Jeez that would be nice club

I drove past a sign on a store marquee here the other day that struck me as funny, or funny/sad perhaps.

It said: "Canucks win the Cup in 2070"

Let's hope that's not right.

What did you expect?

You can't say something totally outlandish and then be surprised when someone calls it nonsense. Which it is. Nonsense. This isn't just my opinion. There is no one out there who thinks that all (save one) the elite players in the NHL are European.

If you want to make the argument that Canadian hockey has been too physical and there's not been enough skills development, you may have an argument. If you want to suggest that Orr was a better talent than Gretzky, you can make that argument and you'll have lots of people agreeing with you.

But you've come out with this over-the-top pronouncement that Canadian hockey doesn't develop skilled players. When I bring up Gretzky, you say he was never a "great" player. Sorry. That's patent nonsense.

Bringing up your own unique goalposts is an interesting tactic, by the way. It's a good way to ensure you're always right.

I think you've painted yourself into a corner and won't admit it.

Well

You're still doing it. Suggesting I’ve written something I didn’t write

I don't think what I said WAS outlandish and, given the restraint I've used in response to your provocation I'd be more inclined to think the reciprocal of what you've implied.

I never said ALL the elite players in the NHL are European - that what you 'said' I said.

What I actually wrote was this:
..the most skilled players in the league are and have been virtually all European

I also mentioned thuggery, the limitations of a small ice surface and a system that puts more emphasis upon physical strength and intimidation than speed or finesse.

I did say I thought Orr was the best player, bar none, who has ever been in the game and I told you I thought Gretzky was over-rated. I still think both things are

I said I thought Gretzky was a good player but that he was not 'great' in the over-the-top sense that he has been portrayed. I still think that's the case. And he played in an era when the competitive nature and quality of the average NHL journeyman had been diluted by a period of ridiculous and greedy expansion – among other things.

As for who shares my view of Canadian hockey, you might be surprised. A great many extremely well-educated and thoughtful people I know who used to enjoy and support the game and who once would have encouraged their kids to get involved and play have moved on…and not looked back. Unless the league makes some changes soon, even a talent like Sidney Crosby (who looked very pedestrian against Carolina) won't save it. Further, the over-the-top way he has been groomed and promoted as a savior for the game says less about Crosby’s talent than it does about the owners’ and the league’s desperation to find a way out of the ‘less-popular than darts’ universe in which it now exists.

I think many people who watch the game and listen to the appallingly bad and entirely compromised commentary provided by Sports media ‘personalities’ need to start looking much more critically at the product on the ice. The Toronto Sports Network (TSN) in particular, lost their most prescient commentator when they sent Maggie the Macaque back to the zoo.

Because, night after night, week after week - it's boring - almost as boring as your constant return to personal remarks instead of actual discussion.

Pretty much, what you've learned from listening to the mindlessness on Sports talk Radio and TV.

Sorry. But I'll only take so many cheap shots before I retaliate.

errata - I was in a hurry

couple quick corrections:

para 3 should read:
I never said ALL the elite players in the NHL are European - that's what you 'said' I said.

and, father down:
para 6 should be:

I did say I thought Orr was the best player, bar none, who has ever been in the game and I told you I thought Gretzky was over-rated. I still think both things are true.

Surely you're not that sensitive

Cheap shots? The poor-me act is wearing thin.

You've said a player many consider the greatest ever - and most consider one of the top three ever - was "pedestrian" in a period in which he won three scoring titles and took his team to the Stanley Cup finals. I called that nonsense. Because it was.

You've claimed that most of the skilled hockey players in the NHL were Europeans - although that target seems to be moving -

"with the possible exception of Crosby - (I never have considered Gretzky to be a 'great' player) - the most skilled players in the league are and have been virtually all European"

- despite hard evidence showing that it's actually Canadians who have been the ones scoring the goals.

You've claimed that Canada's young, developing hockey players can't hold a candle to Europeans in terms of skills, even though Canadian teams have won the last three international tournaments, been to the final the last six years and have won a medal for 10. If Europeans are more skilled, they're not showing it.

Bottom line: you've made some wild assertions about Canadian hockey. They've been nonsensical. I've called them nonsensical and offered up some hard proof to explain why they're nonsensical. I wasn't aware facts were cheap shots.

