J’adore Coop, mais je n’aime pas cette citation de Coop. C’est un peu une mauvaise énergie de perdant avec ceci et les citations de Mackinnons. Le Canada a remporté les Jeux olympiques 4 contre 4. Personne ne s’en plaignait alors. Tout le monde connaissait les règles du tournoi. Nous savions tous que ce serait 3 contre 3. Le Canada a littéralement gagné un match plus tôt dans le tournoi en prolongation. Est-ce qu’ils se plaignaient alors ? Le Canada a littéralement commencé 3 des 6 meilleurs joueurs du monde sur une seule ligne, le Canada aurait dû avoir l’avantage en prolongation et ils ont tout gâché. Je vous garantis qu’il n’y aurait personne à se plaindre du format ou du 3 contre 3 si le Canada gagnait. Ou auraient-ils dit : « oh, je suis content que nous ayons gagné, mais c’était 3 contre 3. Donc ça ne compte pas vraiment autant… »
—
Big_ole_mudpie
28 Comments
Is it a sore loser quote? Yeah. Is it wrong? Fuck no.
3-3 OT and shootouts are BS. It’s tolerable in the regular season because there’s a lot of games, but in the Olympics? It’s beyond stupid. How can the Olympics complain about people not taking them seriously enough when they don’t even take the most marquee sport in the entire Winter Olympics seriously.
he’s right though. they change the rules in OT so that it’ll end faster, that changes the game. still shoulda coulda woulda won, but im grateful those OT rules aren’t used in the playoffs
I love Coop and agree 100% with him as an American who was/is ecstatic the US won gold.
When I realized they were going 3 on 3 in OT I was disappointed. I’m all for 3 on 3 in non playoff games as no one wants to watch a 4 or 5 hour game. But the playoffs and medal games are different. I would have been fine playing 2,3,4 OTs yesterday.
He isn’t wrong but also shouldn’t be an excuse for Canada. 3 on 3 plays to Canada’s strengths more than anyone else’s because of the forward talent and speed that they have. They were better suited than anyone in the tournament to take advantage of the open space.
Ultimately their players didn’t execute. McDavid was loose with the puck in OT trying to do it all himself, Makar with a bad pinch and lost a puck battle, MacKinnon beaten to a puck by Werenski. Can’t fault anyone but themselves, got outworked when it mattered.
He’s not wrong. The Olympics shouldn’t use 3v3 at all. The NHL uses it only for regular season to end games faster. For the playoffs however, let the best team win, no matter how long it takes.
Now with that said, Canada had 3 of the best players in the world out there and still lost it. It is what it is. Canada had a ton of opportunities to win that game but they didn’t. They lost, USA won.
I mean… Is he wrong? Plenty of people were complaining about the 3 on 3 OT rule well before the gold medal game. There IS a reason why the playoffs aren’t 3 on 3 OT.
Sounds like he is just pushing for consideration of 5v5 overtime for 2030. Squeaky wheel kind of thing.
NFL changed their playoff overtime rules recently because they were silly. Who says something similar couldn’t happen here
Upvoting because it’s related to the Lightning, but I do agree with what he’s saying. It’s fine in the regular season when it’s designed to force an end to a game (and only 1 of 82). But using it in the Olympics knockout round where every game is a Game 7 makes it less enjoyable to see them decided by basically a skills competition.
Now, every country agreed to the format along with the IIHF, so what’s done is done. But that doesn’t mean we can’t also want it to be better in 2030.
Was he asked specifically about 3 on 3? Because if so, then whatever. I think most hockey fans and players would probably agree that 3 on 3 isn’t “real” hockey and if he was asked his thoughts on it then he shouldn’t be expected to lie and say he likes it just for the sake of decorum.
Then don’t let it get to OT I don’t know what to say. I don’t think coop is a sore loser at all and probably taken a little out of context but just speaking on the 3 on 3 rule. If canada wins their side doesn’t mention it.
