The excitement of the Hurmos rally rang in Pekka Virta’s ear

– The excitement after the first round was so strong that the “charm rally” was expected to continue in the second round, Virta refers to TV5’s studio team and expert Ismo Lehkonen to words.

– But the charm rally will not continue for three sets in any other way than if you decide at the beginning of the game like the USA did against Finland. That is, you make such a big lead that it eats away at your opponent’s confidence.

Finland was not able to do this. Although it won the set in shots on goal 9-2, the numbers on the board were 1-1.

– The start was really great, and I should have been able to capitalize better in the first set.

Differences in gameplay

Virta reminds us that the starting layout of the match was favorable for Nuori Leijon, because the team could continue in Moncton “in their own hall”, while Sweden, on the other hand, had to travel to the match from Halifax.

– As a result of that and the US defeat, Finland started to play with the same weapons that the US used to squat Finland. It had a lot of North American gameplay.

– Finland hunted hard, tackled a lot of tackles that promoted the game, played a really good offensive game in the offensive zone and used the puck in the blue line – i.e. played through the pucks.

According to Virra, the physicality of the Young Lions in the beginning scared Sweden’s “top cagers”.

– It made Sweden look slow and scared. Finland would have deserved a bigger lead or even a lead after the first set.

After that, the game evened out.

– Finland was the stronger team, but Sweden was more skilled and a bit more witty. Sweden has a lot of skilled, young players, Virta refers to the team’s 11 “minors”, i.e. those born after 2003.

– It could be seen that Sweden is trying to play more puck control and calm the game even by dropping down. In the first set, it was left behind, but at the same time it showed the fact that Sweden believes in its own way of playing.

Virta takes Sweden’s 1–1 draw, for example.

– That showed the difference in the world of thought. Two of Sweden’s attackers would have had the opportunity to tackle the Finnish defender, but they turned to a back-and-forth game. Because they got the puck and tied the game.

Finland was surprised

Based on the events of the opening set, the level difference between the teams looked bigger than it actually was.

– As a result, Finland was a bit surprised in the second round, when it was thought that the charm rally would continue for some reason. It was going to be pretty bad then. It was Sweden’s batch.

– Sweden had a different game plan. It tried to pass more when they had more skilled but younger and poorer players who didn’t even get involved in that tackling game.

Virta compares to the traditional image of HIFK’s or Ässie’s home games.

– From the opponent’s point of view, the question is to survive the first ten minutes, and after that the opportunities increase.

– It was a bit similar here. Finland played with their mouths and showed mental and physical strength to the Swedes. Still, you could guess that it wasn’t going to happen like this. However, the default value was that the other person also knows how to play a little.

A bitter end

The final set largely followed the same pattern as the match up to that point.

First Niko Huuhtanen was able to put Finland in the lead again as a result of Sweden’s pass error.

– As a result, Sweden was small for quite a long time. Finland clearly had a chance to tie the game in that 2–1 situation. Then it happened as it often happens if you can’t break your neck, says Virta about Sweden’s 2-2 draw at the end of a long attack.

– You can always ask whose style of play took more energy. Tackling always also takes energy.

– There is nothing to speculate about the last goal. Finland got a chance to prevail, and now it happened like this, says Virta about Sweden’s underpowered winning goal.

– In terms of gameplay, this could have gone either way.

Tactics changed

Virta’s head coach noticed the contradiction Tomi Lämsän in the statements made before the Games and in the way Finland played in the end.

– It was quite an ambitious story, that Finland will play a different kind of hockey and use its own tactics to take 50 percent of the opponent’s goal posts, create rhythm, control and change the puck.

– The coach can know the game no matter how well, but what is essential is how the players adopt the style of play.

– It is not easy to teach young men to play the puck control game in a couple of weeks, when at the same time there are different opponents in a small rink.

The situation is different for the Lions, i.e. the men’s national team.

– It has played the prescribed game so well for many races that everyone has enough self-confidence to stick to the template. With young men again, there is pressure after a bad game as to what should be changed. The fact is that Finland changed tactics after the first game, its loss against Switzerland.

– After that, attacking and applying pressure was strongly present, and it was certainly reasonable for that situation.

The transition to the North American style released energy in the team.

– The young man wants to do, and it is better to let an exciting player go than to pull the reins.

– It worked successfully against worse opponents. The Yankees play the same kind of puck but a hell of a lot better when it’s their puck. Today it was interesting to see that in the end Sweden tried to be more of the team that plays puck control.

However, Finland’s more straightforward way of playing was very close to bringing victory and a place in the semi-finals.

– That’s why I don’t blame the choice, Virta states.