When I watched Filip Forsberg a couple weeks back, I didn't have these questions. In fact, he played better than I thought he would. Maybe because Forsberg matched, even exceeded, my preconceptions, I expected Hampus Lindholm to do the same. I wonder if it's fair to Lindholm that I was judging him by the same standards as Forsberg, but if those standards are subconscious is it really possible to have any control over them?
The way the mind processes the game changes with each one. Before the Rögle/Leksands game, I had yet to see Swedish hockey in person, and had yet to see Allsvenskan hockey at all. Based on that game, I came into this Rögle/Malmö game with a certain set of expectations as to how the play would be.
In many ways, I was wrong. This contest was slower-paced. I don't want to say more tightly checked, but more tentative. The hitting was better. Guys still don't punish each other like North American pros, but there were some quality collisions. Perhaps both differences can be explained by the fact that Rögle and Malmö have a rivalry. I'm not sure.
In many ways, I was right in my stereotypes of the play based on that one contest. Both games were somewhat similar. The passing was a little disjointed. The breakouts were a little disorganized. Defensive coverage was a little too lax. Everything's just a little off. These consistencies and inconsistencies are helping me develop an idea about what Swedish hockey, at least at the Allsvenskan level, is and isn't, especially in relation to the high quality NHL play I'm used to watching at home.
Even with that in mind, I thought Forsberg looked like a potential NHL player. It's hard to quantify. I try to watch every prospect the same way, to take them out of the element they're in and try to visualize them playing alongside NHL talent. Thinking about how they could handle that. Thinking about how, if they couldn't handle that right now, could they be refined to do so? That's the hard part, the projection.
Overall, I feel like attempting to stick to a certain standard is good enough. So I guess by that line of logic then no, I wasn't unfair in judging Lindholm. Judging is scouting. Scouting is judging. Sometimes you just have to trust your eyes and believe that what you're seeing is right, regardless of how incongruent it might be with your preconceived notions. You also have to stick to your guns regardless of whether it makes a player look good or bad. Part of this is an understanding that what you saw was just one game. Such a small sample size is useless when you're trying to summarize a player's entire ability. Still, it's worth something.
So, to be direct: Lindholm was bad tonight. Tonight is a key word, because I thought he looked a lot better a couple weeks ago, but he didn't bring it tonight when I watched him like a hawk on every shift. Maybe he looked good before because I wasn't watching him that closely, but whatever the case, I came away from tonight's game unimpressed. I'm admittedly a lot harder on defensemen and don't give guys slack based on their offensive contributions from the blueline, so that's something to keep in mind. I should be able to make it out to Rögle again soon and look forward to watching Lindholm again. Like I said, it could have just been an off night for him.
On the other hand, Malmö Arena was a class rink and definitely somewhere I'm looking forward to going back to. Didn't have the same local feel as Lindab in Ängelholm but it was much closer to a North-American-pro-style venue.
HAMPUS LINDHOLM
DEFENSEMAN (Right), Rögle BK, Hockeyallsvenskan
SEASON TO DATE: 12GP - 0G - 1A - 1P - -3 - 24 SOG - 8 PIM
STATS ON THE NIGHT: 0G - 0A - 0P - +/- EVEN - 3 SOG - 0 PIM
Rögle BK @ Malmö Redhawks (Malmö Arena, Malmö, Sweden)
31/1/2012 (19:00)
FINAL SCORE: MAL 3-2 (SO) RÖG
BY PERIOD: 1-1, 1-0, 0-1, 0-0, 1-0 (SO)
I want to preface this entire report by noting that I went to this game with a group, not just to watch Lindholm play, which would explain why my notes aren't as thorough as I'd like them to be. There are a few shifts missing. To be honest, I paid less attention to Lindholm as the game went on and it became clear he was not going to be a major factor in the contest.