While I do agree. It’s the same format for everyone involved. Canada didn’t lose that game because of 3v3 OT. They lost because they squandered MANY opportunities during regulation.
I def agree with him. There should be all OT until there’s a winner. That’s exactly how it is in playoffs. This should be like that.
Score a 5-3 with the best power play lineup of all time then
Its hard to judge the quote without the actual question. He has said similar things after winning. I am sure you would get a similar answer from Mike Sullivan. You can win and still not like something. The fact that they lost the game shouldn’t diminish what is meant by what he said. That the Olympics should be more like the playoffs and do 5v5 overtime. I agree with that statement.
Why not just keep playing if the game is tied at the end of the 3rd
He’s not saying they would have won…and I don’t really look at it as complaining. I think we can all agree that you play so hard for 60 minutes and then you completely change how the game is played. It’s much more of a chance of a wild quick finish. I am okay for regular games it being 3 on 3…but when a medal is on the line…it should have been 5 on 5 IMO.
He’s not wrong but he’s only saying this because they lost. Also, both teams had the same amount of players out there. And one of those teams had McDavid and MacKinnon so there’s no excuse.
like others have been saying here, I agree with him. Specifically for the Olympics a tournament style bracket, much like playoffs, should be played like playoffs. No 3-3. To say its sore loser-y to point out a clear flaw drawing a 1-1 comparison where it isnt used is just weird imo
I don’t think it should be used in the medal/knockout rounds, especially sudden death. At least with shootouts you can go, « okay, they scored, now we HAVE to score ». With the gold medal game? It was instant game decision? I actually agree with him.
Complaining about 3 v 3 when you have a starting lineup of McDavid, Mackinnon, and Makar is absolutely WILD
I’m stoked America won, but I fully agree that 3 on 3 hockey is a gimmick and doesn’t belong in serious competitive play.
There’s no way the gold medal game should be decided 3v3. Every other round it makes total sense just to prevent wear and tear on the players. Imagine if the cup finals came down to that lol.
Canadian here… I said it to my buddy as OT started that this doesn’t feel right. Yes better than a shootout but then again there is time to process a shootout. This was pure crack through the veins as a spectator. I really didn’t like it. I like the idea of finishing it properly and for that matter not finishing on a timeline. No one cares about the closing ceremony like they would a final hockey game. In fact everyone would be watching the game in the arena had they still been playing.
As if they didn’t squander an extended 5v3.
He’s not wrong but 3v3 should have favored Canada by every metric. The US left three of our top scorers at home. McJesus, Celebrini, and Makar should have been able to score 5 times before the US got 1. I’m glad it worked for the US, but I gave us little chance after regulation. And if they had played 5 more minutes of 3v3, the final probably would have been 6-2.
What these people fail to understand and differentiate is that the Olympics is not the same as the playoffs. Hockey is not the only sport that is going on. There are scheduling conflicts due to all that is happening. If these games go into 4 OT’s then that would push the other events back. Even if you only did 5v5 OT for the final game then you still would push the airtime for the other events back and risk not being done in time for closing ceremonies. The bottom line is, your team missed multiple opportunities to seal the deal in regulation whether that’s missing open nets or not capitalizing on a 5 on 3 PP. Bc of that, you are now a victim to whatever happens in OT. The games have to end at some point because this isn’t a tournament that is only about hockey, it’s about hundreds of other athletes and sports.
I’ll give Cooper the benefit of the doubt because we know he has never had loser energy much less sore loser energy. I think he’s right and while I get that the Olympics can’t and won’t put their schedule at risk with the possibility of a 3O, it just isn’t hockey.
This was taken slightly out of context and makes is sound like he was complaining. He was specifically asked about 3 on 3 OT and was saying it was made for TV. He also followed it up with fact that he’s played in a 5 OT game and said, « nobody wants to watch a 6 1/2 hour hockey game »