‘The Toronto/Montreal rivalry is dead … the Maple Leafs have killed it”
- Ken Dryden, The Game
Well, maybe he’s right.
For all the hype and the excitement that Saturday’s game may have around it – it all depends on who wins and who loses tonight and tomorrow – this game has as little to do with the famous Toronto vs Montreal rivalry as it does any two teams playing for a spot.
Toronto this year keeps reminding me of New Jersey, circa 1988. They’re a team that’s playing well above its head, is winning games they shouldn’t be – and is losing games they shouldn’t be, either. Oddly like the Devils that year, the Leafs are a team that only has a couple scoring threats. The Devils had Pat Verbeek and Kirk Muller, the Leafs have Mats Sundin and Darcy Tucker.
The 1988 version of the Devils was a team that was in the same situation that Toronto was in. While they had a lackluster year, towards the end of the season they made a run for the playoffs that went right down to a climatic game in Chicago that they had to win; a tie wasn’t enough.
And they did win, too, in overtime. From there the Devils had a wildly successful playoff run, upsetting the Islanders in six games and the Capitals in seven, before they lost to the Boston Bruins in seven games.
Too many times this year the Leafs have choked away leads, be it against Buffalo or Pittsburgh. They’re a team that is winning mostly because Andrew Raycroft, and their fans are quick to vilify him.
When the Leafs work – I’m not sure if play is appropriate here – a goalie as often as they have Raycroft, it’s safe to assume that it’d wear him down. Raycroft has never lost this many games in one season, but he has never won this many either. His minutes in net is more then double what it was last year and his save % is under .900.
And most of the Leafs fans I know don’t like him. They have the real deal, Justin Pogge, waiting in the wings. Raycroft, even if he gets them into the playoffs, is still a stopgap. He’s the bridge between Belfour and Pogge, like how Steve Penny was between Ken Dryden and Patrick Roy.
This is why Felix Potvin left Toronto. This is why Toronto won’t win the Cup this year.
If Toronto wins against Montreal, they may end up with the #8 seed. From there they’d face Buffalo. Then maybe the Sens, or maybe the Penguins. Perhaps the Rangers.
Either way, these are teams that are much better then Montreal is right now.
So yes, this is a big game.
But the rivalry is dead.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Cherry's time has come
Don Cherry is a buffoon, a loudmouth and a relic from a bygone era.
Don’t think this is some kind of backhanded compliment; it isn’t.
For almost as long as he’s been on CBC’s presentation of Hockey Night In Canada, Cherry’s shtick is that he’s an opinionated loudmouth with some fairly popular views on hockey. Which is true: when he was at his peak, Cherry was one of the better analysts out there.
But, as the cliché goes, that was then and this is now.
No longer do any of his comments hold much weight. When asked about fighting in the NHL, his answer isn’t one of intelligence. It’s an insult, a sarcastic reply to anybody who has the gonads to question Don ‘n’ Ron.
Last Saturday, Don’s answer to the reniewed question of hockey violence was to show a 16-year old clip (From a playoff game between Los Angeles and Edmonton, I believe) where he was dressed as a character, sarcastically mocking anybody who thought hockey didn’t belong in the game.
In the midst of a huge playoff race in the East, Don’t main concern was that fighting, that aspect of the game that he loves so much, was going to be taken out. Instead of making any kind of argument, Cherry just showed off his new tie, adorned with doves, “The new mascot of the NHL”.
Again, a sarcastic comment that adds nothing to the debate.
It almost seems that all year, Cherry’s Coaches Corner segments have less and less to do with hockey, and are increasingly just a place where Cherry feels he can talk about whatever. Lately, he’s been on a Support The Troops kick, showing off ties, hats and car accessories bearing that slogan. It’s nice that he cares about the soldiers overseas, but he’s doing this during a hockey telecast.
Think about how silly it would be if any other famous figure started acting in the same way. If John Madden wore an oversized earring and mocked anybody who called football too violent during a pregame segment. If Tim McCarver started hawking Support The Troops hats during baseball telecasts. If Reggie Miller said that Europeans shouldn’t be playing basketball during a halftime show.
I doubt they’d be keeping their jobs.
And why Cherry’s keeping his is beyond me.
Don’t think this is some kind of backhanded compliment; it isn’t.
For almost as long as he’s been on CBC’s presentation of Hockey Night In Canada, Cherry’s shtick is that he’s an opinionated loudmouth with some fairly popular views on hockey. Which is true: when he was at his peak, Cherry was one of the better analysts out there.
But, as the cliché goes, that was then and this is now.
No longer do any of his comments hold much weight. When asked about fighting in the NHL, his answer isn’t one of intelligence. It’s an insult, a sarcastic reply to anybody who has the gonads to question Don ‘n’ Ron.
Last Saturday, Don’s answer to the reniewed question of hockey violence was to show a 16-year old clip (From a playoff game between Los Angeles and Edmonton, I believe) where he was dressed as a character, sarcastically mocking anybody who thought hockey didn’t belong in the game.
