How PWHL Boston Exhausted Montreal
A Video Analysis of PWHL Boston's defensive plan, and thoughts on ice time distribution
PWHL Boston started the season slowly, but eventually, they found a cohesive team identity that led them to the inaugural PWHL finals.
PWHL Montreal also had a team identity: be as risk-averse as possible and let the stars take over. It’s why they’ll now be watching from their televisions, and part of why Boston’s defensive game worked so well against them. Over time, Boston exhausted Montreal’s stars through relentless defensive and neutral zone play and rendered them unable to capitalize on the chances they got.
The Obvious
Let’s get this out of the way: The biggest difference maker in this round was Aerin Frankel.
While Montreal was definitely the favorite, these teams were close, so close that it took two extra games worth of overtime to decide the series. Boston’s seeding was the result of a poor start, but they were lightning hot coming out of the break, winning four of their last five on the season. Montreal getting swept was an upset, but it wasn’t that big of an upset. A few bounces go their way and this could have easily been a sweep the other way.
The main person who ensured those bounces were never in Montreal’s favor was Aerin Frankel. With a .972 save percentage in the series and two back-to-back games in which she saved over 50 shots, Frankel was not only Boston’s best player, but the best player for either team in both series. During game one in particular, where Boston was outshot almost 2:1, she was probably the only reason Montreal didn’t earn a 1-0 series lead.
We can talk about fundamentals, systems, and coaching all day, but it would be negligent to debate any of that without mentioning that this series came down to Aerin Frakel playing decisively better than Ann-Renee Desbiens above all else.
Boston’s Strong Defense
Boston didn’t reinvent the wheel here, nor should they have. Boston’s main game plan was to tire Montreal out.
In the neutral zone, Boston primarily used a 1-1-3 neutral zone trap to limit the clean entries that Montreal got. Repeatedly, Montreal was swarmed by a wall of Boston players who took away Montreal’s options until they could dump the puck, and had to outskate Boston’s players and engage in board battles with them. The other option was to carry it in and try to either get around three Boston skaters or shoot it with a limited lane and risk it getting blocked. If the puck did make it to the net, Frankel was able to see it all the way. The two Boston forwards ahead of the three Boston skaters playing back at the blue line pressure the Montreal skaters into bad passes. Below are two of the better examples of Boston executing this;
In the first, Mikyla Grant-Mentis tries to carry it into the Boston Zone. The second forward for Boston takes away the cross ice pass she could make to her fellow Montreal player, so instead she crosses the blue line with the puck by herself. The three Boston players continue to take away shooting and passing lanes for Grant-Mentis without overcommitting and allowing her to out skate them until she’s forced to take a shot that gets blocked and turned over.
This time, Gabrielle David elects to shoot it past the defender and try to beat her on the boards, but smart physicality and good stick work by Megan Keller allow Boston to win the puck back and get a quick exit. Boston’s 1-1-3 also worked because their lineup is strong enough defensively that they can be depended on to win the puck back when dumped into the zone.
While in the defensive zone, Boston played player-on-player coverage, collapsing when needed to protect the middle of the ice against low cycles. Montreal centered from behind the net for a lot of their plays, and aggressive checking from Boston forced turnovers or slowed down play enough to aid Frankel in puck tracking. Boston still struggled with net front traffic in this series at time, but could trust Frankel to navigate it while limiting rebounds as much as possible.
Here, Healey tracks Stacey as she carries the puck behind the net, then switches out with Tapani when Stacey changes directions. Healey goes to the front of the net with Digirolamo since Montreal is cycling low. When Stacey tries to pass to Erin Ambrose, Theresa Scahfzal is already on her and keeps it from being a clean pass by getting her stick in the way. Both Healey and Digirolamo keep Poulin from crossing in front of the net easily to pick up the pass. Healey moves from protecting the net to pick up the loose puck and start the breakout.
In this video, no one picks Stacey up behind the net. However, Emily Brown does stay low to the net to take away her shooting lane once she comes around, and Sidney Morin stays on Kristin O’Neill to make sure she can’t collect any rebound or to tie up her stick if Stacey somehow got it across from her. Neither happens and Stacey gets off a shot that Frankel can save easily.
Game three was by far Boston’s best defensive effort- getting stronger in their system as the series went on. Take a look at how many shots Montreal had in front of the net for game one (the first picture, Montreal is in blue) versus in game three (second picture, Montreal is in Orange.)
