In case you haven't heard, six of the most influential men in the NHL and NHLPA met today at O'Hare Airport in Chicago to get down to business. And I've gotta tell you, what a relief. Almost everybody will tell you that the chances of them getting a deal done at this juncture are somewhere between zero and nada, but I've become suddenly (and not-so-cautiously, unfortunately) optimistic. The meeting excluded super-egos Gary Bettman and Bob Goodenow (their names get bandied about so much, I'm surprised no one's just calling them GB and BG), which is probably one of the major reasons no one stormed out of the talks more galvanized than when they came in. The structure appeared to be basically a talk between PA president Trevor Linden and Flames' part-owner Harley Hotchkiss, with Bill Daly, Ted Saskin, and outside counsels just there to keep the facts straight. At any rate, they're going to meet again soon - maybe tomorrow - so hold on to that glimmer of hope, if you dare.
2005-01-19
2005-01-12
Having watched so much of the game under IIHF (International Ice Hockey Federation) rules in the last couple months, I'd like to address a few of those rules that people feel should be adopted by professional hockey in North America. Some have merit, and some do not, but all of them are worth a look - not in the interest of raising scoring, though; that is something that will iron itself out, but I'll talk about that another time. Today, however, I'll start off with the removal of the red line, a topic that TSN viewers recently heard colour commentator Pierre McGuire rant about from North Dakota on a nightly basis.
It's hard to argue against the fact that allowing two-line passes creates a great deal of excitement. Admittedly, I'm a traditionalist, and it took quite a while for me to decide whether taking out the red line was a good idea or not, but the Juniors convinced me. There are few things that can change the tempo of a game as quickly as a goalie firing a hail-mary pass to a streaking forward, sending him alone on the opposing 'tender. Short-handed goals would also increase, as penalty killers could sneak up ice as soon as their team gained possession, and receive a long clearing attempt - imagine, what once was a desperate icing effort can now turn into a scoring chance! Besides, breakaways always charge up a crowd, and taking out the red line will create more of them without having to use that disgusting "S" word ("Shootout").
Some contend that two-line passes will only drive more teams into playing the trap, something that no one wants to watch. The main problem that I can see with this argument is that the version of the trap found in the NHL calls for the defending team to clog up the neutral zone, making it difficult for offensive forwards to carry the puck through into the attack zone. One surefire way to get through a trap is with precision passing - enter the two-line pass. With current rules, the attacking team has to pass from within the neutral zone, meaning that they are already at risk from pressuring forwards. But by removing the red line, the trapping team will either have to stretch out to discourage the passer, or retreat behind their own blue line in order to focus on the receiver. If the defense stretches out, this immediately creates more room in the neutral zone for strong stickhandlers to work their way through whatever opposition remains, and the defense's forecheckers will have to fall back rapidly or risk getting stranded on the wrong side of the rink. If the defense collapses into their own zone, however, this allows attackers to at least gain the opposition's side of centre, where they can immediately work on getting puck possession deep in the zone and setting up their offensive strategy, instead of wasting time merely trying to gain the zone itself.
Whether a team plays a conservative trapping strategy or a run-and-gun offense will not change with the removal of the red line. "Attack-first" coaches like Pat Quinn and Mike Keenan will undoubtedly take advantage of the opportunity to let their offensively-gifted forwards work, while defensively-minded teams like the New Jersey Devils will find a way to make the trap work for them (I would expect with a 1-4 configuration, with a speedy forward staying as far up ice as they dare, ready to receive a quick pass from his own zone). While it won't completely change the face of the game, and likely won't create the 7-6 scores that Gary Bettman wants to see so badly, allowing two-line passes will at least add a few more offensive flurries to the game, giving scorers and goalies alike a chance to shine, and fans one more chance to cheer - assuming that this lockout ends while fans still want to cheer for NHL hockey.
