我将强调文章本质上是分析的，以便让读者材料更好地了解游戏。我喜欢 别人 我真诚地希望他们制作播放。有机会在那里，他们需要实现。
过去10场比赛的系列证明是别人的成功：7-3-0。和联赛领袖的比赛前四次连续胜利 - 波士顿 暗示该团队终于来到了表格的高峰，并能够抓住野马区。
足以说，游侠在联盟的前7个队伍上是关于每场比赛的目标 - GF / GP = 3.29和桌面的29个桌子上的桌子上的28个 - GA / GP = 3.08。但由于2月份的一系列胜利，目标的正面平衡仅成立。
Data provided by Hockeyviz.com
A huge red spot in the slot zone freezes the offensive potential of the team: Rangers scores a lot, but too much allows a rival in DZ.
This scheme and statistics clearly describe the deplorable situation in the defense zone of the New York guys, but it does not reflect the essence of the problem: why this is the way the team plays, not otherwise. When looking at the actions in the defense, a number of shortcomings in the game of all lines leading to constantly repeated errors are seen.
This post is dedicated to the analysis of the game in defense. And I want to show that Rangers problems in DZ are systemic and derived from the efforts of all players on the ice, not just nominal defenders.
I do not see my goal as to devalue the qualities of players. This is only an analysis of tactics on the basis of which you can understand what things need to be corrected in the game to improve the team 's results.
The system is necessary
Perhaps the biggest problem in defence for Rangers is controlling the space in front of the net. Only it is not about insufficient control, but about super control, I would say fanatical protection of the square in front of the net by several players at once. The desire to close the space in front of the net in whatever way leads to serious problems. Such a game leads to loss of position by players, and further the course of the game episode often does not allow to intercept the initiative and hockey players are forced to move randomly in their own zone in an attempt to take away the puck. Here is a prime example of such a game:
At the start of the episode, the Islanders attack seemed to be eliminated, but losing the puck at the board on the blue line allowed the Islanders to continue the offensive. And here the inconsistency of actions in the DZ was particularly clear.
If it wasn 't for Georgiev's great game, the score should have changed in favor of the Isles. Staal and Zibanejad immediately move together to the slot zone, leaving a free opponent behind the net. Since Staal is the defender and is supposed to control the net area, it is obvious that the opponent had to be covered by Zibanejad and he did it, but it was too late - Eberle (# 7) received a puck behind the net and gave an excellent assist to Barzal (# 13), who in turn went to the high-danger position absolutely without interference, being actually surrounded by three Rangers. After this mistake, Rangers players no longer had time to cover opponents and in fact only reacted to their actions, completely losing the initiative. The problem is that Rangers players in every game find themselves lined up in a similar way in front of their net, leaving plenty of free space for uncovered opponents. Goalies make the save, but they are unable to do it always.
In the game against Boston, that mistake led to score. Again at a critical moment four players from New York positioned themselves right in front of Lundqvist's net, while allowing Krejci to quietly shoot and Pastrnak to play on rebound. Notably, Lundqvist warned Trouba of the need to control an opponent, but neither he nor Buchnevich appreciated the outgoing danger from one of the best snipers of the season.
Important: Again, a highly dangerous chance is generated by a forward behind the net. This aspect of the game Rangers should pay special attention if they really want to play in post season.
Three more episodes on the topic of losing an opponent:
These passages illustrate a number of important points:
1. Space behind the net is one of the key areas when playing in DZ;
2. Puck-control at the board can become an important factor of success;
3. It is necessary to close possible pass lines.
In addition, losses of covered players and position selection errors are compounded by insufficient aggressiveness in the protection of the net.
In this episode the rival is allowed too much. Here really California skaters felt like kings! Result 3:1 in favor of LAK... Here all shortcomings in the defensive actions of Rangers showed at once:
- all five are cramped in the slot area, leaving opponents with plenty of clean space to move;
- periodically lose defensive positions and opponents;
- extremely poorly pressed, or not pressed at all.
Due to their loyal attitude towards the rival in D, the Rangers have one of the highest numbers of shots on goal against and rebounds against:
Data provided by MoneyPuck.com
Compare the actions of Boston players in a very similar situation:
1. Two defenders (#79, #48) are located to the right and left of the net, blocking passes on both sides - and the goalkeeper sees the moment of shoot;
2. Two forwards (#74, #83) perform high pressing at the blue line, not giving opponents time to make decisions;
3. The defender (# 48) exerts active force pressure in front of the net;
4. One forward (# 46) plays in the middle of the ice, controlling the rebound;
别人 have problems in the game related not to the defense model - positional defense/man-on-man coverage - but rather to its absence. The choice of defense model depends on the roster of the team and on the game philosophy of the coaching staff. In the case of Rangers, it is obvious that man-on-man model will not fit, as it places increased requirements on defenders in terms of skating and speed of decision-making. Coaches of Bruins, for example, stopped on a positional model - "Half-Ice Overload", having in a team of defenders who do not have particularly large dimensions (Chara exception), as opposed to them examples of Dallas and Islanders. If we look at the dimensions of Boston's D-line, we will see very similar height/weight to Rangers: 197.9 (lbs) / 73.5 (in) - NYR and 200.2 (lbs) / 73 (in) - Boston. It is much easier and more energy-efficient to block opponents from entering certain ice zones (do not create clear space and gap), to close the boards and to move more actively along the perimeter of the slot.
