The new three-on-three overtime format got off to a great start this season, as noted in an earlier column.
The number of games decided by shoot-out has decreased mightily, from about 56 pe cent last year to 34 per cent this season. The open-ice game of three-on-three has done its job, producing several scoring chances, and usually a game-winner in the five-minute overtime period.
But, as we warned, it was early in the experiment, and there always was a chance someone might try to throw a big, wet blanket over the whole thing.
Hello, Vancouver Canucks.
Last week, Canucks veteran Daniel Sedin told to The Province newspaper that his team had been so unsuccessful trying to play the fast-and-furious style that they were now treating the three-on-three overtime like they were killing a penalty and, yes, trying to force the dreaded shoot-out.
“It’s not pretty, but that’s the way we have to play,” said Sedin, whose team are 0-7 in overtime, but 2-2 in shoot-outs.
In fact, the Ottawa Senators also have conceded to playing for a shoot-out. No doubt, other teams have, depending upon how they match up against a given opponent. If you can out-skate them, force the action in overtime. If not, take your chances with your shoot-out sharpshooters.
You cannot really blame the Canucks. They are playing to their strength. It is called strategy.
But how well it works for them, or threatens the viability of three-on-three, remains to be seen.
It is not a movement. Yet.
sports@thenational.ae
Follow us on Twitter @NatSportUAE
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/TheNationalSport