I disagree

Gretzky came along at a time when the talent pool was as shallow as a bowl of water.

I could care less who scores all the goals - in the original 6 era there were players who held records for assists with as few as 60 points - statistics are for dummies who really don't understand what's happened to the game and why it's a mess.

Hockey is a regional sport that was better and more popular 30 years ago than it is today - let the Americans have a half-dozen teams - bring another half-dozen back to Canadian cities and dump all the others; fire Bettman, increase the size of the ice to European standards and start rewarding skill and finesse.

I think Europeans are showing it: even on a pathetic team like Toronto if you got rid of Sundin, Kaberle and Antropov there would be nothing left for the notoriously uncritical fans there to scream at.

Of course the European young talent pool has been diluted - the Canadian Junior system has paid the big bucks to bring all the talent over here. A couple years ago the Junior Hockey fraternity here in Canada was whining about how Canadian boys couldn't make it onto junior teams anymore. Remember?

I don't accept your bottom line - just like I don't listen to the idiots on TSN who keep telling me they know anything about a game they've done a great deal to ruin.

I don't think you've offered up any evidence except the fact that wayne Gretzky won some scoring championships - he didn't even sniff the Stanley Cup after he left Edmonton and he's a joke as a coach. He actually gets more press as a result of his wife's gambling problems these days than he does as a hockey expert.

As for whining, Gretz was certainly world-class at that wasn't he?

By the way, you're actually coming across a lot more like Don Cherry with each post - are you that desperate?

Back to the topic at hand

Dunno what:
-Gretzky's whining
-Gretzky's coaching ability
-Point totals pre-1967
-Where European juniors play
-TSN
-Gary Bettman
-Janet's gambling
-the location of NHL cities

or most of that last post has to do with whether Canada is developing skilled players.

It is interesting, by the way, that on one hand you say that Europeans are doing a better job at developing their skilled players and then say that the European talent pool is diluted. You can't have it both ways.

(The European talent pool is far from diluted, by the way. Aside from typical European powers like Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic and Russia, you're starting to see very good players coming out of Norway, Denmark, Austria and Slovenia. The fact that some are coming to North America to play isn't preventing them from playing for their countries, either, if that's what you're implying.)

I know, I know. You don't accept my bottom line. The fact that Canada's players are at or near the top of the NHL scoring race doesn't mean they're more skilled than the Europeans they play against. The fact that Canada has a pretty impressive record against its international competition at the U-20 level doesn't mean that Canada's developing players are better than the rest of the world.

So, just curious, what benchmark would you use to determine relative skill levels? If actual results don't indicate relative skill levels, what would?

Oh, and desperate? You've tried three times to tie me to Don Cherry, even though I keep saying I'm not a fan. Good luck with that.

My remarks about the talent pool

Were directed, quite obviously, at your remark about the junior program – remember?

I certainly don't accept your bottom line - or your top line either.

That ridiculous exhibition game in London last weekend drew just over 222,000 viewers - I think that may be the lowest on record for Hockey Night in Canada. NHL professional hockey is a farce - better suited to the same fan interest level of folks who like cage matches in the ultimate fighting challenge or whatever they call it.

Take the top European players from every team in the league and what do you have left: In my view the American Hockey League and the Anaheim Ducks!

If Canadian players are so skilled, why are there so many potential juniors being scouted all the time in Europe?

You actually haven't contended with the central points here which go a long way beyond my views about Canadian skill levels. I’ve also mentioned, among other things:
1. The NHL product is bad and getting worse;
2. There are far fewer skilled players (not thugs, there are always plenty of Chris Prongers and Dion Phaneufs available in Canada) coming out of Canadian rinks than there are skilled Europeans. Quebec may be the one exception to this by the way.
3. The predominant 'skill' position is Canadian hockey is the so-called power forward whose value to a team is marked more by his ability to stand immobile (despite the depredations of the biggest lug in the defence team of the opposition) in front of the crease than anything else. Great skill that!
4. The other thing Canadian players are good at is the sort of thing you can see on one of Don Cherry's rock'em sock'em hockey videos - I can tell a skilled player when I see one; just like I can tell who are the thugs on the team.

So please don’t accuse me of not addressing your single and redundant point about points.

Time was there were only a few Lou Fontinantos in the league - now there are dozens of them - in the game you apparently enjoy it's the only way to win.

