Tag Archives: hockey

Frozen Passion Stokes Nationalist Flame

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

The Olympics are fast approaching and people all around are working on their calf-strengthening exercises – you know how hard it can be on your legs jumping on and off the bandwagon. But while the alleged thrill of international competition does nothing for more in general, I have to admit that the upcoming Olympic hockey tournament has stoked my nationalistic fires.

I watch the Olympics just like everyone else – how can you not, it’s on pretty much all day every day – but that spark that ignites the rabid sports fan in even the most anti-athlete continues to elude me. As proud as I am of my country, I can’t seem to get stoked about winning a medal in ice dance. Nor am I despondent about a poor showing in skeleton (as cool as that sport is.)

Simply put, these are sports that I don’t care about for the intervening three years of my life, so why should I suddenly live and die with their fortunes once every four years? I find that somewhat hypocritical, but who am I to sit in judgment. If other people care (and they do, judging by the sudden rise in and sheer volume of arm-chair experts who can go on about the inequities in figure skating judging for the Eastern European bloc, despite not knowing the difference between a Salchow from a Lutz) then that’s their prerogative.

If you can gain enjoyment from this type of mercenary sports enthusiasm, then I say more power to you. But it’s really too bad that Olympic fever is such an acute disease. It would be nice if the infection that people get when the stakes are highest would stick around after the Olympic flame is doused. Our athletes, in large part, toil before empty houses dotted only with the odd friend or family member. While 21,000+ will sell out the Bell Centre in Montreal, ski jumpers, bobsledders, and biathletes toil in relative obscurity. Their efforts only mattering – and being unfairly scrutinized – once every four years.

However, before I douse the Olympic flame totally, let me say there is one event that stokes the fires of my competitive heart. One event that prompts me to stand up (OK, sit up forcefully on my couch) and proclaim my pride in my nation. And that sport is hockey. Already, with the various national squads announcing their teams, the thrill of anticipation is rising in me. I scan the rosters, plan out match-ups, and look for potential road blocks on the way to gold. Make no mistake, I’m excited – and I’m not alone.

I grew up in the Canada Cup era. Born slightly after the Canada-Russian Summit Series, I grew up being regaled with the stories of that epic tournament. Those implanted memories stuck with me as I became a hockey fan in my own right. And, growing up during the Cold War, those Canada-Russia games were the epitome of athletic and social competition.

As a proud Canadian, my heart sailed and sunk with the on-ice exploits of our national hockey teams. From the Canada Cup to the World Cup tournament, from the World Juniors to the World Championships (also known as the consolation prize for good players on crappy NHL teams who can’t get to the playoffs), and now to the epitome of competition – the Olympics.

Sure, these aren’t amateurs and, as such, aren’t competing in the spirit of the Olympics. But, come on, this is the best of the best competing at their peak in mid-season form. The world’s best players returning to their home countries to don their national colours and take to the ice with more than just gold, silver, or bronze on the line. They face off with the goal of earning, protecting, or restoring national pride.

What makes this even better is that I care about these people and this sport. I watch hockey in the intervening three years and am familiar with the players. I watch the junior and national programs, so I feel like I have an investment in the program. Try as I might, I couldn’t care who’s representing Canada in curling, and I will feel no joy or pride in winning gold in that event.

But if Canada comes home with gold in hockey, that’s a celebration I can legitimately feel a part of. I’ve supported the program not only in two-week Olympic intervals, so I feel justified that I’ve made enough of an investment to earn a return!

I liken it to an experience I had in high school. I won an award for top German student in grade 10 (ask me if I remember anything now), and I took little pleasure in it. However my friend, who worked his butt off and legitimately strove for this recognition, was legitimately upset when he lost. He cared, I didn’t. How much more would winning that award have meant to him? And that’s the way I feel about most Olympic sports. If I win, fine – but don’t ask me to get excited.

While many will be living vicariously through the exploits of our undeservedly anonymous speed skaters, bobsledders, and lugers, I’ll be saving my enthusiasm for when the puck drops. Winning is good, but winning at something you’ve invested in makes it all the better. If I’m going to live and die with something, it has to be something that I actually care about.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Hockey’s Game of What If

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

What if?

