hockey

Why I Secretly Cheered the Carolina Hurricanes' Stanley Cup Victory

Growing up in Courtenay on Vancouver Island, you hear the stories about how Cam Neely was born in Comox and ... that's about it. Since retiring, though, the focus shifted to Campbell River-raised Rod Brind'Amour, who this year, playing for the Carolina Hurricanes, won this year's Stanley Cup. I cheered for Edmonton, all the while knowing that an Island boy playing for the champion team in Canada's game (there are overwhelmingly more Canadian NHLers than any other nationality). Jeremy Latham posted some great pictures of the parade in CR, and pointed to a few others.

Yes, it's weird that a trophy has the status of personhood here in Canada, and I might have preferred seeing Olaf Kolzig driving the Cup through Union Bay (his parents own a store there, and every year he's in the playoffs they put a replica aluminum Stanley Cup on the roof). But I'm glad an Island boy gets to do whatever it is hockey players do it while they get it for a day.

Iceland wins the world championship of hockey
That would be for Division III of the Internaional Ice Hockey Federation.
Is On Location Filming

I asked the guy in the foreground who was filming, and he told me it was for the Road Hockey Challenge TV show.

tags: , ,

Leafs Suck

Randy Charles Morin, J.J. Guerrero, Jackson Murphy, and Joe Frazier all summarized the Vancouver Canucks' 4-3 over the Toronto Maple Leafs I was able to attend (thanks Jeffery)! My coupled friends M and S attended, she wearing a Maple Leafs' jersey, he wearing a Canucks jersey, though in seats far away from mine. They weren't the only people who came to the game together but as opposing fans: a guy from Newfoundland cheering for the Leafs came with his son, who was cheering for the Canucks.

Some observations and interpretations follow. It looked as if the star players, at least from the Canucks side, were doggin' it. Specifically, Todd Bertuzzi and Marcus Naslund looked as if they were going through the motions, the latter taking a shot on goal from the latter with zero chance of going or even rebounding, but with no apparent decision to consider alternatives, like passing it off. Every time the players (not just the stars) made a change, they coasted to the bench, making me wonder whether the rules for too many men on the ice should be enforced more stingently.

Tom Benjamin compares the speed of the players at the World Junior Championships to NHL players: “We were flipping back and forth to the Canuck game. The difference in the pace was very stark and not flattering to the NHL at all. How could Juniors be so much faster than NHL players?” In the comments, Darren blames the 82-game schedule, but I'm not so sure. Every now and then I would catch a 'classic' NHL game—you know, the ones where there are no logos on the ice surface?—and I think it has more to do with the size of the players with respect to the size of the rink; rule and enforcement differences between leagues; and more controversially perhaps, that the current batch of NHLers are coddled. They have million-dollar contracts, flawless ice surfaces, long "media breaks" during games, access to world-class equipment and coaching/training personnel and maybe even the celebrity status of sports players that require them to not only perform on the ice but also fulfil contracts to their sponsors. Those things might actually work towards the favour of a higher-speed game, but the only people that are really exciting anymore are the rookies and the odd player like Trevor Linden who seemed to give 100% on each shift. A lot of the truly talented players have the ability to get away with not giving it all when they score every night, but if we're paying full price for something, shouldn't we get full effort?

Watching a hockey game live is so much better than watching it on TV. The thrill of cheering a goal with thousands of others alone is usually worth the price of admission, but also booing the ref and chanting "Leafs Suck" in unison when thousands of fans of the opposing team in question are in the audience adds to the effect. I don't care much for the fact that everything has an advertisement on it—including the Zamboni's, which look almost as if they are NASCAR cars. Also the long breaks between play to cut to commercial for radio and TV are too long, but at least watching the kids clear the ice of snow—and the players looking at the girls' asses—eases the boredom. They're almost like the crew during a play that set the props correctly in between scenes. The metaphor breaks down because plays, unless they are improv, have a pre-determined outcome.