By the way, you really don't read very well, I never said you weren't a fan of Don Cherry - you said you weren't.

Girls were prettier, and food was tastier...

I just want to draw attention to this, in the first of my too many posts in this increasingly tedious topic:
I don't deny we have put too high a premium on brawn over skill at times during our hockey history. But I bristle when people start arguing, over-the-top style, that Canada doesn't produce skilled hockey players. Let's never forget that Canada beat, in an eight game series - a very powerful Soviet team, despite Canada not having its two best players in the lineup for any game.

I have no intention of arguing whether or not hockey used to be better back when the Earth was round. That kind of argument is mostly dependent on your memory. And as we all know, the older I get, the better I was.

The only thing that dragged me - unfortunately, as it turns out - into this discussion is the contention that Canada is not producing hockey players as skilled as is Europe. Or maybe that contention is that we aren't producing as many skilled players as is Europe. I can't tell for sure.

I'm still not sure what would classify as evidence of skill in your way of thinking.

In my mind, if you have a group of skilled players, the ones who produce the most on a regular basis would be the ones who likely have the best skills. So yes, points matter. And yes, wins matter. By any real, measurable criteria, your assertion that Europe is somehow head and shoulders above Canada in producing talented hockey players is (brace yourself) nonsense. You want to argue that there are other, better ways of assessing who has the best skills? Great. Name those criteria.

If you want to argue that the air was sweeter, that beer was stronger, that blue was bluer, and that the NHL was better, well, that's just a plain meaningless, empty topic as far as I'm concerned. If it makes you feel better, I'll concede that point, mostly because I just don't care that much.

As I've said at least twice is it's the over-the-top statements that I've objected to.

Well

Since I haven't argued any of those things; and since I said quite clearly at the outset that I thought we'd have been better off if the Russians had beaten us in 1972 - for reasons I've since stated unequivocally - I assume you really don't have a point to argue except that thugs get points when they play with other thugs in a game that isn't as fast and sweet as it could be, as it ought to be or as it might have been.

In addition, since I wasn't around when the earth was still cooling either I'll ignore that other handful of gravel – which seems, after all, to what happens every time you start spinning your wheels.

In other words, we beat up on the Russians and we've been doing it to the game of hockey ever since - to our shame and embarrassment as a mature nation and, in the end, in disservice to what ought to be our game, the best and fastest team sport in the world played the right way with skill, finesse and intelligence. Not the way it's played to increasing disinterest on behalf of the average fan today.

My view: Not a thing you’ve essayed has made me think I wasn’t correct in my original opinion.

It's been fun.

Thugs who get points

2006-2007
1 Sidney Crosby 120
2 Joe Thornton 114
3 Vincent Lecavalier 108
4 Dany Heatley 105
5 Martin St. Louis
6 Marian Hossa 100 *Not a thug*
7 Joe Sakic 100
8 Jaromir Jagr 96 *Not a thug*
9 Marc Savard 96
10 Daniel Briere 95

When you're right, you're right. Thugs all (except those noted). If I ever see Marty St. Louis coming down a dark alley, I may have to buy some boots to quake in. And Daniel Briere? The consummate power forward.

However, being careful not to use words you didn't use:

"Since I haven't argued any of those things..."

But wait, says I, you said this
"Hockey is a regional sport that was better and more popular 30 years ago than it is today "

Which is remarkably similar to what I said you said

"that the NHL was better"

Hmm.

You also said this:

"Look at the upcoming junior stars - with the exception of Crosby - they've certainly learned the 'Canadian' way to play the game - I can't disagree with you there - but to compare them with the best of the Europeans - they just don't measure up"

Which I paraphrased thusly:

"Canada is not producing hockey players as skilled as is Europe. Or maybe that contention is that we aren't producing as many skilled players as is Europe."

and thusly:

"Europe is somehow head and shoulders above Canada in producing talented hockey players."

which I contended was over-the-top language, and just to make things worse, was nonsense.

You said lots of other things, which weren't really germane to the only point I cared to discuss.

About the only thing I agree with from you is this:

"Not a thing you’ve essayed has made me think I wasn’t correct in my original opinion."

I'm betting that if every rink in Europe burned to the ground tomorrow, you'd still believe that their then-non-existent hockey talent would be better than Canada's.

