Before going any further, a small clarification of a technical nature: this column was written using mainly notes and data extracted from the matches that the two teams played against the formations of group A. This group brought together the five best teams world. The quarter-final matches, which pitted Canada and the United States against significantly weaker opponents, were therefore ruled out.
Very early in the Beijing Games tournament, the Canadians began to deliver severe beatings to their opponents. To the point where many observers had the impression that women’s hockey had retreated.
In Sochi and Pyeongchang, it was believed that this sport had reached a certain maturity. All the matches involving the Canadians or the Americans ended in relatively close scores.
In Beijing, the Canadians picked up three victories that resulted in differences of 10 or more goals. Such a thing had never happened at the Olympics in the past. Not to mention the fact that their semi-final, a 10-3 victory against the Swiss, was second in women’s history for goal difference. However, statistics show that the scores for matches involving other countries, including the United States, have remained quite similar to what we saw at the 2014 and 2018 Games. We can therefore argue that so far, it is Canada that has proven to be exceptional in this tournament.
At the start of the Games, many observers – including myself – said they were impressed by the structure of the game and the level of execution, both collective and individual, achieved by Canada’s players. The results mentioned above simply seem to confirm these assessments.
Offensively, the Canadians and the Americans are not in the same league. Against the Group A teams, Canada generated 140 quality scoring chances compared to 100 for the Americans. Over five games, that’s a huge difference.
In terms of goals scored, the difference is even more striking: the score is 54 to 28 in favor of Canada.
When you take a look at the main offensive engines of both teams, the depth of the Canadian formation is scary. The goals are likely to come from everywhere:
- Sarah Fillier (16 quality chances)
- Rebecca Johnston (15 chances)
- Sarah Nurse (14 chances)
- Brianne Jenner (13 chances)
- Blayre Turnbull (13 chances)
- Jamie Lee Rattray (12 chances)
- Nathalie Spooner (10 chances)
The finest observers will note that the name of Marie-Philip Poulin does not appear on this list. With 9 quality chances, the captain appears tied for seventh place with her teammate Laura Stacey.
On the American side, the threat is much more targeted and tenuous:
- Hilary Knight (13 quality chances);
- Kendall Coyne Schofield (13 chances);
- Alex Carpenter (12 chances);
- Jesse Compher (7 chances);
- Grace Zumwinkle (7 chances);
- Amanda Kessel (6 chances).
When it comes to mobility, quick transitions and the ability to shoot the puck with authority, the difference in skill level between Canadian and American women is significant.
We’ve seen many Canadian women beat goaltenders with hard shots from the top end of the crease or face-off circle. This ability to shoot the puck as effectively increases their paying offensive zone as well as their chances of making circulate the puck.
For their part, and it is striking, the Americans generally have to stay in the opposing zone (which they do very well) to score goals. Once installed, they try to spot a teammate posted near the net or to create excess numbers around the semi-circle of the opposing goalkeeper to collect the loose pucks.
This is why the expression steak, corn, potatoes
describes their style so well.
You’re reading this and you’re probably wondering why the Americans dominated (despite losing 4-2) their preliminary round match against Canada.
In this famous meeting, the United States had also had the upper hand 16 to 9 in terms of quality scoring chances. It was the brilliance of Canadian goalkeeper Ann-Renée Desbiens, literally bombarded early in the game, and the ability of Canada’s forwards to take advantage of their chances that changed the game.
Marie-Philip Poulin scored a penalty shot goal in the first game between Canada and the United States.
Photo : Getty Images / Anthony Wallace / AFP
The answer to this question is that the Americans always play the same way and their style, although less dynamic, is tailor-made for trench warfare.
For their part, the Canadian women must change their approach when they face the United States.
The intense forechecking of the Americans forces them to commit turnovers. They must constantly fight in their area to put an end to the long enemy occupations. Their transitions are less efficient because the neutral zone is more congested. And their defenders can no longer venture deep into the offensive zone without risking paying the price.
Facing the Americans, it is not easy to make fireworks. The Canadians have fewer opportunities to exploit their speed and must take advantage of the rare scoring chances available to them.
Over the years, the Olympic finals between the United States have always been extremely close:
- 3-1 for the Americans in 1998;
- 3-2 for Canada in 2002;
- Canada won 2-0 in 2010;
- Canadians won 3-2 in 2014;
- And a verdict of 3-2 (after shootout) for the benefit of the Americans in 2018.
Once again, the goalkeepers will have a crucial role to play in this final of the Beijing Games.
Again, even though Ann-Renée Desbiens did not look good in the semi-final against Switzerland, I concede an advantage to the Canadians in this key position.
Desbiens was clearly identified as Canada’s number one goaltender early in the tournament and she delivered an almost flawless run.
For his part, Alex Cavallini gained the confidence of coach Joel Johnson late in life. And it hasn’t faced an attack as formidable as Canada’s for a long time.
On paper, Canada must therefore be considered a favorite a few hours before this final.