I spoke too soon in my lead for the article on Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final – this was almost a Back to the Future 1990s Edition night as the Anaheim Ducks slogged their way to a dreadful-to-watch 1-0 win over Ottawa to take a 2-0 series lead.

A few weeks back, Floyd Mayweather defeated Oscar de la Hoya in a technically-brilliant fight that delighted connoisseurs of the sport, but bored everyone else to tears. This latest clash on ice was the hockey equivalent - any young defenceman or checking forward should study the Ducks to see a wonderful example of how to play those positions, and how to choke the life out of a dominant forward line. Any casual fan surely changed the channel in frustration, though.

To wit, the Senators managed a paltry 16 shots on goal in the entire game, five of them on one 5-on-3 power play in the first period. Anaheim goalie Jean-Sebastien Giguere was magnificent in repelling one or two excellent chances on that penalty kill, and then was a virtual spectator the rest of the way. Once again, the Alfredsson-Spezza-Heatley line accomplished nothing against the persistent forecheck and neutral-zone play of the Ducks.

In fairness, Ray Emery had a fairly good evening in Ottawa’s net as well. There were some uncomfortable moments, but he did save all but one of Anaheim’s 31 shots, including two or three highlight-reel saves. Unlike Game 1, he shoulders no blame for the Senators’ woeful effort.

Oddly enough, the Ducks are following almost exactly the same game plan that they used in their only other Stanley Cup Finals appearance in 2003. They know they only have a relative few scoring threats to worry about, and the combination of marking them out of the game along with Giguere’s strong play allows them to kill time until something breaks their way offensively. Unlike 2003 though, they’re the better checking team with the better goaltender – thankfully for the sport, Martin Brodeur and the New Jersey Devils were done in the second round this time.

In fact, all you need to know about this series so far has come from the announcement of the Three Stars of the Game for each contest. Rob Neidermayer has been the game’s second star on both nights so far – he’s a good player, but hardly an offensive superstar. His two linemates on Anaheim’s checking line have also strongly figured – Travis Moen got the third star in Game 1, and Sammy Pahlsson scored the game’s only marker in Game 2.

The one goal came with five minutes left to play in the third period, unsurprisingly something of a fluke. Some confusion by the Senators in their own defensive zone allowed Pahlsson to sneak in and steal the puck. Despite being on a tight angle, he was able to use Joe Corvo as a screen and beat Emery low to the stick side. Once Anaheim scored, there was never a way back for Ottawa in this game.

Heading back home to Ontario, the Senators have serious questions to answer if they want to make a series out of this. For one thing, they have to figure out how to use their home-ice advantage to get the match-ups they want on the ice (for the benefit of my European readers, the home team gets to make personnel changes after the visiting team before a face-off. The advantage comes with matching your better lines against their weaker ones).

Secondly, the Senators’ star forwards have to figure out how to use their speed and puck-handling to beat Anaheim’s pressing forecheck and create more scoring chances. If they continue to be smothered out of these games, the Senators don’t have enough firepower to threaten Giguere’s net otherwise – especially with how well he’s playing.

This series is not over yet. Don’t count out Ottawa, not with how raucous Scotiabank Place is going to be for Game 3. Personally, I hope the Senators can pull this out – the cruelty for the entire nation of Canada if they have a losing finalist for the third straight year would be an unfortunate occurrence for the sport . . . and most of its best fans.