One last detail in Boston’s game was their breakout. When leaving the zone, Boston prioritized the quickest breakouts possible. The strong side defender rarely skates out past the blue lines, sometimes even below the hash marks, before passing the puck up to the charging forwards. This put pressure on Montreal while they tried to change out lines.
Montreal’s Weaknesses
Montreal’s offensive zone relied heavily on a high cycle, with defenders (such as Tabin, who had around 7 shots a game) shooting high and the Montreal forwards retrieving then trying to center from behind the net to a forward in front who’d get the shot off. Part of the reason Montreal could, or thought they could, rely on this is they did have the finishing talent to capitalize on almost every mistake a team made where a forward wasn’t picked up in front of the net. Marie-Philip Poulin’s goal in game three is an example of this: Mikyla Grant-Mentis stays strong on the puck against Boston’s defense pressure and passes to a wide open Poulin who banks it in.
However, for most of this series, Boston’s player-on-player coverage limited Montreal’s ability to center from behind the net, and frequently ensured the player in the slot was covered and had a limit lane to shoot if the pass was made. When Boston did make a mistake, Frankel was near impossible to beat, especially with Montreal rarely making her have to move cross-crease to make saves.
Montreal also never adjusted to try to get past the 1-1-3 neutral zone trap, despite having the talent and speed to try to stretch passes to the weak side. They also failed to use horizontal movement in the neutral zone or cross ice passes on breakouts to disorientate Boston. In game three, they improved on this a little bit, trying to move quicker through the zone and catch Boston on their change, but not enough to get the chances they needed to beat Frankel. Montreal might have had better luck getting through the trap if they were less tired, both from the relentless defense of Boston that made them fight for every inch of the ice, but also if they used their whole lineup.
A Note on Time On Ice, and A Look Ahead
Time on ice played a major role in this series. In a series where Boston’s fourth line scored multiple crucial goals and Montreal’s had less than ten minutes of ice time through three games that included five overtime periods, it’s impossible for that not to be a story. Via The Score Journalist Kyle Cushman, these were the Time on Ice stats through two games.
Game three was more of the same distribution, with six PWHL Montreal players getting under 10 minutes of ice time. Boston had four players who came in under 10 minutes, one being Loren Gabel, who was playing her first game back from injury and listed as the 13th forward.
Some have pointed out that Montreal’s fourth line only played a shift then was pulled after giving up a goal, justifying the decision. However, by game three, it was Montreal’s top line and pair on the ice for their goals against, including the first goal where Sophie Shirley was allowed to skate straight to the net unchallenged, and a short handed goal later on. Boston’s fourth line, for as good as they were, weren’t perfect in this series, either. They were the line on the ice in game three when Marie-Philip Poulin was left in front of the net alone, a pretty major mistake in a playoff game. But mistakes happen, and unless your fourth line is really that much worse (which, I can guarantee, Montreal’s isn’t) the reward of rolling fourth lines is greater than the risk of relying on two and a half. Boston’s fourth line has been overall spectacular for a few reasons, but one of them is they simply have the opportunity to be.
Boston played extremely well in this series and ground down Montreal until they were too tired to make the plays they needed to win. However, Montreal did itself no favors with how they deployed their lines and tired themselves out.
Let me make one thing clear - this issue will not be solved by simply drafting and going to get better players in the offseason, particularly when it comes to the forwards. To an extent, Montreal will be able to upgrade their defense, and losing Lásková didn’t help. As for finding some significant upgrades to Jillian Dempsey, Sarah Lefort, and Leah Lum, well, it gets more complicated than that.
Like in most professional/elite level leagues, you are taking players who were usually all the top players and scorers in their developmental programs and putting them into new roles, including ones that are fundamentally different than they’ve ever played before. Scouting can see if they have the skill and smarts to transition to a depth role and stay effective, especially if you’re putting them in a more defensive/checking position, but you still have to aid that transition. The talent pool for women’s hockey is big and the chances to play professionally are so limited, which has led to this idea that development is not needed. If someone isn’t working out in their role, just cut them, for that takes time and there are highly skilled players waiting to be drafted and signed from other leagues. But this is a bigger issue than talent, and recycling personnel is not going to be effective nor is it good for building a strong team culture and identity on and off the ice in the long term.
Professional sports are professional sports, if you’re not good enough you’re going to get cut, but club teams are not all star teams either. They require cohesiveness, buy in, and yes, development, even on the top level.