It turns out that the Leafs do indeed suck. They would have sucked less with Lindros in the lineup, but so too would the Canucks if they had Jovanovski in the lineup. The part that truly sucks is that the Leafs play in Vancouver the next time won't be for 3 years, or so goes the rumour. Do the geniuses at the NHL know how many Leafs fans there are in every Canadian city? There were, as I mentioned, thousands of Leafs fans at GM Place on January 10th. This is true, I hear, of Calgary and other Canadian cities with an NHL franchise. I know revenues from TV are often more important than what the league gets from fans in the stadium, but all you have to do to guarantee a sold out game in Canada is schedule the Maple Leafs to play. Becuase you'll get a least as many fans of the Leafs to come jeer the home team.

Give Us the Sounds of the Game

Dave Pollard: “the management of the CBC has been trying out sports event coverage without commentators, describing it as "the stadium experience at home". I used to get this experience on the 'feed' channels on the old Big Ugly Dish satellites, and it was wonderful. CBC viewers apparently agree. Now if we could only get this for gymnastics, diving and figure skating, and rid the world of the scourge of 'colour commentators' entirely.”

I agree. A few years ago, technicians at the CBC went on strike, but they still showed playoff games. I remember watching the game where Montreal's Richard Zednik was elbowed in the face by Boston's Kyle McLaren, and I remember thinking "if there were colour commentators on now, they'd be replaying this over and over and analyzing it in minute detail, speculating on how many games he's going to get suspended for". Instead of annoying commentary, there were few replays, the microphones picking up the sounds of the game, and the stunned silence of the crowd after the hit, as much as silence can be picked up by electronics. Colour commentators often say the most ridiculous things, with the most boring stories.

I wouldn't go as far as Dave, saying that “CBC viewers apparently agree” that there should be no colour commentary—my guess is that most fans are so used to the status quo that no talking would spook them a bit—but I'm on the side of getting rid of at least the play-by-play announcers on TV. There's no need to tell us what's happening. It's pretty obvious when the puck goes in the net. (I usually watch the net when players take a shot: if the puck is obscured by the goalie, I watch for players' reactions. Failing that, if it's the home team on the offensive, the crowd is a pretty good indicator too. Almost always do I know that a player scores before I hear "he scores!".) I wouldn't mind commentary after goals and during play stoppages: sometimes it's not obvious why a ref or linesman blew his whistle, but no talking during replays. Let us, the fans, argue amongst ourselves at home whether the puck crossed the line, whether that was offside or whether the player should get the gate for that punch.

I read somewhere, regarding the lack of commentary during CFL football games there the yelling from the crowd was a little too noticeable. Putting microphones in the stands is a dumb idea: put them where the action is, like on the bench and inside the goals. We already have cameras inside hockey goals: how hard would it be to put a microphone in there too? In other words, give us the sounds of the game. Sure there will be some swearing (I'm willing to bet "fuck him up" is a popular phrase amongst our professional athletes in hockey and football), but so what. Maybe it'll expose how violent the people we're paying millions of dollars are. I'd love to hear, in baseball, what catchers tell their pitchers, what the coach is telling his basketball players, what the ref says to the captains. The only play-by-play announcer I like is Chris Cuthbert, no longer of the CBC. (Idiots.) He made even Toronto Maple Leaf games exciting.

(I was going to say "he even made CFL games exciting", but I'm one of the few that actually prefers the CFL over the NFL. Plus since the season is about to start, and I need to make sure my standing as a Canucks fan is in good order, I hate the Leafs.)

But, when watching TV, how will we know who has the puck or who caught the ball? The answer is the same as to the question "when attending a game, how do we know etc.", which is by taking a little time to look at the back of their jersey for their name and/or number, remembering what position they play, watching for their style of play, and so on. In my perfect world of commentary allowed in between plays, the announcer will give you some background and audible re-enforcement as to who the players are, which you won't get by spending a hundred bucks on a ticket, parking, hotdog and a beer and whatever other cheap crap they try to hawk at games. If TV sports is trying to simulate what it feels like to be at the game, then they're doing a bad job, boring the crap out of us. Get rid of play-by-play and you'll improve the experience.

The myth of the first goal
You are more likely to win if you score *any* goals than if you don't.

Pages