 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Olympic fever breaks Posted: Thursday February 28, 2002 1:39 PM
Can't seem to get that Olympic tournament out of my bloodsteram, folks. It's going to be hard to reacquaint ourselves with the pace of the NHL after all that eye candy and those riveting, so-much-at-stake games. Usually I'm one who loves an upset, but I was disappointed to see Belarus upset the Swedes. Having Sweden in the semis would have given us a lot more compelling hockey. Instead of watching Belarus play a dull 7-1 semifinal with Canada and a duller 7-2 bronze-medal game against Russia, we would have had two more great games to feast on. Oh well, it was still the best stretch of hockey games I've ever seen. Next time it'll be better still. And now, on to your mailbag
...
Please tell me you won't soon be one of the many screaming for the NHL to adopt
all the international rules showcased during the Olympics. Don't fans understand
that the reason the hockey was so entertaining was that the BEST PLAYERS IN THE
WORLD WERE PLAYING? The only thing a no-two-line pass rule would accomplish is
to bring the players who employ the terrible trap all the way back to their own
blue line.
I'm with you Chris. The fact that there were so many skilled players grouped on these teams is a major reason the missing red line worked so well at the Olympics. Also, teams didn't have much time to become familiar with a real trap even if they'd wanted to resort to it (Canada, incidentally, did a bit of trapping late in the gold-medal game). Take the red line out in the NHL and you could well wind up with what Pat Quinn calls the "0-5." That means nobody up and everybody back, just hangin' around their own blue line on D. The NHL would, however, be well served by a wider ice surface. It's not likely to happen because it would be a costly and time-consuming undertaking to re-configure 30 arenas (not to mention practice rinks), but in the long run a wider surface would be much better for the game; it's just not possible to play as much of the tight, obstructionist style that we see so often in the NHL. Wider ice would favor skill players instead of the hacks and would be great step for the NHL. I enjoyed your article on the Czech hockey program. I don't think its recent
success has been duly noted by many in the North American media. However, your
comparison to the Azzuri in soccer is both accurate and disturbing. Watching
the Czechs and Italians play their respective sports is often beyond boring; it
is coma-inducing. What is really troubling is that it is so effective. Talented
teams that try to force the action are often victims of their own effort against
these counter-attacking squads. If the Czechs were to play a Jacques
Lemaire-coached team, no one would cross center ice, but why should one team
risk losing in order to be
entertaining?
Yes, the Czechs are more defensive-minded than we'd like -- and we saw that in their 0-0 tie in the semis against Canada in 1998. But they're nothing near as dull as a trapping NHL team. Not even close. The team is full of good skaters and they will carry the puck when the opportunity arises. The analogy to the Italian soccer team holds true, but it's not an exact correspondence, because these are, of course, different sports. I saw the Czechs lose to Russia in the Olympic quarterfinals last Wednesday and even though it was a 1-0 final, it was about as thrilling a 1-0 game as you'll see. The Czechs certainly pressed and were thwarted primarily by Nikolai Khabibulin's fabulous performance. After what happened to Slovakia in the last two Olympics, and Latvia in this
one, will the NHL finally agree to suspend play for the entire duration of the
Olympics in 2006 and let everyone put their best team forward?
One of the major points of negotiation among the NHL, the IIHF and the IOC between now and Torino is how long the hockey tournament should run. This year, including qualifiers, it was 17 days long. With at least one day of travel on either end, that would mean the league would have to shut down for close to three weeks in 2006. The NHL is going to try to get the tournament shortened and then weigh whether to let all of its players go. Unfortunately, the NHL has come off like an ugly dictator in all of this. If it wants to do the right thing for the game and for its fans, the solution is simple: The league should bag its All-Star Game in 2006 and let players on qualifying-round teams leave early if they want to and if their pro clubs allow it. It's hard to imagine the league making that much sense, though. I would just like to know who made the decision to have a U.S. referee
assigned to the women's gold medal game? I ask this not because I'm Canadian and
was appalled by the blatantly biased refereeing (eight Canadian penalties in a
row) or because there was no reciprocation for similar offenses by U.S. players
that were obviously overlooked, but because even the U.S. announcers on CNBC
said that the officiating was tainting the game. The fact this was allowed to
occur and almost ruin all of the hard work that both great teams put into
getting to the game is truly a travesty for both countries.
Because women's hockey is such a young sport the pool of available referees is shallow. Basically the IOC and IIHF had to go to either a U.S. or Canadian ref for the game and either way they could have been charged with bias. Part of the reason you haven't heard much backlash about the refereeing in the final is that even though Team Canada received 26 minutes in penalties to only 12 for the U.S. (Canada was hit with eight straight at one point), Canada, the better and more deserving team, won the game. So, in the end, no one got hurt. Having seen the game firsthand, I didn't think ref Stacy Livingston was quite as bad as people moaned about. She got herself in a bind because she called the first two penalties against the U.S. While the first was legitimate, the second was a blown call and Livingston knew it. So, she tried to make it up and went a little overboard the wrong way. But most of the penalties she called against Canada were legit. The Canadian players got a bit brazen after Livingston had called a few in a row against them, figuring, "We can get away with it. She can't call ANOTHER one on us." But then, she did. Is Eric Brewer for real? When you look at his stats, they are more than
ordinary. For instance, he has the worst plus-minus among the Oilers. Still,
analysts are naming him a future All-Star and Norris Trophy winner, and he got
the call to Team Canada over players like Wade Redden and Derek Morris.
No question that Brewer has struggled this year. There's also no question that he's a real talent. He could have a greater upside than Redden (who's a first-rate defender) and, though he's a different sort of player, he's on par with Morris. Brewer blossomed in scouts' and coaches' eyes with the fabulous postseason he put together for Edmonton last year. He made big plays in the playoffs and showed himself to be much further ahead on the development track than people thought he was. Remember, he's only 22. He didn't play all that much for Canada in the Olympics but bringing him along for the experience was, in part, an investment for the future This week's SI questioned whether the NHL should settle regular-season OT
games with a shootout. What do you thing of my idea, which expands on the
current OT format:
First OT: 4-on-4 for five minutes; second OT: 3-on-3 for five minutes; third OT:
2-on-2 for five minutes; last OT: 1-on-1. I think this would be exciting and
not as gimmicky as a shootout.
Matt, not as gimmicky as a shootout? Save this for the pond.
Sports Illustrated senior writer Kostya Kennedy covers the NHL for the
magazine and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. To send a question to his
Mailbag, click here.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
