GENEVA – AMBRÌ
(2-4, 3-1, 0-0; 0-1)
Rarely:04’41 Heim (Müller, Zgraggen) 0-1, 07’01 DiDomenico (From Luke, Mallet) 0-2, 09’07 Bürgler (Pezzullo, Pestoni) 0-3, 15’38 Landry (Pestoni, Heed) 0-4, 17’19 Granlund (Pouliot, Manny) 1-4, 18’41 Plan (Richard, A prayer) 2-4, 22’13 Heed (Bürgler, Landry) 2-5, 28’37 Manny (Spacek, Le Coultre) 3-5, 29’45 Pouliot (Granlund, Plan) 4-5, 36’33 Manny (Children, Karrer) 5-5, 64’22 Spacek (A prayer) 6-5
Note: Les Vernets, 5’239 spectators
Referees: Piechaczek, Stolc; Urfer, Gnemmi
Penalty: Ginevra 5×2, Ambrì 1×2 + 1×5 + 1×20
Absent: Zaccheo Dotti, Kodi Curran, Gilles Senn (supernumerary), William Hedlund (Snakes)
GENEVA – During the season the expression was often heard “we found a way to lose” at Ambrì Piotta’s house, and never like at the end of the crazy match in Geneva the blue and whites they have plenty to eat. Ahead by four goals after a quarter of an hour of play, and then capable of taking the lead by three goals at the start of the middle period, the team of Cereda he was unable to manage the fluctuations of an eventful matchand in the end he left the Vernets ice with a loot that was – once again – too thin.
The frustration arises primarily from what was seen in the first half, which began lethargically on the part of Ginevra and with an Ambrì Piotta instead immediately on point and very good at punishing opponents for their indecisions. In the first 15 minutes the Leventina players took advantage of every mistake made by Ginevra, forcing Cadieux to call timeout and make the change of goalkeeper. But then one of the key moments of the challenge occurred.
(PostFinance/KEYSTONE/Salvatore Di Nolfi)
Virtanen he was punished with a five-minute and match penalty an intervention against Manny along the balustrade. A decision that can be debated, but which undoubtedly appears “soft”. The referees probably have punished the potentially dangerous gesture of the defender, even if its real effect seemed limited. Part of the responsibility must in fact be given to Mannynot ready to tackle and fell awkwardly at the slightest contact.
The resulting powerplay has obviously favored the return of Ginevrawho from a team that appeared totally disconnected from the match quickly found two goals and, above all, she shook off the numbness shown up to that point. On the other hand, it would have been naïve to believe that Servette – which, despite the difficulties encountered so far, remains an excellent team even without Hartikainen – didn’t trigger a reaction. This type of adversity must be learned to manage.
LOSE Virtanen with still two periods to play and with the momentum suddenly passed into opposing hands it turned out a situation that at times overwhelmed the people of Leventinawho defensively paid the price of being on the track with only one foreigner and saw various elements in trouble. In hindsight, the decision to leave for the first time rests Curran for some time it has backfired against the blue and whites, who also have not particularly benefited from the insertion of Juvonenwho alternated good saves with moments of uncertainty.
(PostFinance/KEYSTONE/Salvatore Di Nolfi)
However, things seemed to be able to return to their place when Heedat the start of the central period, scored 2-5a score that had the potential to “kill” Servette. However, the real naivety that changed the course of the match occurred shortly after, when a mix-up in the powerplay situation allowed to Manny to score shorthand. From there things really changed.
In just over a minute Geneva also found the fourth goal, and the classic snowball down the slope had already turned into an avalanche for the blue and whites. It’s almost obvious that the home team will also get a draw, in a phase in which Ambrì did not find a way to slow down and break up the game.
What then must be said, Ginevra has never dominated the Leventina people or found phases of prolonged offensive pressure, but the men of Cereda they started to show some fear in their play, they lost more duels – as well as too many faceoffs – and played with fire in managing some pucks that would have required a little more mischief and experience.
(PostFinance/KEYSTONE/Salvatore Di Nolfi)
Things then stabilized in the third period, with both teams able to build a couple of good chances. However, the little point ensured by the third siren is really too little in light of the development of events, ed the goal of Spacek in overtime – even his first of the season – it sounds like a mockery at the end of an evening that should have resulted in three points.
Once more, Ambrì Piotta wasted his efforts. Even considering the episode starring Virtanenevaluated severely by the referees, to obtain results we need more character and malice in managing certain adversities. But even more so without the Finn, the blue and whites confirmed themselves as a still fragile team, and without the natural ability to “find the way to victory”.
Markus Granlund: The former Juventus striker is experiencing a moment of exceptional strength, but it is not only thanks to his points – on this occasion a goal and an assist – that he is making the difference for Servette. His is in fact a very solid and intense game, one that opponents struggle to manage because he goes straight to the heart of the action and never holds back.
Given Ambrì Piotta’s strong start, what specific tactical decisions or strategic shortcomings by the coaching staff contributed most significantly to the team’s eventual loss against Servette?
This article recounts a hockey game, Ambrì Piotta vs. Servette, highlighting Ambrì’s loss despite a strong start. Here are some open-ended questions based on the text, divided into thematic sections:
**1. Turning Point of the Game**
* The article identifies several turning points: Virtanen’s expulsion, Manny’s shorthanded goal, and Spacek’s game-winning overtime goal. Which of these moments do you think was most crucial in swinging the momentum of the game? Justify your answer.
* Ambrì seemed to have control early in the game. What factors led to their eventual collapse? Do you think it was primarily due to individual errors, strategic shortcomings, or a combination of both?
* The article mentions Ambrì losing “duels” and faceoffs. How important are these seemingly small details in determining the outcome of a close hockey game?
**2. Player Performance**
* Markus Granlund is singled out for his strong performance. What specific qualities make him such a valuable asset to his team? Can you think of players in other sports who exhibit similar characteristics?
* The article criticizes Ambrì’s lack of “character and malice” in handling adversity. What actions or qualities might demonstrate greater resilience in challenging situations?
**3. Coaching Decisions and Team Strategy**
* Do you agree with the article’s assessment of Ambrì’s tactical decisions, such as initially leaving Curran out of the game? What alternative strategies could the coach have employed?
* The article comments on Ambrì’s fragility as a team. How can a team build mental toughness and learn to overcome difficult moments in games?
**4. Broader Context**
* This game seems to be part of a larger pattern of Ambrì struggling to secure victories. What systemic issues might be contributing to this?
* Many factors influence the outcome of a single game. Beyond the players on the ice, what other aspects (coaching, player morale, team chemistry, etc.) play a significant role in a team’s success?
These questions are designed to stimulate a discussion about the game, allowing for diverse perspectives and in-depth analysis.