This gif perfectly confirms this thought:
波士顿 players, with approximately the same height/weight ratio, have a perfectly established defense game system. Every player knows where and when to move, they close the boards in time and block opponents even BEFORE they start a dangerous movement. Plus to it hard meet the opponent at the net, do not allow not only to play a stick, but also actively carry out physical game.
As for the Rangers game, they clearly lack systemicity in action. First of all it concerns defense, as in the OZ the team well presses, often holds a puck for a long time, players are ready to go to selection and to fight. But it 's worth them crossing their blue line as mistakes and chaotic movements begin.
There are three examples in this gif-images of Rangers players having trouble getting out of the defensive zone in the face of not the toughest pressing. In the first two episodes, the puck was withdrawn through the board by a long pass behind the blue line. This exit option was often used at Toronto under Mike Babcock and it has a serious disadvantage. But first it is worth pointing out the advantage of such a solution: the puck moves faster than any player, accordingly, it is easier and more convenient to move it to the right point by pass, thus saving time. That is, the faster the exit from the DZ is carried out, the faster the offence begins. And acting at high speed is the paradigm of modern hockey. In practice, however, most teams have long stopped attempts at such a game at the exit. The 2-1-2 forecheck system is great at this:
Boston - presses Carolina players. Matt Grzelchik (#48) played perfectly on the blue line, blocking the take of the puck, followed by an interception in the neutral zone and the withdrawal of his partner into the offence.
It is this problem that the Rangers face when they cannot reliably pass the puck. The mistake lies in the puck-taking player 's quest to walk as far away as possible from his blue line deep into ice rink.
1. Forecheck 2-1-2 reliably covers the directions of the pass;
2. Often (almost always) the receiving player is located with his back (or side) in the direction of offence and is chained in his actions, he is easy to cover, as even if the puck is successfully taken, he needs time to turn and accelerate. On gif-images it is noticeable that the player taking the puck ends up behind the back of the pressing opponent and is forced to go into selection himself. With a successful take of the puck, the optimal option is a quick pass per move to the partner, but doing so is much harder than writing. The best solution here will be the active movement of one of the forwards, who will go deeper into D zone (below the blue line) and receive a puck while in motion, or taking the opponent behind him to create a clear space to teammates.
3. The offencive team, which has good mobility, immediately moves into the backcheck.
In the case of the New York team, exit from D zone is complicated by mental mistakes: players rush to make a pass to the teammate even when they see that the direction of the pass is blocked, but there are alternative ways to exit nearby.
I wish to emphasize that the situations described are not a verdict for Rangers. The team can still correct a number of shortcomings in defense. First of all it concerns appearance of systemicity, increase of aggression and planned when playing in D zone.
Notably, Rangers have shown an excellent systemic approach at times:
That 's exactly what it takes. The only question is, why doesn't the team play like this on a permanent basis?
1. Rangers' current model of playing in the D zone leaves too much free space for opponents. This makes it possible to apply too many shots on NYR net. It doesn't matter from which position these shots are applied, but it is important that Rangers players are located in the D zone incorrectly - opponents turn up earlier on rebound - this is evidenced by the heat map. The slot zone is "overheated" for this reason.
2. Chaotic defense play prevents NYR players exits from DZ effectively in NZ. In such a game, Rangers skaters are forced to often take the puck through the boards, but opponents block these paths. The teams-league leaders try to use the ice center to exit from DZ, as it gives the ability to control the puck in the NZ. This, in turn, expands the range of possibilities of offence: it is possible to carry out a safe shift, to continue the game without icing or to launch an offence using the whole space of ice.
3. The team's goalkeeper line shows great form even with such not the most reliable defense. But it's a lot easier for a goalkeeper to play when he sees a puck. The overload of the slot by their own players closes the view to the goalkeepers, which also makes it more difficult for them to work.
4. How good is teammates chemistry in OZ, just as bad in DZ. Rangers should work on mobility and establish teamwork in the defense zone.
5. Physical game in DZ (slot, primarily) is one of the team's weakest points. I suggest that this fact be treated not as a disadvantage, but as a growth point.
Soon the deadline, after which the team will come to the finish line. No matter how muchthe roster changes if Rangers want to get into wild-card zone, then they need to understand that post season for them has already begun. In the remaining games it is necessary to make every effort. Only in this way can the character of the winner be formed.
This roster has not exhausted the potential for growth. The rebuilding is not yet complete, the team will change, but the Rangers can fight - it is important, because this is the right process, as a result of which the real strength of the team increases. The right process forms the players professional culture and identity with the team - distinctive features of the club-contender.