That’s the question we have to ask ourselves now that we hockey fans have been exposed to the new brand of hockey – complete with its free-flowing action, unimpeded displays of skill, and – for the first time in years – excitement from the drop of the puck to the final buzzer.

And it’s the question we have to ask ourselves now that some of the greats of our game have moved on to less-frozen pastures. Just this year we’ve seen The Golden Brett and now the Russian Rocket hang up their skates. Rugged stalwarts like Scott Stevens and Mark Messier have succumbed to a mounting injury toll and the effects of Father Time respectively.

But the what ifs will remain.

The fact that we’re seeing the grace, speed, and beauty of the game the way it’s meant to be played, akin to the glory years of the late 70s and 1980s when the Flying Frenchmen gave way to the New York Islanders and Edmonton Oilers – all franchises that combined dazzling speed, superlative talent, and enough toughness to keep people honest. But what did we lose during those intervening years?

We lost enough that we have to strive as fans to make sure it never goes back that way again – which means that we have to be as vigilant about the referees as they’ve been in calling the game to date.

Despite the greatness that these four players – and others who plied their trade during the same epoch of hockey – displayed, the fact remains that many more goals, many more highlights, and many more memories were prevented from ever appearing because of the NHL’s willingness to tolerate hooking, holding, and interference.

Too often the blame falls on the New Jersey Devils or, more specifically, their coach Jacques Lemaire who now toils behind the Minnesota Wild’s bench. But Lemaire refined a system that worked. He, along with Scotty Bowman, Dave Lewis, and the bunch in Detroit, determined that the left-wing lock, the neutral-zone trap, and whatever other obstructionist tactic, were the best way to maximize your talent and minimize the effect of your opponent’s gifted players.

It wasn’t illegal, it wasn’t immoral. It was intelligent. While the Lock and the Trap weren’t 100 per cent effective on their own, the fact that they were augmented by clutching and grabbing simply made those practices more effective, and more appealing, to other teams in the league.

And so the league devolved into one where defense ruled with an iron – and closed – fist. And the officials looked away, ironically to not disturb the flow of play — despite the fact that there was no flow of which to speak.

But now we’re here. We’re seeing the best of the best ply their trade on a clean and unimpeded surface. Defensemen need to refine their technique, not their tackling. Teams need to develop puck control strategies, zone defences, and positioning to prevent the puck from entering the net. And speed is at a premium.

We, the fans are winners, even if we can never know what we lost. But imagine players like Brett Hull and Pavel Bure being allowed to display their full range of talents, without a stick digging into their stomach or a hand grabbing their jersey. Think of how many more scoring chances would have been created, how many more potential goals could have been scored, and how many more moments of breathless anticipation the fans would have enjoyed. How unstoppable would Messier and Stevens have been if they were truly allowed to display their combination of speed, size, and skill?

And, most importantly for the league, how many more fans would have been drawn to the game? That’s the biggest What If of all. As the league hemorrhaged fans across North America, as teams struggled to find their footing in shaky markets, and vacated formerly strong ones, how would the NHL landscape look if the game was played then as it is now?

So now, as some of the old guard starts to bluster about the state of the game and the difficulties teams have defensively, the league needs to remember that the fans, overwhelmingly, love it. They don’t want to see coaches and systems rule the game. They have their place, but the games should be decided on the ice, not the chalkboard.

The only reason we want fans’ butts out of their seats is because of an exciting rush or a spectacular save – not because they didn’t bother to show up because they’re bored of the game. As such, the league must ensure its referees are more vigilant, not less, as the season progresses.

Because the question now is what if the next generation of Hulls, Messiers, Bures, and Stevens are allowed to fully shine on the NHL stage? That’s a question each and every hockey fan wants to see answered.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Stunting Our Juniors’ Development

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

As fans and supporters of the game of hockey, we’re all interested in protecting the game at all levels. But are we doing so at the expense of the players? And is it now time to recognize special players as such – and not hold back their development?

