If the Boston Bruins and Florida Panthers showed us anything in Game 1 of their second-round Stanley Cup playoff series Monday — a 5-1 win by the B’s — it’s this:

Expect the unexpected from this one.

The Atlantic Division rivals clashed again amid fraught recent history that will add another stimulating chapter with this postseason matchup. The Bruins fell in infamous fashion to the Panthers last spring, with the Presidents’ Trophy winners blowing a 3-1 first-round series lead to see their playoff run end early in a Game 7 overtime loss.

Then Boston went 4-0-0 in the regular season against Florida, which still won the division with one more point than the Bruins.

The Panthers breezed through their first-round series against the Tampa Bay Lightning in five games, and had been out of action since April 29. Meanwhile, Boston was battling its demons again, having gone up 3-1 against the Toronto Maple Leafs in the first round only to land back in a Game 7 overtime — which it won 2-1, just two days before the second round was set to begin.

That set the stage for a return to South Florida, where the well-rested Panthers awaited a battle-weary Boston brood. But surprise! It was the well-traveled Bruins who came out on top in Game 1 with a blowout victory.

Suffice it to say, the Bruins have everyone’s attention now — most especially the Panthers’. So, what will Florida do in response to the rout?

Before the puck drops for Game 2 on Wednesday (7:30 p.m. ET, ESPN), we’re breaking down five burning questions for the series based on what happened in Game 1.

Can the Panthers rattle Swayman?

There’s not a more unbothered postseason player than Jeremy Swayman.

Case in point: The Bruins netminder was buried under no fewer than six bodies during a goal-line scrum in Game 1, all of them searching frantically for the puck, and Swayman had it under him all along. The cackle he delivered while nonchalantly tossing the disk out from his glove to the bemused displeasure of the surrounding Panthers? Priceless.

And also, a problem.

Toronto learned the hard way how backbreaking it can be getting stymied by Swayman, what with his .950 save percentage and 1.49 goals-against average in the first round. Now the Panthers have seen up close the challenge that beating Swayman will present, as he made an individual playoff-best 38 saves in Game 1 to reach a postseason record of 5-2, with a .955 SV% and 1.42 GAA. He’s also the eighth goaltender in league history to allow two or fewer goals in each of his first seven starts in a postseason.

Florida didn’t do enough to get in Swayman’s face Monday. Sure, the Panthers fired 39 shots on net, but they clocked just four quality, high-danger chances through the first two periods and weren’t truly testing Swayman until the third, when he had a three-goal cushion.

Boston kept Florida’s best skaters to the outside or chasing their own tails behind the net. The Panthers weren’t getting bodies in front and just peppered Swayman with shots he could easily track. That strategy didn’t work for the Leafs; it doesn’t project to go any better for Florida.

What could work is making Swayman uncomfortable — if, at this point, that’s even possible. Swayman’s confidence is rightfully sky-high after masking many Bruins blemishes in the first round and then putting on a show in Game 1 against Florida.

It’s up to the Panthers now to adjust how they attack Swayman in Game 2. Part of that falls on Florida goaltender Sergei Bobrovsky — who made 24 saves in Game 1 — improving substantially at the other end to match Swayman’s excellence.

Getting through Swayman will require the Panthers to establish a consistent net-front presence, battle down low for loose pucks and seek out greasy goal opportunities. All of those are clichés for good reason — because they work, especially in the postseason, when open ice and rush chances are richer than Swayman’s next contract will be.

Who’ll win the special teams battles?

If the Panthers and Bruins have anything in common, it’s knowing how to shut down an opponent’s power play — and how to leverage their own.

Boston silenced Toronto on the man advantage in the first round, when the Leafs were a woeful 1-for-21 with the extra man to the Bruins’ 6-for-17. Florida stifled Tampa Bay there, too, leaving the Lightning at 4-for-20 while it went 3-for-13 (and added a short-handed goal to boot).

Game 1 offered both Florida and Boston opportunities to capitalize on special teams that netted, well, nothing.

The Panthers were 0-for-3 with the extra man. Boston was 0-for-2.

Who’s going to break the stalemate there?

Boston and Florida entered their series with the same number of 5-on-5 playoff goals (11), although the Bruins had played two more games than the Panthers to get there. Boston held the power-play edge overall, hitting 35.3% to Florida’s 23.1%. Boston also had the better kill, sitting at 95.2% versus 80% for Florida (again, through additional games on Boston’s end).

If Game 1 was a feeling-out process, and the series expectedly tightens up from here — particularly as the Panthers get their legs under them again — then special teams should become a larger factor in success (or failure). Given how both sides have generated scoring at even strength, those openings on the power play start to loom large in determining outcomes.

Will Florida’s depth eventually shine?

Game 1 had star power — but it was the Bruins’ depth stealing the spotlight.

