Yeah, unlike the women, where I thought they were just as well suited to 3 vs 3 as 5 v 5, I thought the US men were cooked in 3 v 3.
As an aside, I really dislike 3 v 3 as a method of determining a meaningful hockey game.
4 on 4, for at least 10 minutes, seems like it is at least a compromise. For a gold medal, an extra 20 at 5-a-side before getting into gimmicky solutions makes sense to me. If anyone asked me, that's what I would say: 5 on 5 for an extra period; 4 on 4 for 10 minutes; 3 v 3 for 10; if still no winner (highly unlikely--3 v 3 is a huge advantage for the offense), a shootout.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the two hockey gold medals, but I can like the outcome and not like the process.
