USA vs. Canada: Breaking Down Where the Americans Went Wrong

It wasn't supposed to be like this. 

It wasn't supposed to end like this, not after four years ago.

No, this was supposed to be different, supposed to be better. Here they were, cruising through the opening rounds, young, wild and free, nary a challenge. It was their time.

And then it wasn't. What seemed so golden, so destined, lost its luster. There may not even be a luster when all is over.

Yes, Team USA lost to Canada, in heartbreaking fashion by a score of 1-0. Jamie Benn scored the lone goal in the second period for the Canadians and Carey Price was dominant.

But what happened? What went wrong?

This was a team that cruised through the opening rounds, scoring 20 goals and allowing just seven. They beat Russia in dramatic fashion and trampled over Slovakia, Czech Republic and Slovenia. 

The Americans were no longer the underdogs. They were the favorites.

And then, nothing.

No offense. In fact, the team was putrid on three power-play opportunities, as per Mark Lazerus of the Chicago Sun-Times:

But it wasn't just their offense, or lack thereof. The defense seemed, for the first time all tournament, shaky, as per Joe Haggerty of the Boston Globe:

And when they did have the puck, they couldn't do much with it, as Chris Peters of The United States of Hockey noted:

Simply put, if it wasn't for Jonathan Quick, this game would not have been so close:

Canada played stifling defense, and as Brooks Orpik told Dejan Kovacevic of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, there was no room in the middle:

It's not that the U.S. wasn't talented enough. Quite the contrary. It's that Canada was a better team. They forechecked hard, pinched down in the defensive zone and attacked the puckcarrier like gnats.

Dan Bylsma noted to Dejan Kovacevic of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that the Americans couldn't adjust:

They took away the middle, which took away rushes up the middle, something that Patrick Kane likes to do. 

Ah, yes. Patrick Kane. The Americans' most talented goal scorer. He didn't score all tournament. He couldn't take the puck from the red line, skate in with speed and whip off a slap shot. As a result, the U.S. didn't have its game-breaker. 

That's what good defense does. That's what hard checking does, as Bruce Arthur of the National Post noted:

This is what went wrong for the Americans. The Canadians played tight defense and the U.S. couldn't respond. For all the talent on this roster, there wasn't enough to get past good old-fashioned defensive hockey.

And here's where things get worse. The U.S. will take on Finland for the bronze medal Saturday morning. And how does Finland play?

Defensively minded. As Jeff Z. Klein of the New York Times wrote about Finland's performance against Sweden: "Finland is playing a neutral-zone trap, playing for the counterattack."

The U.S. has less than a day to adjust, to figure out how to play proactive hockey against a reactive defense. They'll need Jonathan Quick to come up big again, and they'll need Patrick Kane—and Ryan Kesler and Zach Parise—to step things up.

It's not the end. A bronze medal is still nice.

But to not beat big brother Canada? After coming oh-so-close four years ago. After looking like the better team throughout the tournament. After looking like the best team in the tournament. 

This was a team built for the big ice. Built for speed. Built to beat the Canadians.

And they fell short. So short. Just like four years ago—all over again.