It's hard to argue against the fact that allowing two-line passes creates a great deal of excitement. Admittedly, I'm a traditionalist, and it took quite a while for me to decide whether taking out the red line was a good idea or not, but the Juniors convinced me. There are few things that can change the tempo of a game as quickly as a goalie firing a hail-mary pass to a streaking forward, sending him alone on the opposing 'tender. Short-handed goals would also increase, as penalty killers could sneak up ice as soon as their team gained possession, and receive a long clearing attempt - imagine, what once was a desperate icing effort can now turn into a scoring chance! Besides, breakaways always charge up a crowd, and taking out the red line will create more of them without having to use that disgusting "S" word ("Shootout").
Some contend that two-line passes will only drive more teams into playing the trap, something that no one wants to watch. The main problem that I can see with this argument is that the version of the trap found in the NHL calls for the defending team to clog up the neutral zone, making it difficult for offensive forwards to carry the puck through into the attack zone. One surefire way to get through a trap is with precision passing - enter the two-line pass. With current rules, the attacking team has to pass from within the neutral zone, meaning that they are already at risk from pressuring forwards. But by removing the red line, the trapping team will either have to stretch out to discourage the passer, or retreat behind their own blue line in order to focus on the receiver. If the defense stretches out, this immediately creates more room in the neutral zone for strong stickhandlers to work their way through whatever opposition remains, and the defense's forecheckers will have to fall back rapidly or risk getting stranded on the wrong side of the rink. If the defense collapses into their own zone, however, this allows attackers to at least gain the opposition's side of centre, where they can immediately work on getting puck possession deep in the zone and setting up their offensive strategy, instead of wasting time merely trying to gain the zone itself.
Whether a team plays a conservative trapping strategy or a run-and-gun offense will not change with the removal of the red line. "Attack-first" coaches like Pat Quinn and Mike Keenan will undoubtedly take advantage of the opportunity to let their offensively-gifted forwards work, while defensively-minded teams like the New Jersey Devils will find a way to make the trap work for them (I would expect with a 1-4 configuration, with a speedy forward staying as far up ice as they dare, ready to receive a quick pass from his own zone). While it won't completely change the face of the game, and likely won't create the 7-6 scores that Gary Bettman wants to see so badly, allowing two-line passes will at least add a few more offensive flurries to the game, giving scorers and goalies alike a chance to shine, and fans one more chance to cheer - assuming that this lockout ends while fans still want to cheer for NHL hockey.
2005-01-09
Get ready for the most egocentric, pathetic, and unwittingly hilarious thing you have seen all day...
www.fedorovbrothers.com
www.fedorovbrothers.com
2005-01-07
Gretzky underestimates his own clout
During the World Juniors, Wayne Gretzky took part in a press conference where he expressed his concerns about the effect the NHL lockout will have on the state of professional hockey. His was an opinion long overdue. Gretzky told onlookers that he fully expected the lockout to last at least several months into the 2005-06 season if it was not resolved before this season could be cancelled. Many received this news with shock, despite the fact that logic dictates that a deal will not get done during the summer; the players are not getting paid anyway, so there would be nothing that drives them to rush towards a solution.
When Wayne Gretzky speaks, everyone listens. He has become immensely respected not just for his skills as a player, but as a builder of the game - he was the architect behind Canada's championship teams in Salt Lake City and at the '04 World Cup, and is a managing partner of the Phoenix Coyotes. He has also been approached about coaching the 'Yotes next season (if there is a next season), and has not turned down the offer as of this point. Due to his past and present capacities of involvement with the game, Gretzky has remained neutral (and understandably so) in this debate. So the immense surprise among the hockey-loving public was generated because when the Great One says that hockey is in trouble, it must be true. (Somehow it didn't occur to these people earlier that the NHL was in trouble, but whatever.)
