ShareThis Page
The other side: Could the Islanders really sweep the Penguins? | TribLIVE.com
Penguins/NHL

The other side: Could the Islanders really sweep the Penguins?

Chris Harlan
1020081_web1_AP_19103057334956
AP
New York Islanders center Mathew Barzal, left, gets a pass by Pittsburgh Penguins goaltender Matt Murray (30) before left wing Anthony Beauvillier scored a goal for the Islanders during the second period of Game 2 of an NHL hockey first-round playoff series Friday, April 12, 2019, in Uniondale, N.Y.

Are the Islanders destined for a sweep?

That’s the question crossing minds in New York after Friday night’s 3-1 victory over the Pittsburgh Penguins gave the Islanders a 2-0 series lead in the Stanley Cup playoffs. The best-of-seven first-round series shifts from Nassau Coliseum to PPG Paints Arena for Game 3 on Sunday.

It’s been more than 30 years since the Islanders were in this position.

“Their 2-0 series lead is their first since 1983, before any player who dressed for them Friday night was born,” wrote Newsday columnist Neil Best.

Best wondered whether this was their last game at Nassau Coliseum this season. The Islanders are using the Long Island arena only for the first round. If they advance, all future rounds will be played at Barclays Center in Brooklyn.

But he isn’t predicting a sweep yet.

“To be clear, that is not the way to bet, not against an opponent this formidable,” Best wrote. “But the very fact that such a thing can be pondered illustrates the latest improbable turn in an improbable season.”

The style of play — chippy throughout — at times felt more like a game from the early 1980s, wrote New York Post sportswriter Brett Cyrgalis, with “the little cross-checks, the grabbing of jerseys, the face-washes that define the passion of the postseason.”

The Penguins delivered a more physical game, but that became counterproductive, wrote Newday sportswriter Andrew Gross.

“The Penguins made it clear from the opening faceoff they wanted to match the Islanders’ physical play from Game 1, except it led to three power-play chances for the Islanders in the first period,” wrote Gross.

The Islanders had six power plays in all.


READ MORE

Kevin Gorman: Penguins shouldn’t panic, but they need to show some urgency
Penguins falter late as Islanders take 2-0 series lead
Penguins’ Evgeni Malkin takes responsibility, vows improvement after loss


Mathew Barzal caused a melee and drew a double-minor penalty himself for roughing Penguins defenseman Marcus Pettersson in the second period. Pettersson took Barzal into the end boards after Anthony Beauvillier’s game-tying goal and Barzal responded with a cross-check.

Later, after watching the replay, Barzal saw the play differently.

“I probably overreacted a little bit,’’ Barzal told Newsday’s Colin Stephenson. “I saw the hit, after. I thought I was in kind of a bad spot, but he let up, and it was actually a safe play by him.’’

The Islanders’ heroes from Game 1 were back for Game 2. Josh Bailey and Jordan Eberle each scored for the second game in a row, and Barzal added two more assists.

It was Bailey who scored the overtime winner in Game 1, and Islanders fans are singing his praises — literally.

According to Laura Albanese of Newsday, the fans sing “Hey, Josh Bailey,” to the tune of “Hey Baby.”

This time, Bailey’s third-period goal gave the Islanders room to breathe.

“I wanna know, how you scored that goal.”

Chris Harlan is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Chris via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Penguins
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.