Canadiens-Rangers: Montreal Makes Historical Comeback
The Montreal Canadiens came back to win from an 0-5 deficit yesterday for the first time in the team's rich history. An incredible comeback to the delight of the fans gathered at the Bell Centre in Montreal.
After allowing five consecutive goals to the New York Rangers, the home team rallied back to finally win the contest by the score of 6-5.
The comeback story began with Michael Ryder who scored two goals during the second period to really give the team some momentum and the crowd something to cheer about. Ryder has finally found a way to shake off his awful season. But the team was still down 2-5 after 40 minutes of play.
In the third period, two goals in a nine second span revived the Canadiens fans' hopes. Alex Kovalev with his 28th of the season followed by Mark Streit's 10th of the campaign really increased the noise level in the building. The team was only a single goal from tying the game.
A state of euphoria was triggered in the building by Alex Kovalev's 29th of the season, his second goal of the game, with less than five minutes to play in regulation.
I had to pinch myself to really believe what I have seen. The five consecutive goals from the Rangers early into the matchup were matched by five consecutive goals from the Habs before the end of regulation.
A frantic overtime period gave some exciting scoring chances at both ends but without any result. A shootout session was required to declare a winner.
Saku Koivu with a nice deke was the only player to beat goaltender Henrik Lundqvist during the shootout while goaltender Christobal Huet, who came in relief for Carey Price after the Rangers' third goal of the game, stopped all three Rangers' attempts.
Despite the loss, Jaromir Jagr finished the evening with four assists on the first four Rangers goals.
Against all odds, the Canadiens are still tied with the Ottawa Senators in first place in the Eastern conference; both teams have 75 points.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?