Knowing the sway he holds with not only players and brass, but with fans as well, Gretzky would have been wise to weigh in with his thoughts on the matter earlier. Seeing the fear he triggered in so many even at this stage of the lockout, where all hope was already presumably lost, that fear would have been very useful early on, where it could have made both the NHL and the NHLPA think "Gee, maybe we should be thinking about getting to work here," or at least would have turned up the pressure on them from the fans. I'm not blaming Wayne Gretzky for the fact that the lockout has continued - Gary Bettman and Bob Goodenow are ideal candidates for carrying the role of scapegoat together - but I wish that he would take a more active role in solving the dilemma. Aside from his records as a player and his success as a general manager for Team Canada, if he can save the National Hockey League from itself, he will earn still more admiration just for protecting the game he loves.
When Wayne Gretzky speaks, everyone listens. He has become immensely respected not just for his skills as a player, but as a builder of the game - he was the architect behind Canada's championship teams in Salt Lake City and at the '04 World Cup, and is a managing partner of the Phoenix Coyotes. He has also been approached about coaching the 'Yotes next season (if there is a next season), and has not turned down the offer as of this point. Due to his past and present capacities of involvement with the game, Gretzky has remained neutral (and understandably so) in this debate. So the immense surprise among the hockey-loving public was generated because when the Great One says that hockey is in trouble, it must be true. (Somehow it didn't occur to these people earlier that the NHL was in trouble, but whatever.)
Knowing the sway he holds with not only players and brass, but with fans as well, Gretzky would have been wise to weigh in with his thoughts on the matter earlier. Seeing the fear he triggered in so many even at this stage of the lockout, where all hope was already presumably lost, that fear would have been very useful early on, where it could have made both the NHL and the NHLPA think "Gee, maybe we should be thinking about getting to work here," or at least would have turned up the pressure on them from the fans. I'm not blaming Wayne Gretzky for the fact that the lockout has continued - Gary Bettman and Bob Goodenow are ideal candidates for carrying the role of scapegoat together - but I wish that he would take a more active role in solving the dilemma. Aside from his records as a player and his success as a general manager for Team Canada, if he can save the National Hockey League from itself, he will earn still more admiration just for protecting the game he loves.
2005-01-06
The World Junior Hockey Championship just wrapped up a couple days ago in Grand Forks, ND, with Canada earning their first gold medal at the event since 1997. In any other country, the several bronzes and silvers they've garnered since then might be grounds for pride, but in the Great White North, second-best in hockey just won't do.
The Canadian contingent owes their success to a number of factors, not the least of which is the coaching ability of Brent Sutter. He got his players to buy into a defense-first system (their offensive domination was a foregone conclusion) that shut down the opposition almost entirely, allowing only 7 goals through 6 games. This left Jeff Glass and Rejean Beauchemin - goalies number 1 and 2, respectively - with long opportunities to catch up on their reading as the puck barely crossed the Canadian blueline, though the two netminders were solid when they needed to be.
Perhaps just as impressive as his defensive system was Sutter's ability to keep his players from taking too many stupid penalties; many of the tournament's other top teams, including the Czechs, the Russians, and the Americans, engaged in exchanges of stickwork and cheap shots, often after the whistle had blown. This was especially costly for the Americans, who were visibly frustrated throughout the tournament, having been considered among the favourites coming in. In the bronze medal game, they and the Czechs exchanged penalty after penalty, negating power plays left and right because of blatantly vicious actions; crosschecks to the head and elbows to the face were not uncommon. The Americans would end up losing in overtime, as opposing dynamo Peter Vrana broke through the defense and slid the puck under goalie Al Montoya in another of the weak goals the 'keeper came to be known for, after being named the tournament MVP the previous year.
