Toronto Maple Leafs News

Home

Quizzes

Newsletter

Nick Turchiaro-USA TODAY Sports

Maple Leafs’ Game 4 Debacle: Dissecting Their Downfall

Originally posted on The Hockey Writers | By The Old Prof | Last updated 4/28/24

During the recent Game 4 clash between the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Boston Bruins, the Maple Leafs faced harsh criticism from their own fans, who booed them off the ice at the end of the second period. During the intermission between periods two and three, the Hockey Central panel dissected the reasons behind Toronto’s lackluster performance, highlighting individual players’ struggles and overall team tactics.

While the Maple Leafs mounted a small comeback in the third period, they eventually lost the game by a score of 3-1.

Hockey Night in Canada Panel’s 5 Discussion Points

In watching and listening to the video above, here’s what the analysts had to say about the Maple Leafs’ poor showing:

Point 1. Overall Maple Leafs Team Performance

The panel unanimously agreed that the Maple Leafs’ play was disorganized and ineffective. They particularly criticized their inability to generate offense. With only 11 even-strength shots through two periods, the team seemed overpowered and outmaneuvered by the Bruins. Analysts pointed out that Toronto’s approach left them hardly any high-danger area opportunities, leading to poor quality scoring chances.

Point 2. Marner Singled Out for Individual Critique

Mitch Marner was a focal point of criticism, especially from ex-goalie analyst Kelly Hrudy. After defending him in Game 3, Hrudy felt unable to do so in Game 4. Specifically, Marner was called out for his lack of effort and critical mistakes, such as seeking penalties instead of playing through challenges. This was contrasted with his previous performances, where he seemed more engaged.

Point 3. Team Dynamics and Leadership

One part of the conversation was about the specific tensions among the players on the bench. Auston Matthews was visibly frustrated, and the team overall lacked cohesion. Although the panel gave examples in the past about teams who also demonstrated such internal conflicts, the difference was that these teams could play angry. They went out and did something about it.

Although the panel didn’t say it transparently, listening to them talk, they don’t seem to believe this Maple Leafs team can demonstrate that same kind of resilient pushback. Such incidents and internal conflicts were visible but resolved on other teams, leading to better performance. The question that remained unanswered was whether the Maple Leafs could engage in such a turnaround.

Point 4. The Maple Leafs Gameplay Strategies Failed

As Kevin Bieksa highlighted, dumping and chasing pucks was ineffective against the Bruins’ well-organized defense. In contrast, the Bruins executed textbook breakouts, neutralizing the Maple Leafs’ attempts at establishing pressure. The panel suggested that Toronto’s regular-season identity of puck possession and offensive play was not translating well into the playoff experience, where space and time are much more limited.

Point 5. Sheldon Keefe’s Coaching Decisions Were Not Working

Finally, the panel discussed Coach Sheldon Keefe‘s tactics. They acknowledged his attempts to shuffle lines and maximize ice time for key players during critical moments. However, the panel felt that more significant adjustments were required to penetrate the Bruins’ defense effectively. Suggestions included more involvement from defensemen in offensive plays and altering the approach to entering the offensive zone.

The Bottom Line for the Maple Leafs

The panel concluded that coaching adjustments and individual player improvements were both critical for the Maple Leafs to overcome the Bruins in the series. The team’s inability to adapt to playoff intensity and execute under pressure was seen as its downfall in Game 4.

As the series progresses, the Maple Leafs face a steep challenge. If they cannot address these issues, they will be disappointed further. As Bieksa hinted, the frustrated on-bench engagement between Matthews, Marner, and William Nylander would either become a changed but renewed relationship or the end of a relationship between Matthews and Marner. Now the question is: Which will it be?

This article first appeared on The Hockey Writers and was syndicated with permission.

More must-reads: