece and thought Team USA’s sometimes-sloppy play means the team is already “doomed” to a disappointing finish.

They’re not.

Against an inferior Swiss team, Team USA looked like a team full of young NHL players that just got together a couple of nights ago after more than 50 games with their respective professional teams since October.

In other words, they had their ups and downs.

Hogan is right; the U.S. team was sloppy. Switzerland was a poor passing and puck-handling team that should have been consistently punished in their defensive zone by a hard-forechecking, Burke-style team. But aside from the two-goal second period, this was not enough the case.

Team USA let their slower opponent break through the blue line on an inappropriate amount of odd-man breaks. Had the Swiss not missed several wide open nets, the Americans would have had an even tougher game on their hands.    

A shaky first period and lack-luster third, though, were overcome by Team USA with an impressive second that showed their NHL skill. So McKenzie is right, too. The team can play.

U.S. forward David Backes looked impressive flying down the left wing after a sprawling Ryan Miller save. Backes went coast to coast before cutting across the net and forcing the puck past Swiss goalie Jonas Hiller of the Anaheim Ducks to push the U.S. lead to 2-0 nearly six minutes into the middle frame.

The team showed some grit with their third goal, an in-close rebound batted past Hiller by forward Ryan Malone. The Americans dominated the front of the net on the play, refusing to be pushed around or cleared out by the Swiss defensemen.

And though the U.S. forwards did get caught deep in the offensive zone often, leading to Swiss breaks, the defense did not surrender a goal skating backwards. Strong body play, quality poke checks and smart positioning forced the Swiss into, for the most part, low-percentage shots and turnovers.

In the ESPN age of instantaneous analysis and immediate team judgment, it is important to put things in context.

Yes, Team USA controlled Switzerland on the stat sheet and got some good performances from players they likely did not expect them from (Bobby Ryan). But it was against the Swiss, a team that looked as unskilled with the puck as they did helpless without it.

Yes, Team USA had some ugly periods of play in which their defense looked porous and their heads weren’t in it. But it was the first game. Nine players had played for their NHL teams just two days prior.

On that Sunday, five players played against one of their Team USA teammates. Ryan Suter’s Predators beat Brooks Orpik’s Penguins while Rangers Ryan Callahan and Chris Drury knocked off Ryan Malone’s Lightning.

For guys to go from being fierce opponents in a league where the heated fight for playoff spots is well underway to everybody-love-everybody Team USA teammates at the Olympics is not something that can be done in two days.

Let’s just give them some time. They have a game against Norway Thursday. Ron Wilson’s squad should win and, more importantly, improve on Tuesday’s performance.

We’ll take it from there.  

I'm not a hockey fan, never have been and probably never will be. But this story caught my attention after Arnie Spanier of 105.3 FM in Dallas brought it up at the beginning of his show yesterday.

A lot of us that have been to hockey games, or watched them on TV, have noticed that a lot of goalies have their own style of helmets that they design. Often times those helmets have slogans written on them or they have pictures or designs that make it unique to their own style.

Such was the case for USA Hockey goalie's Ryan Miller and Jonathan Quick. Miller was asked by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) to cover up or remove "Miller Time" from his helmet as it violated the "banning advertisements and propaganda." Miller has agreed to do so but will fight to keep "Matt Man," as it is a tribute to his cousin Matt Schoals who lost his battle with cancer.

Similarly, Quick has been asked to remove "Support Our Troops" as the IOC has called it "political propaganda." Quick, nor the US Olympic Committee, is letting that go quietly. Bob Condron, a spokesman for the USOC told the Associated Press, "We're going to meet with USA Hockey tonight to see what their thoughts are. We don't know if it's a federation or a USOC situation."

Should Quick be forced to remove "Support Our Troops" and is this really "political propaganda" for a goalie to want to show his support to those that are doing something that a lot of us would never have the guts to do? Is this really something that would offend people?

I had written an article about the NCAA banning eye black "messages" and I'm of the opinion that it was a "just in case" move so they wouldn't have to worry a player writing something offensive under their eyes. Though the NCAA had not had a case like that, there were some that argued that former Florida quarterback Tim Tebow was forcing his religion on people by writing pieces of biblical scripture under his eyes.

This reeks of that same kind of situation and that the IOC is making a politically correct move to keep themselves out of trouble just in case something might happen.

While I agree that there is no place for a political statement in the olympics, "Support Our Troops" is hardly a political statement. Since when can we not show our support for the men and women in uniform. It doesn't say "Support the War."

I'm fully behind the US Olympic Committee and Jonathan Quick on this one as I know there was no political intent with the message. But because the IOC is too scared to tell people to get over themselves and allow the First Amendment to apply, they'll tuck their tail between their legs and ask USA Hockey to "pretty please remove it because we don't want to make anyone upset."

This isn't the first time the IOC has come under fire, especially not after the death of 21-year old luger Nodar Kumaritashvili from the Republic of Georgia just hours before the opening ceremonies. But instead of taking responsibility for what was called a dangerous track by the Calgary Herald just hours before Kumaritashvili's crash, the IOC put the blame squarely on Kumaritashvili saying he didn't compensate coming out of a turn.

According to National Public Radio, the IOC's statement read in part "There was no indication that the accident was caused by deficiencies in the track." Though changes were made in the track after the death, the IOC said it had nothing to do with the death. International Luge Federation president Josef Fendt told NPR, "We never said it is too fast but a decision was made to alter the track based on the emotional components of the athletes."

The IOC seems to be more upset about three words on a goalie's helmet than saving their own skin over a tragedy that was their fault to begin with. Seems like a double standard to me.

You get the feeling that being the underdog to win Vancouver gold suits these youngsters just fine.

Today, the USA Men's Hockey team overcame Switzerland 3-1. 

US GM Brian Burke raised some eyebrows by putting together a squad very unlike the traditional "Dream Team" squads put together by their Canadian rivals, or the dreaded Russian squad that featured five man unit line changes in practice yesterday.

Today, Burke's master plan worked. And, if it hadn't been for Roman Wick's bad bounce goal, the U.S., led by Sabres goalie Ryan Miller, would have rolled to a shut out.

The fourth line, of course, opened the scoring. Bobby Ryan scored on a rocket shot from the slot to open the scoring just before the end of the first period after a mainly flat opening frame by both teams.

Ryan was one of the most dominant payers throughout the game, playing on a line with Rangers forwards Chris Drury and Ryan Callahan.  

Tampa Bay's Ryan Malone, a classic power forward, scored a power play goal on a line with Toronto's Phil Kessel and San Jose's Joe Pavelski. Anaheim goalie Jonas Hiller made the initial stop, but Malone was able to poke it home.

The U.S. team made it 3-0 on a beautiful up ice rush by David Backes.

Honestly, Bobby Ryan's goal might be the definition of this young U.S. squad. With all the talk of skill level, and the giant that is the Canadian team, there is something to be said for putting the right players in the right positions with succinct roles.  

A team like Canada has a high skill level, but the Canadian coaching staff will be asking a top flight player to play a specific role in the coming games.

For now, Brian Burke's team looks to be just that—a TEAM.

Also of note:

There are six Ryans on the US Squad: Ryan Malone, Ryan Callahan, Ryan Suter, Ryan Miller, Bobby Ryan, and Ryan Kessler.

Ryan Suter's father, Bob, played on the 1980 Miracle on Ice team. It's the 30th anniversary of that team of college students overcoming the powerhouse Russian squad on their way to grab the gold that year.

The coaching staff indicated that the 1980 win was not the best perspective for this young squad to have, preferring to use the 1996 World Cup team as inspiration for their team.