The early 1-1 score came courtesy of goals from two top-line skaters — Matthew Tkachuk for Florida, Morgan Geekie for Boston — and then the sides settled in. Some fringe scorers emerged for the Bruins in Mason Lohrei (with his first of the postseason), Brandon Carlo (notching his second) and Justin Brazeau (also with his first).

play

Justin Brazeau beats Sergei Bobrovsky for a Bruins goal

Justin Brazeau scores a third-period breakaway goal to put the Bruins up 4-1 vs. the Panthers.

Boston exemplified the importance of having contributors throughout the lineup. It’s on Florida to respond in kind come Game 2 and beyond.

The Panthers are a formidable team up front and proved it in their first-round series against Tampa Bay. Through those five games, Florida earned incredible contributions from Carter Verhaeghe (five goals), Tkachuk (three goals) and Sam Reinhart (three goals), among others.

The Bruins showed in Game 1 how they deny genuine scoring chances and can be difficult to penetrate defensively. In a series like this, top lines can cancel each other out. So who is going to produce from among the Panthers’ bottom six to help them keep pace with what Boston can offer throughout its own lineup?

Granted, the Panthers are missing Sam Bennett, who hasn’t played since suffering an upper-body injury against the Lightning on April 23; he’s considered day-to-day, and coach Paul Maurice estimates he’ll return by Game 4. When Bennett can get back, it will undoubtedly boost the Panthers offensively.

But even still, Florida should expect contributions from the likes of Vladimir Tarasenko and Evan Rodrigues to start punctuating the score sheet if the Bruins manage to hold Verhaeghe, Reinhart and Aleksander Barkov off it more often than not in this series. And if the Panthers could see some goals flying in from the blue line — defensemen have accounted for just three of Florida’s postseason scores thus far — all the better for them.

How will the coaching matchup play out?

It was five minutes into the third period of Game 1. Boston was up 3-1, and Jim Montgomery had to call a timeout.

Florida had sent 11 shots on Swayman in the final frame, and Boston looked lost.

Montgomery saw his group headed for trouble and asked for a breather.

“I could tell our players were hurried, a little frantic with the puck,” Montgomery said. “I just wanted us to relax.”

The Bruins took a pause. Play resumed. And two minutes later, Brazeau found the back of the net to ice Boston’s victory.

“After that timeout, you could tell the momentum shifted,” Swayman said.

“At the right time, he made the right timeout,” Carlo added. “He believes in us a lot.”

Game management is critical in the postseason. And in Game 1 it was Montgomery who seemed to outduel Maurice in that respect. How will Florida’s bench boss counter?

The intricacies and gamesmanship of coaching aren’t always visible on the outside. In Montgomery’s case with the timeout, it was just a perfectly executed example of knowing what your players need to stay on track. And it’s maximizing their potential in every situation to get a victory over the line.

If Montgomery hadn’t slowed the Bruins down, and Florida had broken Swayman with another goal, there was enough time left for the Panthers to come all the way back (and let’s not forget Boston was tied for the league lead in regular-season overtime losses when leading after two periods).

That must have been top of mind for Montgomery in Game 1. And it might have saved Boston from a potential gut punch.

Can Boston maintain momentum?

The Bruins had emotion on their side entering this series, in more ways than one.

While Florida had been cooling its heels since beating the Lightning over a week ago, Boston rolled into Round 2 off that dramatic overtime victory in Game 7. Add to that an extra side of new dad energy from Carlo — who arrived for Game 1 just hours after his second child was born — and the Bruins were feel-good favorites for the night.

The challenge for Boston now is to channel that same energy even after some of the original luster has been lost.

Montgomery was open about how Boston “made a lot of mistakes” in Game 1 that were not catastrophic thanks to Swayman’s stellar performance. Florida was one of the league’s premier teams all season, and there’s little doubt it’ll have a counterpunch ready to deliver in Game 2. The Panthers were the stronger team out of the gate in Game 1, too, and if not for Swayman holding the Bruins in it early, the result might not have gone Boston’s way.

How the Bruins handle what Florida does differently now moves to the forefront. Boston undisputedly set a tone in Game 1 with physicality, confidence and swagger. But if the Bruins don’t clean up some areas, as Montgomery alluded to, then Florida is too strong a team not to take advantage of its opponent’s errors.

It has been fewer than two years since Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves told Tory MP Natalie Elphicke to “f*** off” for criticising Marcus Rashford at the Euros. Now they are colleagues.

Ms Elphicke crossed the floor of the House of Commons to join Labour ahead of Prime Minister’s Questions, causing a stir on both sides of the House.

The Dover MP has long been critical of the Labour Party – especially on immigration – but she now says the party has “changed out of all recognition” and is trying to create “a Britain everyone can be a part of”.

Politics latest: ‘Extraordinary’ Tory defection to Labour

Ms Elphicke added that the Conservatives “ousted” Boris Johnson in a “coup led by the unelected Rishi Sunak” – with the party now a “byword for incompetence and division”.

So who is Natalie Elphicke, what are her policies, and why did she defect?

Who is Natalie Elphicke?

Professionally a solicitor, Ms Elphicke was long involved in Conservative Party politics, working with thinktanks and on policy goals.

