On the Bench

Last Friday night, when I climbed up to find a seat in the second balcony of Boston Garden so that a female CRIMSON reporter could sit in my seat in the press box and break the Garden's sex barrier. I didn't think Harvard had a prayer in the world of beating B.U. Watching hockey from the top of the Garden is a little like watching a game on a small TV with the lower half of the screen blacked out, and I've been more excited about Bruins-Vancouver Canucks games than I was about seeing Harvard lose again.

Harvard amazed me and won, 4-2. True, B.U. did not play its best game, and the puck bounced the right way for the Crimson for the first time all season, but Harvard did play very well and deserved to win. It proved that the next night against Clarkson.

There wasn't too much evidence to indicate the possibility of those two victories. For one thing, Harvard's record after the ECAC Christmas tournament amounted to one significant loss after another-twice to Cornell, once to B.U., and twice to inferior teams. Furthermore, the Beanpot loss to B.U. and the second loss to Cornell seemed to prove that both teams were simply better than Harvard; B.U. because it outplayed the Crimson, and Cornell because it outskated Harvard.

The team was reportedly suffering from internal dissension. Cooney Weiland is hardly a popular, inspirational coach, and there was some condescension and some bitterness to wards him, especially among the younger members of the team. Furthermore, there was apparently a rift between the seniors and the sophomores. Dan DiMichele and Doug Elliott fought more than once in practice, and Joe Cavanagh even exchanged a few punches with Elliott. Oddly enough, Cavanagh, a soft-spoken, personable captain, was some what resented, possibly for his close friendship with Cooney. His senior linemates, Cooch Owen and DiMichele, were resented for their failure to play a two-way game. The make-up of the third line was a source of frustration and friction as five different forwards were juggled on and off the line all season.

After Harvard lost to Cornell, 3-1, only two weeks ago, I was convinced that Harvard was finished. The game had received a great deal of student interest, a rarity for any athletic event at Harvard and a sore point for a team that travels from one snake pit to another only to return home to a small Section 18 and a lot of gentlemanly, clapping alumni. I felt that Harvard's failure against Cornell marked the last chance to rescue a lost season.

The immediate factors that turned Harvard's fortunes around are now obvious. DiMichele and Owen did more backchecking in the ECACs than they did all season. The third line finally settled down with the addition of Harry Reynolds and played a good backchecking, forechecking game. The second line matured into one of the really great lines in college hockey, and Dave Hynes fulfilled the potential that saw him score more points than Cavanagh as a freshman. The defense avoided its all-too-common clearing mistakes, and while it didn't hit any harder, it did avoid the penalty box and cover well.

The question is why everybody played so well when their chances for an upset seemed so non-existent. If there is any explanation, I suppose that the answer is one of confidence. Harvard does not have the driving coaching, the conditioning, or the Canadian 40-game schedule mentality to win consistently all season long. Harvard's hockey team is not dedicated in the sense that it narrowly pursues winning hockey with all its energy under a disciplined regime. Harvard hockey players certainly do not receive the fervent support of other major Eastern powers.

But they do have the raw talent to beat anybody, and most significantly they have the confidence in their own ability to win even when everyone else has more or less given up on them. Unlike many of the Canadian imports, all the players have been very big stars at their respective high schools, and their past glories have not left them without a large degree of pride and self-assurance.

Overconfidence contributed to two losses and individual egos detracted from the team's unity and hence effectiveness over a long season. But that same self-assurance may account for Harvard's recent success, and it may carry the Crimson to a very unexpected-National Championship.