Lundy has a clear weakness glove side and high that gets taken advantage of at times. Can folks who remember these things better than I discuss what weaknesses other greats had, and were they as noticeable as Henrik's?
"weaknesses" are overblown, dudes shoot the puck 100mph, sometimes they're hard to stop.
People used to say Patrick Roy was exposed when he had to move and you could beat him 5 hole. I don't know many goalies who could move (like on a breakaway) and protect 5 hole.
when people talk weaknesses with goalies like Henrik or Roy they're really reaching.
I do know that Hasek was always said to be "unorthodox" with his style, but so what, when you're that effective maybe everyone else is unorthodox.
agree. Except Hank is comically bad playing the puck.
You're probably right - you watch him way more than me. I never noticed it being an issue. My preference for goalies is less is more. stop it on a wrap around and get in the net. Guys like Brodeur and Hextall (or Bishop as you might see in this series) are an anomaly.
Gretzky was bad on breakaways. That was what u would always hear about him. Now with the shootout in hockey the last few years we can see that the goalies have a huge advantage in a breakaway contest. Look at the percentages of most of the players.
No doubt he was a butterfly goalie, but if anywhere was vulnerable it was high, like over the shoulder b/c he was not huge (barely 6') and had a tendency to go down into the butterfly early.
5-hole is where I stand as "the book" on Roy, when he's moving.
But again, he's one of the top 5 best goalies of all time, so if this "weakness" is truly a weakness it's not one that was easily exploited or exploited very often.
being high glove / high stick is mostly because of his tendency to play deep in the net. He takes away the bottom of the ice so damn well that the best chance a player has to score on his is high. The same can be said about most any goalie now-a-days considering the position is so much more technical then reaction based like in the past.
That goal today by Palat was just beast, He really had no chance at it. That shot is any goalies weakness as such a high shot is just nearly impossible to stop and when they do get it, it's more luck as the player didnt' get it high enough and it just clips their arm or shoulder.
is never having a team quiiiite good enough to match his dominance in order to shut up the people who say he's not good enough if he never wins a trophy.
That goal today doesn't reveal a weakness in Henrik
That was a laser from about 6 feet, and he had about a 4 inch window which he managed to hit...sometimes you have to just give the other guy credit
That said, it was an interesting contrast watching Bishop out playing the puck like he was a D man, vs Henrik looking shaky every time he goes behind the net to play it
Of course, Bishop had a bad giveaway that almost cost him
RE: That goal today doesn't reveal a weakness in Henrik
That was a laser from about 6 feet, and he had about a 4 inch window which he managed to hit...sometimes you have to just give the other guy credit
That said, it was an interesting contrast watching Bishop out playing the puck like he was a D man, vs Henrik looking shaky every time he goes behind the net to play it
Of course, Bishop had a bad giveaway that almost cost him
No doubt that Henrik had absolutely no chance on today's goal. But he's targeted there routinely. Slacker, I agree with your view of it.
I have no idea but just read this article in the AM on NHL.com
that's super detailed on the subject. Seems they do it every round (so was a Bishop v Price, a West goalies analysis this round as well) but it discusses this in depth
Does he have a weakness without it being taken advantage of on this level, no way in the world, that is a total misconception. What is not is his weakness playing the puck, that is his weakness. That is a weakness a goalie can live with. The shot taken today was a shot that handcuffed him, that can happen and does happen to any goalie.
His job is to prevent goals. There are very few goalies around today who stop goals as well as Lundquist. He also does not give many rebounds either. Moving the puck is not his primary job and I'll take his strength any day over goalies who move the puck better but don't prevent goals as well.
People used to say Patrick Roy was exposed when he had to move and you could beat him 5 hole. I don't know many goalies who could move (like on a breakaway) and protect 5 hole.
when people talk weaknesses with goalies like Henrik or Roy they're really reaching.
I do know that Hasek was always said to be "unorthodox" with his style, but so what, when you're that effective maybe everyone else is unorthodox.
You're probably right - you watch him way more than me. I never noticed it being an issue. My preference for goalies is less is more. stop it on a wrap around and get in the net. Guys like Brodeur and Hextall (or Bishop as you might see in this series) are an anomaly.
You could sneak shots through Roy's underarms fairly well since he was such a great butterfly technician
Hard to say with Hasek since he was so absurdly unconventional.
Definitely agree on Hank's glove but he's still formidable there.
On a different note, watching Mike Richter on breakaways was goaltending at its finest. Fucker.
No doubt he was a butterfly goalie, but if anywhere was vulnerable it was high, like over the shoulder b/c he was not huge (barely 6') and had a tendency to go down into the butterfly early.
5-hole is where I stand as "the book" on Roy, when he's moving.
But again, he's one of the top 5 best goalies of all time, so if this "weakness" is truly a weakness it's not one that was easily exploited or exploited very often.
same with Henrik and Marty.
That goal today by Palat was just beast, He really had no chance at it. That shot is any goalies weakness as such a high shot is just nearly impossible to stop and when they do get it, it's more luck as the player didnt' get it high enough and it just clips their arm or shoulder.
That said, it was an interesting contrast watching Bishop out playing the puck like he was a D man, vs Henrik looking shaky every time he goes behind the net to play it
Of course, Bishop had a bad giveaway that almost cost him
That said, it was an interesting contrast watching Bishop out playing the puck like he was a D man, vs Henrik looking shaky every time he goes behind the net to play it
Of course, Bishop had a bad giveaway that almost cost him
No doubt that Henrik had absolutely no chance on today's goal. But he's targeted there routinely. Slacker, I agree with your view of it.
The King v Bishop - ( New Window )
His stick handling sucks.