Juraj Slafkovský was the player at the center of the turning moment Sunday, when Max Crozier’s mise en échec became the flashpoint of the fourth match between the Canadien de Montréal and the Lightning de Tampa Bay; the Lightning won 3-2.
The scoreline — 3-2 in favor of Tampa Bay — was the headline, but the play that drew attention came when Crozier hit Slafkovský, a collision that commentators said changed the look and the momentum of the game. Centre Bell had already been electric: the arena was full of red shirts just hours before the puck dropped.
Two voices from the broadcast framed the moment. Simon-Olivier Lorange asked plainly, "Le « momentum » a-t-il changé de côté ?" and, when the question hung in the air, Antoine Roussel answered without hesitation: "Oui". Alexandre Pratt joined Lorange in saying the mise en échec shifted how the match unfolded.
The hit mattered because it came inside a tight game. The Canadiens had already suffered a bitter setback the day before, when they squandered a two-goal lead and took a heartbreaking loss, and Sunday’s defeat left the series with the Lightning ahead after the fourth match.
Context from the live coverage underlines a deeper problem: the troubles of Montreal’s first two forward trios at even strength continued to show up in the box score and on the ice. That persistent weakness, rather than a single hit alone, framed why commentators and viewers perceived Crozier’s play as decisive.
There is a clear tension between what a single, dramatic play can do and the underlying issues that make a team vulnerable. The mise en échec provided a narrative pivot — a visible moment that crystallized momentum — but it arrived on top of two uncomfortable facts for Montreal: a squandered two-goal lead the previous day, and recurring even-strength struggles.
Monday offered no immediate on-ice fixes: the Canadiens had a scheduled day off from practice. That pause gives time to regroup but also cements the moment in public view; hours after the hit and the loss, fans and analysts alike had time to replay the same question posed by Lorange and answered by Roussel.
The most consequential immediate question now is whether Montreal’s players and coaches will treat Crozier’s mise en échec as a single turning point or as symptom of a larger pattern that must be corrected before the next game. The facts on Sunday — a 3-2 defeat, a highly visible hit, and commentators who said the game’s look changed — point to one thing: the series has tilted, and the Canadiens must respond with more than talk on their day off.
For Slafkovský, who lived through the hit, the game will be remembered not only for the final score but for the moment that observers say altered the evening; for a team that had already surrendered a two-goal advantage the day before, the image of that mise en échec may be the clearest sign that the margin for error has tightened.