It's okay that you have a hate on for Canadian hockey. It would free your soul to admit it to yourself, though.

Guess you didn't notice

I guess you didn't notice what I wrote earlier about both Martin St Louis and Daniel Briere did you?

The little smiley face icon up above the comment composition pane is a quote button. If you want to quote me - quote me. I don't agree with your spin and, I already told you what I think of hockey remember? This is it and I stand by it. Canadian hockey and its fans are (with some notable exceptions) an embarrassment.

That's how the quote thing works. Try it sometime.

I'd have thought someone who started out saying this:

...in a season where there has already been a 20-game suspension levied to a tyro Canadian trying to make his mark in the pre-season might actually have something interesting to say apart from quoting statistics and accusing me of being over the top.

Tomas Kaberle just won the game for Toronto - guess I'll just leave it at that since you're so interested in statistics my friend. And who scored in the Ottawa game? Just asking.

In closing, anyone who's so concerned with defending the thugs of the National Hockey League just because they bleed rouge, isn't really all that interesting anyway.

Cheers. Keep your stick on the ice! I’m going to listen to Don Cherry tell me that Darcy Tucker is the Savior of the world….and how stupid the referees are.

Tedious

Yawnnnnnn

Avoiding all the other irrelevancies...

Can you please point out which "thug" I have defended?

Can you please point out at which point I said there are no Europeans with skills? Or why I should be surprised when one of these Europeans scores?

I did notice what you said about St. Louis and Briere. You said they were thugs who scored on other thugs. That must have been who you meant, because I was talking about Canadian skill players who were at the top of the NHL in scoring. Sorry. Did you mean some other players? Players I didn't mention or otherwise reference?

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not sad I don't interest you. I'll save my interesting bon mots for people who are self aware enough to know when they're lying to themselves.

Read, please

Here's what I wrote:

If you can't mount a better argument than that without actually lying about what I've written then this has gone on long enough.

Bye

What you wrote

"you really don't have a point to argue except that thugs get points when they play with other thugs"

when all along I've been talking specifically about skill players, having mentioned St. Louis and Briere by name.

Will you be pointing out which thugs I've defended any time soon?

Don't worry: I don't expect an answer to that question either.

You're the one defending Canadian hockey

There are enough thugs in that fraternity for me, obviously.

I guess you really weren't paying attention were you?

As I said a while ago, I love the game and wish it were being taught and played up to its potential in my country. I see the degradation of hockey and the role of thuggishness and fighting as the ruin of what I think is the greatest team sport on earth - Canada's gift to the world of sports. The best you can come up with is a phony charge that I hate Canadian hockey - nothing could be farther from the truth - I grieve for it.

Did you still not read what I wrote about St Louis and Briere? If you know anything about hockey you'll know the struggles they had to build a successful career as forwards in the 'Canadian' game were largely because they didn't fit the standard.

Thugs: You mentioned Joe Thornton, for one, Dany Heatley for another - I've already told you what I thought of Briere and St Louis and Crosby so lets leave them out of it. You haven't exactly come to the defence of Todd Bertuzzi, the truck who flattened McCammond, Chris Pronger or Dion Phaneuf or Darcy Tucker or just about any player on one of Iron Mike Keenan's teams. Just where are these players whose performance you're so proud of playing?

Who would you put up against Nik Lidstom, Daniel Alfredsson, Marcus Naslund, ...you really don't want me to go on because I haven't really started?

More vast overgeneralization

So by defending the development of Canadian talent, I've defended all that is wrong with our system?

So does that mean that by extolling the virtues of European hockey, does that mean you're defending Zdeno Chara, Krystof Oliwa and David Koci? How about Ulf Samuelsson? Darius Kasparitis? Or does that knife cut just one way?

Nonsense following nonsense.

Dany Heatley's a thug? See above. There's unique thinking and there's just plain lunacy.

Who would I put up against the best Swedes? See my list, above. Still curious what criteria you use to determine those three are better than the Canadians I've listed?

If I'm not mistaken

Chara played his junior hockey right here in Canada - am I right?

Look, I'm really tired of this. I'm not attacking Canadian hockey, I'm saying I don't like what it has become. Watch the highlight reels, listen to the commentary - see what stirs up excitement in the press.

