Moronic hockey writers

Virtually every story from every Web-based newspaper site promotes the concept that Crosby dominated the Wings last night. My question is, are we watching the same game?
Crosby got some chances, just as he did in the first two games in Detroit. But he had three shots on goal, had one power-play goal, and NEVER dominated the game.
Is he good? Was he good last night? Of course, but the real difference in Game 3 was the Penguins total effort, especially in the way they applied pressure to the Detroit defense. The Wings simply did not have the puck as much or as long as they did in the first two games. The Pens came more in waves, and when Stuart turned the puck over on the game's first goal, it wasn't because of Crosby. He scored, but the goal was more Crosby being in the right place at the right time than anything else.
The problem is these moronic USA hockey writers have virtually no idea of how or why things happen in the games. If you want your hockey served with a dose of reality, you must read the Canadian papers. Ooops, Sportsnet.ca headline: Sid makes it a series. Even the Canucks are morons sometimes.
Hey, he's a great player, especially when you consider he's 20 years old. But the real dominant player for the Penguins last night was their goaltender, Marc-Andre Fleury. He's the one who made tough saves when it was 3-1 and then 3-2.
Overall, the Penguins deserved to win this game. They forced the issue, had more jump and got off to a good lead, at 2-0. They got the breaks because they made them with hustle, effort and passion.
Now, it's the Wings' turn. If they respond in Game 4, they have the chance to bring this back to The Joe up, 3-1. I believe they can do it. But, as Franzen said after Game 3, "We didn't think it was going to be easy."