In the midst of a huge playoff race in the East, Don’t main concern was that fighting, that aspect of the game that he loves so much, was going to be taken out. Instead of making any kind of argument, Cherry just showed off his new tie, adorned with doves, “The new mascot of the NHL”.
Again, a sarcastic comment that adds nothing to the debate.
It almost seems that all year, Cherry’s Coaches Corner segments have less and less to do with hockey, and are increasingly just a place where Cherry feels he can talk about whatever. Lately, he’s been on a Support The Troops kick, showing off ties, hats and car accessories bearing that slogan. It’s nice that he cares about the soldiers overseas, but he’s doing this during a hockey telecast.
Think about how silly it would be if any other famous figure started acting in the same way. If John Madden wore an oversized earring and mocked anybody who called football too violent during a pregame segment. If Tim McCarver started hawking Support The Troops hats during baseball telecasts. If Reggie Miller said that Europeans shouldn’t be playing basketball during a halftime show.
I doubt they’d be keeping their jobs.
And why Cherry’s keeping his is beyond me.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
The right thing to do with Pete Rose
In an interview on ESPN Radio on Wednesday, former Reds player and manager Pete Rose once again admitted that he bet on baseball on a daily basis.
Yes, he only bet on them to win, which is different, and yet the same, as just betting on baseball.
He also said in the interview that he longer cares about being in the hall of fame.
While this may be true, just as how he claims his betting record is true. In it’s own way, it doesn’t matter. He’s just looking to get reinstated and the question of him in the hall of fame will come up once again.
And, truth be told, Pete Rose should be in the Baseball Hall Of Fame.
Getting elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame should have little, if anything, to do with a player’s actions off the field. In the past it was never a problem, as players like Ty Cobb and Mickey Mantle were elected without any debate on their off-field activites.
After all, Cobb bragged that he once killed a man, was a violent racist and was alleged to have thrown a game (although that was never proven). Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic womanizer who was banned from baseball for associating with gambling in 1983 (he was reinstated in 1985). And despite these character issues, they were allowed in the Hall of Fame.
While’s the argument that what Pete Rose did was bad for the game, I’m not going to refute it. It’s true, betting on your own team has no place in sports.
However, how were his actions any worse then those of other Hall of Famers? Gaylord Perry’s illegal spitball pitch was successful enough to get him to Cooperstown.
How is betting on baseball any worse then using amphetamines, which are now banned by Major League Baseball? I would argue that it’s not, and perhaps even less. Yet players have used them since the 1970s, and numerous Hall of Fame members, such as Hank Aaron, used them.
Of course, there is a world of difference between taking drugs and betting on baseball: drugs only affect the play of yourself, for example, where betting would affect the play of an entire team.
However, at the end of the day, it has yet to be proven that Pete Rose bet on games as a player, and we only have his word, for whatever little it’s worth, that he bet on the Reds to win. Ten years ago, he said that he never bet on baseball at all. And in ten years, maybe he’ll admit to have bet on his Reds to lose.
Either way, it’s irrelevant when it comes to him being in the hall of fame. As a player – not as a manager – Pete Rose was very good, perhaps one of the greatest. And even despite his gambling, any mistakes he made as a manager should not have any impact on his playing career.
So put him in the Hall of Fame and let the Reds retire his number. Mention his 4000 hits and mention his gambling addictions. Let him on the field to witness the ceremony and never let him back. It’s the right thing to do.
Yes, he only bet on them to win, which is different, and yet the same, as just betting on baseball.
He also said in the interview that he longer cares about being in the hall of fame.
While this may be true, just as how he claims his betting record is true. In it’s own way, it doesn’t matter. He’s just looking to get reinstated and the question of him in the hall of fame will come up once again.
And, truth be told, Pete Rose should be in the Baseball Hall Of Fame.
Getting elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame should have little, if anything, to do with a player’s actions off the field. In the past it was never a problem, as players like Ty Cobb and Mickey Mantle were elected without any debate on their off-field activites.
After all, Cobb bragged that he once killed a man, was a violent racist and was alleged to have thrown a game (although that was never proven). Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic womanizer who was banned from baseball for associating with gambling in 1983 (he was reinstated in 1985). And despite these character issues, they were allowed in the Hall of Fame.
While’s the argument that what Pete Rose did was bad for the game, I’m not going to refute it. It’s true, betting on your own team has no place in sports.
However, how were his actions any worse then those of other Hall of Famers? Gaylord Perry’s illegal spitball pitch was successful enough to get him to Cooperstown.
How is betting on baseball any worse then using amphetamines, which are now banned by Major League Baseball? I would argue that it’s not, and perhaps even less. Yet players have used them since the 1970s, and numerous Hall of Fame members, such as Hank Aaron, used them.
Of course, there is a world of difference between taking drugs and betting on baseball: drugs only affect the play of yourself, for example, where betting would affect the play of an entire team.
However, at the end of the day, it has yet to be proven that Pete Rose bet on games as a player, and we only have his word, for whatever little it’s worth, that he bet on the Reds to win. Ten years ago, he said that he never bet on baseball at all. And in ten years, maybe he’ll admit to have bet on his Reds to lose.