She was not selected to contest a parliamentary seat until 2019 – despite trying before – although the opportunity emerged from scandal.

Her now ex-husband, Charlie Elphicke, had been the Conservative MP for Dover, but he was arrested, charged and eventually convicted of three counts of sexual assault in 2020.

The court heard he had chased one woman around his house while chanting “I’m a naughty Tory”.

Ms Elphicke contested the Dover seat in 2019 for the Conservatives after her husband’s arrest, and almost doubled the majority to 12,278.

She will not be standing at the next general election, and campaigned for Liz Truss to become prime minister in 2022.

What are her policies?

Ms Elphicke has been outspoken on migration, especially as the MP for Dover.

It was alongside Ms Elphicke that Rishi Sunak announced his plan to stop small boats crossing the English Channel was working in Dover last year.

In the minutes after her defection, Conservative MPs began sharing previous statements from Ms Elphicke.

For example, in April 2023, Ms Elphicke wrote in the Daily Express that Labour’s attempts to stop the Rwanda deportation scheme was “dangerous” – and that Sir Keir Starmer wanted to create “loopholes” in the system.

And Tory MPs also shared a social media post from late 2022 in which Ms Elphicke claimed: “A reminder that Labour back fewer and weaker border controls when it comes to illegal arrivals on our shores.”

In the wake of England’s loss in the Euro 2020 final – held in 2021 due to COVID – Ms Elphicke sent a private message which said: “They lost – would it be ungenerous to suggest Rashford should have spent more time perfecting his game and less time playing politics.”

She later apologised, although when asked about the comments, Ms Reeves said in late 2022 that Ms Elphicke should “f*** off”.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

👉 Listen above then tap here to follow Politics at Jack at Sam’s wherever you get your podcasts 👈

Why did she defect?

In a statement shared by the Labour Party, Ms Elphicke mentioned Mr Sunak “failing” on keeping “our borders safe and secure”.

She added: “Meanwhile Labour plan to build the homes we need, help young people onto the housing ladder and care about the vulnerable and homeless. That’s why I’m honoured to have been asked to work with Keir and the team to help deliver the homes we need.

“We need to move on from the broken promises of Rishi Sunak’s tired and chaotic government. Britain needs a government that will build a future of hope, optimism, opportunity and fairness.

“A Britain everyone can be part of, that will make the most of the opportunities that lie ahead. That’s why it’s time for change. Time for a Labour government led by Keir Starmer.

“The general election cannot come soon enough.”

High street bank TSB has announced 250 job losses and the closure of 36 branches.

The job cuts will be in the fraud operations department of the bank, central operations and staff who work at the branches earmarked for closure.

Trade union Unite said the decision was a “grave mistake” and customers would “undoubtedly suffer a downgrade in service from these job cuts”.

Money latest: Tea brand spends £12m on ad but poll suggests Britons prefer rival

The latest round of branch closures will start in September, and continue through to May next year.

TSB will have 175 branches across the UK after the latest round of closures. Ten branches have already been closed over the last year.

The branches to be closed in September are in:
Alloa
Bedworth
Birmingham, Pype Hayes
Bridlington
Buxton
Carmarthen
Cwmbran
Dovercourt
Edinburgh, Leith
Felixstowe
Frome
Glasgow, Cardonald
Glasgow, Castlemilk
Haddington
Hounslow
Lerwick
Leven
London, Bethnal Green
London, Clapham
Longton
Manchester, Middleton
Newcastle upon Tyne
Peterhead
Sheerness
Stornoway
Torquay
Whitehaven

The branches due to be closed in May 2025 are in:
Amble
Aylsham
Banff
Bedlington
Bude
Crook
Flint
Tenbury Wells
Whitchurch

The closures come as the lender said most account holders do their banking online and there is a need to “better balance” staff in face-to-face and digital roles.

Read more business news:
Brewdog boss calls time on 17 years in charge
How Russian oil is still powering cars and planes in Britain

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

A TSB spokesperson said it is making the changes “to remain competitive” and “to simplify the way we operate”.

“Our priority is to consult with impacted colleagues to ensure they’re fully supported, maximising redeployment opportunities where we can,” the spokesperson added.

“We remain committed to a national branch network and through innovation and integration with video, telephone, digital, branch and other face-to-face services TSB customers have more ways to bank with us than ever before.”

The workers who are due to lose their jobs “perform essential work in the fraud departments and across the branch network”, Unite regional officer Andy Case said.

“Through extensive negotiations Unite has been able to substantially reduce the number of jobs at risk. However, that isn’t sufficient, the union is pressing TSB to urgently reconsider its damaging bank branch closures plan.

“At a time when customers are increasingly concerned about financial fraud and often need support from a local bank branch this is the wrong course of action.”

The union said it is holding fresh talks with TSB in an attempt to prevent further job cuts.

Cuts were anticipated after the boss of TSB’s Spanish parent firm Sabadell told reporters in February that cost-saving plans would result in job losses and branch closures.