Currently, players with junior eligibility who don’t stick on a National Hockey League roster must be returned to their junior-level hockey club, as opposed to being sent down to a team’s minor-league affiliate. But is this really the best option for all of these players – and is it finally time for one of hockey’s sacred cows to be put on ice?

By sending a player back to junior, an NHL club is able to avoid having a year count against the player’s rookie contract. And, in consideration of the new collective bargaining agreement which sees players eligible for unrestricted free agency far sooner than before, that extra year can mean one more year that a player will suit up for the squad in the prime of his career. Essentially, they get a year’s development on a junior team that essentially provides them an extra roster spot for their minor league franchise. Think of it as the hockey equivalent of a tax shelter – you get all the benefits of the player’s development, without the necessity of losing a contract year.

For the junior squad, it’s a no-brainer. Generally, the players that are on the NHL bubble are the ones who will find their way on to the team’s top lines, turning what may be a moribund franchise into a Memorial Cup contender. The fans benefit by seeing their elite athletes and favourite skaters back in their local uniforms, up close and personal.

But what about the players themselves? Once all the business and financial interests have been met, where does the player’s development fit in? And who’s to say that sending a player down to the junior level isn’t simply wasting a year of development in a sport that offers notoriously short careers. Is it not time to admit that age ain’t nothin’ but a number when it comes to certain special hockey players and a one-size-fits-all approach to eligibility may, in fact, be hindering these players’ development?

At the end of this year’s NHL’s training camp, we’ve seen two players come agonizingly close to sticking with the big club, only to be among the very final cuts back to junior: Edmonton Oilers’ prospect Rob Schremp who was returned to the London Knights, and Montreal Canadiens’ highly-touted rookie Guillaume Latendresse who was sent down to the Drummondville Voltigeurs – both despite having outstanding training camps that almost found them on an NHL roster.

In the end, for both players, the numbers game had much to do with their demotion – unfortunately, it wasn’t the numbers they were putting up on the ice, it was the numbers on theirs and other players’ contracts. Whether there were other players on the cusp with guaranteed contracts, one-way deals, or simply the realization that these players would benefit from more ice time than what they would get on an NHL roster, both players found themselves back in the junior ranks — back in familiar haunts with markedly different results.

Latendresse, visibly disheartened by his demotion, struggled a bit at first but has picked up the pace to record nine goals and eight assists in 11 games. Conversely, Schremp has been toying with the opposition, registering 14 goals and 41 total points in his 10 games back in the green and gold. Which begs the question that if these players are either bored or dominating in the junior ranks, is their respective development being best served by playing with other 17-20 year olds? Will the Colorado Avalanche’s Wojtek Wolski progress as rapidly in Brampton following an impressive NHL stint that saw him rack up two goals and four assists in just nine games?

Or should these players be allowed to ply their trade in the American Hockey League – the NHL’s primary development league – against older and more talented players? Should they receive the benefit of developing their skills against a consistently higher level of competition, comprised primarily of other NHL wannabes and used-to-bes?

Yes, the fans in London, Drummondville, Brampton, and other junior cities would lose out on seeing some of these special players for another year. But junior hockey will survive. The loss of Rick Nash, despite remaining eligibility, didn’t hurt the Knights’ chances during last year’s Memorial Cup run – organizational depth, solid coaching, and astute management were as important to the team’s victories as any particular player.

The fans support the logo on the front of the jersey, not the name on the back. Junior hockey fans, who are remarkably devoted to these players who spend three years – maybe four tops – with their club, should want the best for these young players. And the best isn’t always a return to junior.

Obviously, we don’t want NHL clubs decimating the junior ranks, populating the professional leagues with junior-aged players, but perhaps it’s time to offer clubs a special designation that can be applied to one prospect a year – should they so choose. This designation would allow NHL clubs to apply the tag to one borderline player and have him play in the AHL (or whatever minor-league affiliate).

