Zug vs Geneva - Game 1
Zug wins the perfection matchup
In our series preview, we warned that: “Prepare for a quest toward defensive perfection as this series will be played inside the slot, and and it will be up to whichever makes the fewest mistakes.“ The first matchup between these two teams didn’t fail to meet this expectation. The way these two teams create offence and defend are mirroring each other: two offences that try to breach the opponent’s slot with passes, but against defenses that exactly try to prevent such plays to happen. It was up to whichever made the first mistake.
During the first period, Zug tried 4 of these passes to the slot (high-danger passes) and Geneva 3. None found their target. And so both teams neutralized each other at 5v5. Zug tried to capitalize on its power-play opportunities, including 1m52 at 5v3. Despite good chances from Simion and Klingberg, the period ended without a goal.
After 20 minutes: 1.24 expected goals (xG) for Zug, 0.46xG for Geneva.
And at the beginning of the second period, one of these high-danger passes finally reached its target, with a play from Kovar to Hofmann. The #15 from Zug was able to find a way to send the puck under Manzato’s pad. The latter conceded his first goal at 5v5 during these playoffs.
That goal changed a bit the face of the game, waking Geneva up and allowing Zug to play a bit more safely (also known as the score effect). After 5 minutes of GSHC’s pressure, and a high-danger pass to Asselin alone in the slot in front of Genoni, the game became tight again. Geneva wasn’t able to capitalize on 4 minutes of power-play, as Zug barred the access to the slot as you can see in the Shots Map below.
After 40 minutes: 1.87 expected goals (xG) for Zug, 1.37xG for Geneva.
The third period should have seen Geneva put some heavy pressure on Zug’s defense, but they had to wait for Manzato to be pulled to see shots close to Genoni, when Rod and Fehr tried to make their way to the slot on Genoni’s left post. Also, whenever Geneva was able to generate some offence, Zug responded with better chances, creating even more expected goals than Geneva before that last minute (0.87 to 0.22 at 5v5). Le Coultre’s breakaway after his penalty was probably Geneva’s biggest chance in that period.
End of this first matchup.
The game in numbers
With a 2.83 - 2.21 xG advantage for Zug, and even 2.83 - 1.71 before the last minute, the home team historically had a 77% chance to win the game.
At 5v5, Zug had a slight edge with 1.68xG to 1.46. Zug really tried to capitalize on its power-play with 1.08xG created in 6 minutes. It didn’t go in tonight, but Zug certainly found a way to beat Geneva’s penalty-kill.
We can clearly see how close the game was after the 25th minute on the Game Flow chart above. Each team responded to the other team’s chances.
At the end, Zug generated 0.60xG with high-danger passes, and Geneva 0.52xG. But Zug was able to add some individual chances where the player was able to enter the slot in possession of the puck before shooting (Walk-in plays in the table above). Zug also had 3 rebounds and Geneva only 1.
In transition
Transitions reflected the defensive rigor of both teams, with not much forecheck or pressure on zone exits. It was, as expected, a neutral zone battle. Geneva was able to limit Zug’s zone entries in control to 42% (far from their 49% during the regular season and 3rd rank in the League). Yet, Zug was able to adapt and recovered 33% of their dumps, while Geneva only recovered 5%.
In the high-danger passes battle, Zug tried a bit more and both teams were only able to reach their target on 25% of their passes.
A perfect Genoni
Genoni gets a shutout, saving 2.21 goals above expected and got a 91% Shot control %. On Geneva’s 33 shots, only 3 times did Genoni not eliminate all risks with his save. On the other hand, the Manzato’s bubble is still alive. Despite another post, despite a 67% Shot control %.
In our series preview, we said that Zug had enough depth to not rely on the same players every night, while Geneva needed all its stars. Kovar was all over the ice, Alatalo and Geisser were more active than Diaz, and Hofmann only had to find the back of the net.
Without Omark, Geneva had to rely more on its other leaders. Winnik tried but couldn’t count on his Swedish teammate. Fehr did not do much in this game. Asselin was at ease and took some initiatives. And of course Tömmernes tried to have as much impact on the game as he could, as he probably heard our critics… He tried a lot but couldn’t always create dangerous chances. We can't wait for the second duel with, hopefully, Omark on the ice.
You can also follow us on our Twitter pages here and here or suscribe to our newsletter below if you don’t want to miss our coming articles.
Find more statistics tracked by Thibaud on his Tableau’s page here: https://public.tableau.com/profile/thibaud.chatel#!/vizhome/NLAPlayoffs2021/GameReport
Or some more statistics on NL Ice Data here: nlicedata.com