SUMMARY
Raw offensive defenseman with top-end skating ability but questionable play in his own end. Lindholm's biggest asset(s) was/were his feet. Showed a quick, powerful stride and his pivots were outstanding. His backwards skating was strong but his gap control was off all night. Tended to turn his back, or at least side, towards the play when anticipating the breakout at center ice. Often reacted improperly when forwards would change their speed entering the zone, giving them too much space. Showed the ability to make quick changes of direction but the defensive awareness was not there. Also showed a tendency to leave too much room between himself and opposing forwards, allowing them to gain speed. Overall, he did not look poised when facing the rush, particularly on the left side. Tended to lead with his stick when checking along the boards, which was sometimes a positive, but he often reached and as a result had a hard time being effective with his body. Two times, forwards bounced off his checks without trouble. He also missed a check and took himself out of position. Played a little too aggressively for his size/strength. Might be that he's not used to playing against professional competition and is still adjusting. Seemed to be unaware of how much time he had with the puck. Once, with the puck floating off a deflection, he threw it against the side boards without clearing the zone even though he had time to settle it, creating a scoring chance for the opposition. Showed a hesitance towards taking the puck deep in his zone or behind the net to calm the play or restart the attack. Tried to force the play off turnovers. Communicated D assignments with his teammates on numerous occasions but showed some hesitance in doing so. Needs to be more decisive and less aggressive in the defensive zone overall. Too tense. Too lax in front of his net. Got knocked fully off his feet at least five times on the night. Again, could be an adjustment to the competition. Whatever the case, he was a little too late in getting rid of the puck on multiple occasions and paid for it. Was apt at carrying the puck up the ice but his breakout passes were hit-or-miss. On multiple occasions he made the right pass, but sometimes without enough zip, setting up his forwards to get hit. Showed a good ability to keep the puck in at the point with his skates. Lines up very wide off faceoffs, near the middle of the zone. Illustrated a willingness to go below the dots in the offensive zone and was generally good about picking his spots. Showed determination in getting the puck deep to allow for a change, though he followed it a little too heavily, got crushed, and allowed the opposition numbers the other way. Did not play on the PK or PP. Did not get a shift in the third period after his team tied the game (around the 11 minute mark). Shorted many of his shifts, especially after getting hit hard. Looked like a boy amongst men, but his skating ability alone makes him an interesting prospect. Couple that with some offensive prowess, and he could develop into a nice depth defenseman, but there was no visible star potential.
CSS CHECKLIST:
Skating
(8) Acceleration - First few strides, ability to pull away from or catch other players.
(NA) Speed - When in motion at full stride. (Did not reach full speed)
(5) Balance - Is he strong on his skates?
(8) Mobility - Agility, footwork, pivots, stops and starts.
(7.5) Backward Skating - Overall backward skating ability.
Puck skills
(7) Shot accuracy - Does he hit the net, force the goalie to make a save?
(6) Shot strength - Does he have a heavy shot?
(7) Shot release - Ability to shoot without getting set, off of the stickhandle.
(6) Possess multiple shot types - Quality of wrist, slap, snap and backhand.
(6) Stickhandling ability - Can he handle the puck at top speed? Controls the puck in tight
quarters, corners, along the boards.
(5) Puck protection - Ability to adjust body position & balance to keep or acquire the puck.
(NA) Faceoffs - Gets his team puck possession off the draw, used in all zones and all
situations.
(6) Giving a Pass - Delivers puck for easy handling, leads his man.
(6) Receiving a Pass - Gets puck under control quickly, can receive puck backhand, forehand,
off skates.
(NA) Scoring touch - Can he score several ways? Smart around the net, has a nose for the net.
(Involved in chances but no goals on the night)
Competitiveness
(6) Scoring drive - Willing to battle, go to the net, pay the price to score.
(6) Work ethic - Overall effort, works and competes every shift regardless of score & venue.
(5) Attitude - Level of maturity; well developed or 'has a ways to go.'
(4) Consistency - How consistent has his play been over the course of the season or in a game?
(He was better at the Rögle/Leksands game)
(5) Forechecking - Puck pursuit, fights through checks.
Physical Play
(5) Board & Corner play - Battles for loose pucks, willing to pay the price.
(4) Physical presence - Size and strength are used as an asset; tough to play against;
punishes opponents every chance.
(5) Conditioning - Overall physical conditioning, build, strength, stamina and durability,
seldom misses games.
(4) Hitting - Takes the body, effectively separates opposition from the puck, willing to take
a hit to make a play.
(NA) Fighting - Willing to fight and is capable.
Hockey Sense
(7) Playmaking - Vision, offensive imagination, sets teammates up for scoring chances.
(7/5) Anticipation - Reads and reacts to the play, gets himself in position before the play
develops, sees opening for transition play.(Offense: 8.5; Defense: 5)
(8) Discipline - Avoids bad penalties, accepts a bad call, not drawn in to retaliation.
(No penalties on the night; hesitant to join scrums)
(6;5) Decision Making - Ability to sort out options and make the right choices. (Offense: 8;
Defense: 4)
(6) Play under pressure - Ability to make the right decisions above when forechecked or in a key situation.
(3) Versatility - Ability to play various positions, roles, special teams. (Did not play PP or PK)
Defensive Play
(6) Defensive Anticipation - Reads the play, gap control.
(5) Positioning - Angles opponents, active away from the puck.
(5) Backchecking - Picks up man, returns hard to the defensive zone.
(3) Defensive Reliability - Is he used in critical situations?
Psychological Factors
(4) Leadership - Takes charge, displays on-ice leadership.
(5) Communication - Witnessed in-game examples of constructive discussions w/ teammates and coaches.
(5) Confidence - Displays a noticeable 'air of confidence' in his on-ice activities.
No comments:
Post a Comment