Either way, it’s irrelevant when it comes to him being in the hall of fame. As a player – not as a manager – Pete Rose was very good, perhaps one of the greatest. And even despite his gambling, any mistakes he made as a manager should not have any impact on his playing career.
So put him in the Hall of Fame and let the Reds retire his number. Mention his 4000 hits and mention his gambling addictions. Let him on the field to witness the ceremony and never let him back. It’s the right thing to do.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Hockey headgear needs a revolution
With all the talk lately over hitting to the head and it’s legality, the NHL is in a bit of a quandary. It is indeed a rough – and sometimes even violent – game but taking hitting out of it would be a step backwards, both for the players and the fans.
But at the same time, players are getting hurt, often seriously. In a game on Feb. 21, Sabres forward Tim Connolly was forced to leave after taking a hit to the head against the Senators – he’s now on the injured reserve. Calgary defenceman Richie Regehr has been out since December 28th with “concussion like symptoms”. Just by looking through the NHL injury report on tsn.ca, there are 11 players listed as suffering from them.
And the NHL is going to have to do something about it.
But what can the league do about it? You can’t outlaw hitting in a game that’s often fast and violent. You can’t police what is and what isn’t a headshot because it’s often impossible to separate what is and isn’t an intentional hit to the head.
So what can the league do?
One would be to enforce rules already in place, and perhaps bolster them with more rules.
Players are already required to wear helmets and have been since 1979. But there are no rules regarding their chinstraps. When players take a big hit, like Connolly did against Ottawa, and have not fastened their strap, their helmet is very likely to pop off – just like Connolly’s did, leaving his head to hit the ice.
If there was a rule in place that forced players to wear their straps up, it is not hard to see head-related injuries go down, if only because their helmets will be hitting the ice, not their head. The NFL has adopted a rule like this – in that league, all players have to have their straps buckled at the snap.
It’s not a rule that would be hard to enforce – all a referee would have to do is look around before a face-off at the players.
Another change should be to the helmets worn by players. Yes, the ones worn now are better then ones worn in years past and are better then nothing at all but they could be a lot better.
A couple years back, Riddell introduced their line of Revolution football helmets. By making a few changes to the average football helmet – such as “form-fitting” padding and extending it to cover the chin – they can cut the risk of a hit giving a player a concussion.
Why can’t somebody make a helmet like this for the NHL? There is no helmet on the market today that has anything similar to the Riddell Revolution helmet for hockey – although Riddell does make a Revolution model for lacrosse. Why can’t they adapt one for hockey use?
Essentially, it would be an impossible task to rid the NHL of concussions and still have the game resembling anything that is interesting (after all, how many people watch professional ringette?) to fans.
However, it would be easy for the NHL to greatly reduce the risk players would face if they just force players to strap their helmets and if they look into better designed helmets.
But at the same time, players are getting hurt, often seriously. In a game on Feb. 21, Sabres forward Tim Connolly was forced to leave after taking a hit to the head against the Senators – he’s now on the injured reserve. Calgary defenceman Richie Regehr has been out since December 28th with “concussion like symptoms”. Just by looking through the NHL injury report on tsn.ca, there are 11 players listed as suffering from them.
And the NHL is going to have to do something about it.
But what can the league do about it? You can’t outlaw hitting in a game that’s often fast and violent. You can’t police what is and what isn’t a headshot because it’s often impossible to separate what is and isn’t an intentional hit to the head.
So what can the league do?
One would be to enforce rules already in place, and perhaps bolster them with more rules.
Players are already required to wear helmets and have been since 1979. But there are no rules regarding their chinstraps. When players take a big hit, like Connolly did against Ottawa, and have not fastened their strap, their helmet is very likely to pop off – just like Connolly’s did, leaving his head to hit the ice.
If there was a rule in place that forced players to wear their straps up, it is not hard to see head-related injuries go down, if only because their helmets will be hitting the ice, not their head. The NFL has adopted a rule like this – in that league, all players have to have their straps buckled at the snap.
It’s not a rule that would be hard to enforce – all a referee would have to do is look around before a face-off at the players.
Another change should be to the helmets worn by players. Yes, the ones worn now are better then ones worn in years past and are better then nothing at all but they could be a lot better.
A couple years back, Riddell introduced their line of Revolution football helmets. By making a few changes to the average football helmet – such as “form-fitting” padding and extending it to cover the chin – they can cut the risk of a hit giving a player a concussion.
Why can’t somebody make a helmet like this for the NHL? There is no helmet on the market today that has anything similar to the Riddell Revolution helmet for hockey – although Riddell does make a Revolution model for lacrosse. Why can’t they adapt one for hockey use?
Essentially, it would be an impossible task to rid the NHL of concussions and still have the game resembling anything that is interesting (after all, how many people watch professional ringette?) to fans.
However, it would be easy for the NHL to greatly reduce the risk players would face if they just force players to strap their helmets and if they look into better designed helmets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)