Despite their physical abilities, the Canadian men largely resisted the temptation to take foolish penalties. When they met the Czechs in the semis, the Canadians could be seen trying to draw infractions out of their opponents; at one point captain Mike Richards took a gloved punch to the face in the midst of a scrum with three Czechs, but laughed it off and skated away. Such discipline is difficult to teach, and it helps if the team is absolutely confident in themselves and their abilities as a unit, which the Canucks clearly were, especially against a team that is known for its chippy play and its ability to draw retaliatory penalties. Canada continued this trend into the finals, where the Russians - and Alexander Ovechkin in particular - were worn down by hard, clean hits, thrown by everyone from Dion Phaneuf to Sidney Crosby. In short, Canada's game was as complete as ever, and the strict discipline taught by head coach Brent Sutter propelled them to the championship; it is a strategy that should become priority for Hockey Canada, and other international teams would be wise to follow suit.
The Canadian contingent owes their success to a number of factors, not the least of which is the coaching ability of Brent Sutter. He got his players to buy into a defense-first system (their offensive domination was a foregone conclusion) that shut down the opposition almost entirely, allowing only 7 goals through 6 games. This left Jeff Glass and Rejean Beauchemin - goalies number 1 and 2, respectively - with long opportunities to catch up on their reading as the puck barely crossed the Canadian blueline, though the two netminders were solid when they needed to be.
Perhaps just as impressive as his defensive system was Sutter's ability to keep his players from taking too many stupid penalties; many of the tournament's other top teams, including the Czechs, the Russians, and the Americans, engaged in exchanges of stickwork and cheap shots, often after the whistle had blown. This was especially costly for the Americans, who were visibly frustrated throughout the tournament, having been considered among the favourites coming in. In the bronze medal game, they and the Czechs exchanged penalty after penalty, negating power plays left and right because of blatantly vicious actions; crosschecks to the head and elbows to the face were not uncommon. The Americans would end up losing in overtime, as opposing dynamo Peter Vrana broke through the defense and slid the puck under goalie Al Montoya in another of the weak goals the 'keeper came to be known for, after being named the tournament MVP the previous year.
Despite their physical abilities, the Canadian men largely resisted the temptation to take foolish penalties. When they met the Czechs in the semis, the Canadians could be seen trying to draw infractions out of their opponents; at one point captain Mike Richards took a gloved punch to the face in the midst of a scrum with three Czechs, but laughed it off and skated away. Such discipline is difficult to teach, and it helps if the team is absolutely confident in themselves and their abilities as a unit, which the Canucks clearly were, especially against a team that is known for its chippy play and its ability to draw retaliatory penalties. Canada continued this trend into the finals, where the Russians - and Alexander Ovechkin in particular - were worn down by hard, clean hits, thrown by everyone from Dion Phaneuf to Sidney Crosby. In short, Canada's game was as complete as ever, and the strict discipline taught by head coach Brent Sutter propelled them to the championship; it is a strategy that should become priority for Hockey Canada, and other international teams would be wise to follow suit.
A Brief Bonjour
Welcome to my blog...in case you missed the title, it's going to be mainly about hockey and all things related. I'm sure that in any articles about the game internationally, my bias towards Team Canada (I live in Ottawa, so that one's a no-brainer) will become clear. I also have a preferred NHL team, but just to try and trick you into thinking I'm objective, I won't say which one it is (I'm sure that will become clear too).
If you were looking for a blog about anything else, by now you've probably realized that you've come to the wrong place. I recommend checking out http://flashpointcanada.blogspot.com instead, where you can find a very in-depth discussion of various political topics by a gentleman named Justin St.Pierre.
"Ow, my foot...I'm dropping names."--Taylor Hawkins (drummer for the Foo Fighters)
Anyhow, there's my opening...enjoy!
If you were looking for a blog about anything else, by now you've probably realized that you've come to the wrong place. I recommend checking out http://flashpointcanada.blogspot.com instead, where you can find a very in-depth discussion of various political topics by a gentleman named Justin St.Pierre.
"Ow, my foot...I'm dropping names."--Taylor Hawkins (drummer for the Foo Fighters)
Anyhow, there's my opening...enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