It's not skill- it's thuggery and pure blind aggression. Of course there are skilled players from Canada - but in general that's not what's rewarded and encouraged - unless it comes with a brawling mentality that I, and I think a hell of a lot of other people like me are sick and tired of.

If you really appreciate skilled hockey, that's great - but the way you've attacked me for saying it's more typical of the European game (and I think that’s simply a given – sorry) then the game we teach here makes me wonder. I think that's simply obvious and you know damn well I could give you a longer list than the Swedes I mentioned without breaking a sweat.

As a matter of fact, looking back over everything you've written I'm not sure what you're saying - apart from calling me names.

I happen to be a proud Canadian too - I'm just not very proud of what our national sport looks like (and that extends down into minor hockey too by the way) these days.

Given the fact that between 65 and 80% of so of the so-called professionals in the league are from the Canadian Junior system it's hardly surprising that some of them are points leaders...and yeah - Dany Heatley.

I was ashamed of the lengths we went to beat the Soviets as a kid when I watched the original series - I'm still ashamed - not much has changed. Just that fewer and fewer people are bothering to even watch any more.

Like I said, it's been fun - I'm sure you'll weigh in with something else but I've said my piece. Enough.

An objective reading

Canadian hockey is entering a golden age. Aside from the players I've mentioned upthread, there are players like Spezza, Gagne, Nash, Iginla, Tanguay and Cammalleri up front, Weber, Bouwmeester, and Phaneuf on defence, and Luongo and Price in goal. None of those players have hit their 30th birthday.

That's not accounting for the young guys most people haven't heard of yet, like Jonathon Toews and Sam Gagner, or guys who haven't played in the NHL, like Angelo Esposito or Steven Stamkos or John Tavares. Supremely talented players all, not a thug in the bunch.

Of course North American hockey is more physical. It's always been thus, since guys like Howe and Orr fought their own battles through the 50s and 60s. That, as my high school physics teacher used to say, is a long bicycle ride from arguing that Canada's skilled players don't match up against European skilled players. They do. The results show it.

Whoops

Iginla is 30 - just turned. My point still stands.

Bure speaketh

I think that the ultimate level of hockey has yet to be produced. The sainted Pavel himself said (in Roy Macgregor's excellent "Road Games") that he prefers a combination of the North American aggression game and the skill of the European game. And if anyone knows entertainment and hockey, it is Pavel.

The closest thing to that is playoff NHL hockey, where there are no fights and overt goonery, but tons of hitting and checking, as well as all-out effort to score. But this level of play cannot be sustained over a long regular season.

I think that Gwest is right that there is too much goonery and that Red Whore is right that there is a lot of skill.

In terms of absolute goonery, that has declined considerably IMO. The Broad Street Bully era was the Seventies and no NHL team has won the Cup with that approach since. The Canucks, for example, do not have a dedicated policeman now. There are only a couple of true meatheads in the league -- Derek Boogardt being one. Even Brashear and Simon play competently and prefer it like that. Also, teams simply do not hate each other with the passion that they used to in the Original Six era, when teams could not be permitted to ride the same train out of fear of fisticuffs. "Slap Shot" hockey still exists but at the low minor level, like the UHL.

In terms of absolute skill hockey, unfortunately that has declined too because of expansion (dilutes the pool), the salary cap (you could never again have an Edmonton Oilers) and the perfection of coaching, especially for goalies. There are only a couple of really top notch snipers on most teams (Pittburgh is an exciting exception), whereas most every team has got a keeper who has trained in the butterfly style and is among the fittest athletes on his squad. You hardly ever see a fat little guy in net anymore, whereas they were once the norm. Francois Allaire (via Patrick Roy, JF Giguere and other products of the QMJHL) have revolutionized goaltending to the extent that you will not be able to score on long slappers off the rush anymore. To score, you have to get traffic to the net and try to score on the second or third rebound.

Nike

I see Nike has decided to bow out of hockey.

Not enough growth and not enough profits (participation is level in Canada and declining in the USA) so they're pulling out.

This is not a good sign.

Decent points Yammer. One strange thing I've noticed, from the participation point of view, is that the baby boomers are mostly still playing hockey while their kids aren't and, on average, aren't interested.

Doesn't bode well for the future of the game - despite the constant pumping-up action on the ubiquitous 'sports' networks.