Forsberg is a great puck-moving forward who has loads of flair, and the confidence to make solid plays while carrying the puck through the neutral-zone. He's played 10 games in the Swedish Elite League this season, scoring 1 goal. Collberg is more of an offensive-dynamo, who plays his best in the offensive-zone thanks to an impressive, "nose for the net". He's played 5 games in the Swedish Elite League this season, but has yet to produce offensively.
This report is from a 9-4 win over Latvia on December 26th, 2011.
Collberg had the better overall grade thanks to more offensive-output than Forsberg. That said, Forsberg's puck-possession numbers were far better than Collberg's. Collberg scored 1 goal, while adding 2 assists, while Forsberg had 1 assist.
OVERALL RISK/REWARD RATING
As mentioned earlier, Forsberg had far better puck-possession numbers. As a result he earned a better overall risk/reward rating than Collberg. Forsberg's best rating was produced in the neutral-zone, as he showed great puck-carrying skills. Collberg's overall rating was the product of his impressive offensive-zone play. Forsberg had an overall ratio of 2.44 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle, while Collberg had an overall ratio of 2.23 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle.
Forsberg was the more involved of the two players; producing 4.37 events per-minute played compared to Collberg's 3.14 events per-minute played.
|EVENTS/ MIN||3.14||4.37||EVENTS/ MIN|
OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Collberg had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.82, to go along with an offensive-zone ratio of 1.92 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He lost 4 of 6 o-zone puck-battles, but recovered 8 loose-pucks. He completed 6 of 9 o-zone pass-attempts, while intercepting 3 opposition passes.
Forsberg had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.14, and an offensive-zone ratio of 1.11 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He won 3 of 4 o-zone puck-battles, while recovering 7 loose-pucks. He completed only 4 of his 8 o-zone pass-attempts, and was successful with 9 of 13 attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (dekes). His o-zone rating was hurt by an inability to get the puck on net, as only 4 of his 10 attempted shots were on net.
|OZ POS||23||20||OZ POS|
|OZ NEG||12||18||OZ NEG|
|EVENTS/ MIN||2.61||2.68||EVENTS/ MIN|
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Collberg had the better defensive-zone risk/reward rating despite being involved in less d-zone events. He had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.15, and a defensive-zone ratio of 3 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He recovered 2 loose-pucks, while completing 1 of his 2 d-zone pass-attempts.
Forsberg had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.07 and a d-zone ratio of 1.25 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He recovered 3 loose-pucks, and won 1 of 2 d-zone puck-battles. He missed 1 pass in the defensive-zone and was unsuccessful with 2 attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (dekes) in the defensive-zone.
|DZ POS||3||5||DZ POS|
|EVENTS/ MIN||0.30||0.63||EVENTS/ MIN|
NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Forsberg had an impressive neutral-zone risk/reward rating of 0.63, to go along with an incredible neutral-zone ratio of 10 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He recovered 3 loose-pucks, while completed 3 of 4 n-zone passes. He also successfully dumped the puck deep into the offensive-zone 3 times.
Collberg had a neutral-zone risk/reward rating of 0.07 and a neutral-zone ratio of of 1.50 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He recovered 1 loose-puck, lost 1 puck-race and completed his only neutral-zone pass-attempt.
|NZ POS||3||10||NZ POS|
|NZ NEG||2||1||NZ NEG|
|EV/ MIN||0.37||0.77||EV/ MIN|
POWERPLAY RISK/REWARD RATING
Collberg was used on the powerplay more often than Forsberg, but Forsberg had the better powerplay risk/reward rating because he was involved in nearly 3 times as many powerplay events per-minute of ice time. That said, Collberg had the better powerplay ratio, as he made 3 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle, while Forsberg had a powerplay ratio of 2 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle.
|EVENTS/ MIN||3.74||9.38||EVENTS/ MIN|