That way, the truly special players who have learned all they can from junior, will be able to progress against more skill-appropriate competition. The junior ranks wouldn’t be devoid of all talent – and even the NHL teams may not choose to use the designation each year.

In the end, the NHL teams that have drafted these players have only one interest – to make sure that the player maximizes his development to become a functioning member of the NHL squad. They’re not going to take a kid who’s not ready for prime time and put him in a league where he’s over his head – but they should also be allowed to move him to a level where he’s not skating rings around the competition.

And that’s truly in the players’ best interests.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

NHLers Thinking with the Wrong Head

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Most of the time, we guys are criticized for thinking too much WITH the little head – but, when it comes to NHL players, they’re obviously more concerned with thinking ABOUT their little head when it comes to safety.

Is there any reason why players would question your sanity if you suggested playing the game without a jock, but don’t see the folly in playing the game without adequate facial protection?

Manhood is a big part of professional sports. It’s the Neanderthalistic backdrop to competition. It’s what prevents most sports from truly being appreciated for their speed, grace, skill, and – yes, even – beauty. The most exciting or dramatic touchdown, dunk, or goal can be marred by gratuitous displays of gloating, preening, and self-importance. It’s gotten to the point where routine plays – the kind you’re expected to make as a high-school athlete – are celebrated with overt (and choreographed) attention-grabbing antics.

Thus, our sporting fields often reek with the remnants of these macho pissing contents. And, like pre-pubescent boys trying to assert their emerging maturity, common sense is often left behind in an attempt to not appear weaker than your competitor.

Which brings us back to the NHL and its players continued stubborn refusal to wear facial protection. Admittedly, it was like pulling teeth to get them to wear helmets just over two decades ago, with some resisting and clinging to grandfather clauses, until the bitter – and better – end.

Yet, the league and its players association make no effort to mandate its players when it comes to facial protection. Adhering to some ancient freedom of choice myth perpetuated by years of negligence, the players are asserting that it’s their divine right to play the fastest game in the world without complete protection.

Normally, I’m all for letting Darwin have his way with these people and letting the laws of natural selection cull those who aren’t smart enough to protect themselves from our general population. But, at the professional level, these players are not just individuals – they’re investments. Team owners literally spend millions on these players and build their product based upon the foundation that these players will be in the lineup. From marketing campaigns to anticipation of playoff revenue, forecasts are made with the idea that your stars are going to be in uniform. And that doesn’t even factor in the countless thousands of dollars that are spent on insurance policies.

The counter argument is that injuries happen and only fate will decide who pops an ACL and who suffers a fractured orbital bone – or worse – the loss of an eye. But the difference is that the former injury is truly a matter of fate, while the latter examples are more or less completely preventable.

Today’s players have come through a minor league system that mandates facial protection. From full cages at the younger and university levels, to the face shields present in junior hockey, today’s athlete spends the majority of his developmental years playing the game with something in front of his eyes. Yet, upon the ascension to the pro ranks, we’re supposed to believe that suddenly one’s vision becomes impaired by the very same thin sheet of plastic which allowed this player to rise through the ranks to become one of only a handful of people in this world with the skill and talent to play professional hockey?

As well, in this new fan-friendly hockey environment, the league and its players need to understand that it’s its principal stakeholders, the fans, who suffer the most when a valued member of their team goes down from an entirely preventable injury. The fans are the ones who purchase the tickets, buy the licensed merchandise, and support the manufacturers who use the players as pitchmen.

Finally, the players themselves need to understand that wearing a face shield is an investment in themselves. With a salary cap system, revenues tied to league earnings, and a precariously short career, to not do everything in your ability to maximize your earning potential and revenue-producing years is simply folly.

It’s time for hockey players to join the rest of us on these higher rungs of the evolutionary ladder. If they can stop dragging their knuckles long enough to grab a stick, then they’re at the developmental point where they can affix a shield to their helmet. Let’s start putting a premium on intelligence when it comes to defining manhood. Let’s take another look at what it means to be tough.

Firefighters enter blazing buildings covered head to toe in protective equipment. Does that make them any less a man (or woman in this case)? Or do we appreciate their bravery regardless of a plastic shield in front of their face? Why should the threshold for manhood be different on ice? A generation ago, people were resisting strapping on a seatbelt for many of the same reasons: we’ve never worn one before; they’re an uncomfortable encumbrance; no one’s going to tell me what to do. But look at where we’ve come since then.

The players demand the freedom of choice, so here’s a solution. Facial protection won’t be mandatory – the players can still roam the ice with their bare faces whipping in the wind, asserting their individuality and masculinity. However, if they elect not to wear a face shield, they’re prohibited from wearing a jock. Put on a mask and the cup comes back.

Simple solution. And we’ll see which head they’re truly thinking with – and which one will lead the way.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

NHL’s Thank Yous Ring Hollow

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

For a while last night, I thought it was time to change my contact lenses because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Yet, there it was, flickering right on my TV screen. I now know what adding insult to injury actually looks like.

Those of us who watched Thursday’s broadcast of the hockey game between the Montreal Canadiens and New York Rangers were subjected to the sight of the boys from Broadway taking the ice with jerseys bearing the message “Thank You” replacing the customary “New York” lettering.

In an attempt to suck up to fans at all costs, the league has turned it into a dog and pony show – and the sentiments ring hollow.

We know, no matter how much lip service the players pay to being happy to be back, they’re still smarting from the repeated slaps in the face they took during the lockout. “Our boys” found out that our support has its limits and they were genuinely shocked when most fans supported the owners in the labour dispute.

So now these alpha males have come back with their tails firmly between their legs, making the best of a bad situation. And, instead of allowing for a graceful return, the league has decided to rub a little more salt in the still-festering wound. The obviously staged, and eminently hollow, act of wearing “Thank You” jerseys does nothing more than add another side order of shame that the players have to swallow – adding to the already heaping helping of humble pie they’ve been forced to stomach through the negotiation of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Whether it’s “Thank You” emblazoned across the players’ chests, messages expressing the league’s gratitude prominently painted on the ice, or any other displays of affection, we fans aren’t buying it. Aside from a select few naïve people, most hockey fans know that the game we love is actually a business. We know that there are millions upon billions of dollars changing hands. And, although we may not like it, we know that the lockout was just a part of doing business, however unsavoury it may have been.

But it’s becoming more and more apparent that fans are willing to let bygones be bygones. Starting with the circus-like free agency period, to the drama of the entry draft and the Sidney Crosby sweepstakes, to the establishment of new rules (and commitment to enforcing old ones) designed to make the game more entertaining, fans have embraced the excitement of the new season and are eager to get on with our lives.

We’ve accepted the lockout as a necessary evil – an action that the league had to take to maintain the long-term viability of the league and to restore competitive financial balance so that we won’t have to face the loss of another Winnipeg or Quebec City. But we certainly don’t want to be reminded of it on a daily basis.

If the players and the league truly want to show us how much they appreciate our patronage, then they need to do it in the only way that matters – on the ice through effort, intensity, and talent. Thank us by playing hard each and every night. Thank us by displaying the combination of grace, skill, and toughness that makes hockey the most exciting game on Earth.

If they’re really thankful for the fans’ support in returning to the rinks, then take the extra time to get to know your admirers. Sign a few more autographs (without it having to be mandated), make yourself more available to the media for interviews (as this is the only way many fans get to know you), and give the fans the respect they deserve as being the reason behind the lifestyle you live.

And the responsibility to acknowledge the fans isn’t the players’ alone. It’s not enough for the owners to spend a few bucks on new sweaters or a new paint job and call it a day. If they’re truly thankful, as they should be, for fans support, then they need to make a concerted outreach to the fans through spending the money to make attending a game a valued event. Spend the money under the cap to keep teams together and build fan affinity. They need to make more than just a cosmetic display of gratitude.

Nobody likes a suck-up – especially when the motivation for this sycophantic activity appears to be so transparent and false. In large part, the fans are back and the best thank you we as fans can receive would be good, honest effort – both on the ice and off.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved