Hockey talk, hockey talk, Oi Oi Oi!

107 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2009-06-02 23:14

al-Qa'bong

Unlike 99% of the people here, I like Don Cherry...except when he talks about Kwee-beck and Afghanistan.

When he talks about hockey he's fine. He's going further lately, in talking about how others talk about hockey. I've been favourably impressed by how he goes against the current, and uses plain old hockey talk.

Hockey sweaters are hockey sweaters, not jerseys. You have a guy in front, not a "net presence." He doesn't "allude" to anything "for whatever reason." Long passes are long passes, not "stretch passes." Almost every week he points out a few examples, and I applaud him for doing so.

And like Mr. Cherry, I don't know why the top of the boards is now called a "dasher."

Tue, 2009-06-02 23:32

Fidel

You must mean all you Leaf fans and Cherry call it a sweater, a pullover worn by the one who does the sweating.

In Quebec, they refer to it as everything from jersey to [url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chandail]chandail[/url]

Wed, 2009-06-03 01:57

al-Qa'bong

Do they say "presence du but" in Québec (and the rest of francophone Canada) too?

Must you insist on making these dumbass statements each time you post in the hockey threads?

We get it; you have an obsessive hatred for the Leafs. Change the record. You're boring.

Wed, 2009-06-03 07:21

Michelle

I like Don Cherry too. What can I say? Guilty pleasure. Even his offensive stuff just seems to me like an Archie Bunker routine.

Let's not call each other's posts "dumbass" though - a little hockey rivalry in a hockey thread never hurt anyone. :)

Wed, 2009-06-03 18:45

Fidel

Cherry is a product of his environment, which is that he once played for Eddie Shore as a younger man. Hockey used to be a pretty crude sport. I think they they were not so unlike gladiators in those days with players sometimes carried off the ice on stretchers. The player's equipment wasnt high tech like it is today. Cherry must think today's players have it made with the money and the more scientific approach to the game.

And that's okay, because I must confess to riding al-Qa'bong a little, too. I'm pretty sure I've earned a sweatering and subsequent pummeling after the whistle for having mocked the Leafs. Those Leafers are a pretty proud bunch, jts.

Wed, 2009-06-03 18:57

Tommy_Paine

Yeah, Ty Cobb was baseball's Eddie Shore.

I think we have to have some sympathy for today's sports commentary because so much of it is dressing up something old as something new. It must be challenging-- and only the old gaurd can get away with being the old gaurd.

So, it's up to them to find new ways to describe cannonading drives, Sevardian Spinneramas, hair raising saves and partial fans.

Those Leafers are a pretty proud bunch, jts.

Please, it's all we have left.

Wed, 2009-06-03 19:25

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

I think we have to have some sympathy for today's sports commentary because so much of it is dressing up something old as something new. It must be challenging-- and only the old gaurd can get away with being the old gaurd.

So, it's up to them to find new ways to describe cannonading drives, Sevardian Spinneramas, hair raising saves and partial fans.

Tommy, I'm going to have to give you an elbow shiver (we used to call it a "forearm smash," but that might have been the influence of Mad Dog Vachon and Calgary Wrestling) over that one. Sports "journalists" don't have to deke the language out of its unmentionables to make a point. While I don't expect these bobbleheads to be disciples of George Orwell and his "Politics and the English Language," they ought to strive to be better than Frank Zappa's rock journalists:

""Rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, for people who can't read."

Chester's Thing!

Wed, 2009-06-03 19:38

Tommy_Paine

Sports "journalists" don't have to deke the language out of its unmentionables to make a point.

As annoying as it is, I think they do. They have to interview players that are well coached in how to deliver non descript platitudes that mean nothing-- so their comments don't get cut out and pinned up as motivation in the other team's dresssing room. (do ya hear that, Tiger Williams?) And, as your quotations denote, it's rarely journalism, or even reportage, it's entertainment. And, they are speaking to a new generation that has assimilated to the Corporate Borg talk, so terms like "net presence" are not only inevitable, they are considered world class in the now globalized hockey world where everyone thinks outside the box, takes ownership of the language, and breathlessly awaits the next paradigm shift.

Wed, 2009-06-03 23:03

Fidel

I'm wondering if Hamilton could really support a team considering the current salary cap. I think ticket sales wouldnt be an issue for them.

Wed, 2009-06-03 23:26

#10

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
And, they are speaking to a new generation that has assimilated to the Corporate Borg talk, so terms like "net presence" are not only inevitable, they are considered world class in the now globalized hockey world where everyone thinks outside the box, takes ownership of the language, and breathlessly awaits the next paradigm shift.

Eww, gross me out! Your thesis is like, so done like dinner!

Thu, 2009-06-04 06:15

#11

Tommy_Paine

I'm wondering if Hamilton could really support a team considering the current salary cap. I think ticket sales wouldnt be an issue for them.

I don't think ticket sales will be much of an issue in Hamilton. The issue is whether there will be enough ticket sales to support Hamilton and Buffalo. I think Bettman is rightly concerned that a move to Hamilton will imperil the Buffalo Sabers. Much of that franchise's ticket sales are from S/W Ontario.

Thu, 2009-06-04 06:54

#12

Fidel

How many Bills fans support Ti-Cats football? You should consider Hamilton and surrounding area hockey fans, and to hell with Bettman. Apparently he was one of the ones who thought sun belters would make good ice hockey fans.

And besides, it's the same distance from Buffalo to Hamilton as it is from Hamilton to Buffalo.

Thu, 2009-06-04 17:17

#13

Tommy_Paine

Well, I think there's a lot to take issue with Gary "The Weasel" Bettman, but from a business point of view, it makes little sense to move the Coyotes to a place where they may in fact cause another team into financial difficulty, and an established one at that. South Western Ontario is serviced by the Leafs, Red Wings and Sabers. Balsilie is wrong when he says it's only the Leafs in South Western Ontario.

The question is, can the area handle a fourth? From a business point of view, maybe the NHL should look at packages that make it as easy as possible to take in games in Detroit, a franchise that despite success on the ice, may face difficulties filling the seats in the next season.

I don't think either Balsillie or Bettman, or anyone knows if a Hamilton franchise will fullfill a need, or take away business from existing franchises, for sure.

From a business point of view, Winnepeg seems to be a surer thing. I'd even go with Quebec City before Hamilton. (mind you, it's not my money I'm risking here-- but what Canadian businessman ever really risks his own money?) Or even Halifax. I think perhaps Millwauke in the States could handle a franchise, particularly since the Hawks seem back on track. Green Bay?

But, in the end with sports the heart often over rules the head.

Go Hamilton!

Thu, 2009-06-04 17:26

#14

Fidel

Again though, how many Lions and Bills fans support CFL games in Hamiton and Toronto with ticket purchases?

I think these are bad economic times to expect US sports fans to support hockey on top of the other pro sports teams in Buffalo and Detroit. But if theyve been relying on Canadians travelling to the US to prop-up ticket sales all along, then I think it's sink or swim time for some NHL teams in the US at some point. Conversely, Hamilton isnt that far away for American hockey fans to travel. Canadian shops could benefit by an increase in cross-border business, too.

Thu, 2009-06-04 23:34

#15

al-Qa'bong

Geez, those kids from the Penguins made the Dead Things look rather ordinary tonight.

That fourth goal was a work of art, and Staal's shorthander was as fine a combination of spirit and strength that you'll ever see.

Fri, 2009-06-05 00:29

#16

Fidel

And Crosby scored with a nice setup from Malkin. Staal's shorthander was a beauty. It's a series!

Sat, 2009-06-06 21:33

#17

Fidel

Datsyuk's back in. So who's going to win at the Joe tonight?

4-zip Wings with 8' left in the second. It's a blowout.

Sat, 2009-06-06 21:47

#18

Michelle

My apologies to Penguin fans. It's because I'm watching. I'm bad luck. I do it to the Leafs all the time.

Sat, 2009-06-06 21:58

#19

Michelle

By the way, it really bugs me to watch CBC sports and they can't find ANY women to be hockey pundits? Like, none? There's not a woman in all of Canada who knows anything about hockey? Really?

Sat, 2009-06-06 22:00

#20

Fidel

In that case make it 5 nothing, Michelle. At least the Wings didnt score on the 5 on 3. Theyre wicked on the PP tonight with three goals.

Sun, 2009-06-07 08:18

#21

Tommy_Paine

Ah Ha!

Seems Hamilton is within the territory of the Toronto Maple Leafs, and that the Leafs have a veto over any team locating there. Which is a violation of Canada's Competition Act.

Which means that the ownership in Toronto wants to excersize a monopoly so they can supply a mediocre product at fabulous prices.

Read it all here:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/646901

It's time to boycott all Leaf paraphenalia, and stop attending games, and stop watching them on Hockey Night in Canada.

Sun, 2009-06-07 08:59

#22

Trevormkidd

Michelle wrote:
By the way, it really bugs me to watch CBC sports and they can't find ANY women to be hockey pundits? Like, none? There's not a woman in all of Canada who knows anything about hockey? Really?

Doesn't Cassie Campbell sometimes do colour commentary for HNIC?

Sun, 2009-06-07 10:05

#23

Michelle

I don't know, but there weren't any women yesterday. A token woman once in a while won't really cut it in the 21st century, you know? They occasionally break the monotony of middle-aged white men with a young white man or two. Honestly.

Sun, 2009-06-07 11:24

#24

Trevormkidd

You won't get any argument from me on that. I love hockey, but it can be a little behind the times. Imagine a sport in which legends like Geraldine Heaney and Angela James have not been eligible for the hall of fame - and you have imagined hockey and our Hockey Hall of Fame (that will finally change next year when female players are finally eligible).

Sun, 2009-06-07 14:39

#25

al-Qa'bong

Trevormkidd wrote:

Michelle wrote:
By the way, it really bugs me to watch CBC sports and they can't find ANY women to be hockey pundits? Like, none? There's not a woman in all of Canada who knows anything about hockey? Really?

Doesn't Cassie Campbell sometimes do colour commentary for HNIC?

I think she mostly does things like interviewing players or co-hosting "Hockey Day in Canada." I like seeing her on hockey broadcasts. She played hockey at an elite level and knows the game, unlike some of the male journalists who have airtime.

There's a TV show in France called "Telé-Foot" that has a panel of experts, including three old footballers and a female supermodel. I don't know enough about le foot to tell if she knows her onions, but there's one glaringly obvious reason why she's there.

Sun, 2009-06-07 15:15

#26

500_Apples

al-Qa'bong wrote:

There's a TV show in France called "Telé-Foot" that has a panel of experts, including three old footballers and a female supermodel. I don't know enough about le foot to tell if she knows her onions, but there's one glaringly obvious reason why she's there.

That's the norm in the US. Fox News does this rather blatantly, and pretty much all sports channels do it afaik.

Sun, 2009-06-07 21:18

#27

Michelle

Well, this is standard across most news shows (although it's getting a bit better here and there) - male anchors and news hosts can look like something the dog dragged in 70 years ago, but women have to look like they stepped off a runway.

Every once in a while when there is an exception to the rule, it's actually jarring - but also refreshing.

Anyhow, now I'm not even talking about hockey reporting. Sorry! :)

Sun, 2009-06-07 22:05

#28

Bookish Agrarian

I can't think of the duffus name that does the little chit chat with Kelly Hrudy and Don Mclean. If that idiot can get a posting with HNIC why aren't we seeing more women like Campbell, St Louis and many others? It is a good question and needs to be asked again and again. The same goes in baseball coverage.

Now about the finals- is this going to be a home team wins series. They look like different teams on their own ice and in the others rink.

Mon, 2009-06-08 12:19

#29

bekayne

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I can't think of the duffus name that does the little chit chat with Kelly Hrudy and Don Mclean.

P.J. Stock? Or Mike Milbury?

Fri, 2009-06-12 21:48

#30

Michelle

So, who's watching? 2-0 for Pittsburgh so far, in Detroit! Awesome. I guess the curse of me watching hasn't kicked in yet.

Get a load of Cherry's outfit this time. :D

Fri, 2009-06-12 22:00

#31

Michelle

My son. But he didn't see that since he was in bed. I'm not sure why he's cheering for Detroit, other than because he saw them winning the other night. I mean, really, there's no reason for me to be cheering for Pittsburgh over Detroit either. He even switches loyalties mid-game to the winning team! I think it's hilarious because it drives certain family members nuts that he does that. He's got it figured out - who really cares who wins anyhow, it's not like any of them are actually from the city they're playing for, and it's not like they stay with the same team for life - heck, the teams don't even belong to the cities they're in!

Fri, 2009-06-12 22:00

#32

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Me and the girls are watching. They're a little confused - normally hockey is what I watch during the commercials in their programs. Me asserting my TV rights is something they can't quite wrap their heads around.

You're a Pittsburgh fan, Michelle?

I'm rooting for Detroit, myself. Partly because they're an original 6 team, partly because the folks in Windsor-Detroit are long past due for a win, and another hockey win will just have to do for now...

Fri, 2009-06-12 22:02

#33

N.Beltov

All Hail Maxime Talbot. And I hope Sid the Kid can still hoist the Cup after Franzen kneecapped him.

Another Red Wing tried to kneecap Malkin, but failed. May they drown in their own blood. What dirty shits. Who would root for such a team?

Supplemental: Crosby is back, I think, for the third.

Fri, 2009-06-12 22:02

#34

Michelle

No, I'm a Leafs fan. I just thought I liked Pittsburgh better than Detroit at the beginning of this round, so I've been cheering for them. But I really don't have anything invested in it.

Fri, 2009-06-12 22:15

#35

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Nor do I, but I guess I'm the answer to Beltov's question.

Fri, 2009-06-12 22:33

#36

alisea

I minute left and Pittsburgh ahead 2-1, Detroit empty net, GO SIDNEY!

Fri, 2009-06-12 22:40

#37

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Well, gotta admit - Pittsburgh deserved the win tonight.

Fri, 2009-06-12 22:50

#38

Jingles

Fantastic last-second save by Fleury.

Fri, 2009-06-12 23:10

#39

Fidel

What a finish. I had no idea the Pens would win this series, especially after going down 2-0 in games.

"There's no need to fear! Underdog is here!" - Underdog

Fri, 2009-06-12 23:58

#40

al-Qa'bong

I wonder what Marian Hossa's value will be in the free agent market this summer.

Sat, 2009-06-13 09:04

#41

Tommy_Paine

Well, that was a bit of a surprise. I was the only guy at work who thought Pittsburg had more than an outside chance going back to Detroit for game seven, so I will be able to engage in some I told ya so's on Monday. Like Michelle, I didn't really have a horse in this race, except I am experiencing a healthy portion of schadenfrueda concerning Hossa.

Pretty evenly matched teams, really. Except for last night, all the other games came down to who had the last line change. I do tend to think that the deciding factor between the two came down to coaching. Detroit was out coached last night.

But not by much.

That cross bar in the third period......

I wonder what Marian Hossa's value will be in the free agent market this summer.

Even before he became a hired gun, the knock on Hossa was that he dissapeared in the post season. While he scored some in the post season last year, it was in a losing effort.

Jonah Hossa?

One has to believe his value has plumeted after last night.

Now begins the highlight of the season for Leaf fans: the draft.

Sat, 2009-06-13 09:34

#42

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

N.Beltov wrote:
I hope Sid the Kid can still hoist the Cup after Franzen kneecapped him.

Another Red Wing tried to kneecap Malkin, but failed.

By the third replay, even Cherry was admitting that Crosby had touched the puck, and that it was a good, clean hit. And Sidney did hoist the Cup.

I didn't see anyone go after Malkin, I must have missed that one.

Sat, 2009-06-13 11:02

#43

al-Qa'bong

They were going after Malkin all the time. It wasn't on the replay, but on that play in the first period where the Detroit D-man broke Malkin's stick with a slash (I'd be dead meat in today's game; whacking forwards' sticks was one of my best plays as a D), A Detroit guy skated past Malkin and elbowed him in the head after the whistle. I really noticed this stuff in the last few games. Detroit's players were sneaky and persistent in their interference and cheap shots away from the play. You know, that skilled European style of hockey.

At least Hossa didn't take anyone's eye out.

Sat, 2009-06-13 14:06

#44

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

That would explain it.

I missed most of the first period. I only saw the last couple of minutes.

Sat, 2009-06-13 14:23

#45

Catchfire

actually, after the hit on Crosby and the second goal there was pretty vicious knee-on-knee on Malkin, although I forget which RW did it: it was clearly intentional.

Sat, 2009-06-13 14:31

#46

al-Qa'bong

Was that the hit near centre ice? I thought it was a clean open-ice hipcheck; my favourite play in hockey after the coast-to-coast rush.

Sat, 2009-06-13 15:31

#47

Catchfire

It was near centre ice, but it didn't look like a hip check to me (me=non-hockey player armchair warrior). The commentators noted that it was 'pretty close to a knee-on-knee' but that Malkin didn't look very hurt. I do recall some other centre-ice hip checks, but I didn't think Malkin was involved.

Sat, 2009-06-13 15:45

#48

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:
You know, that skilled European style of hockey.

What about Bobby Clarke's infamous slash on Valeri Kharlamov in the Summit Series? Was that Canadians at our best, or did somebody screw up and ice the Lumber Company team that year?

Sat, 2009-06-13 15:54

#49

Tommy_Paine

I think the Clark slash was after Boris Mikhailov kicked in Gary Bergman's shin. Skate blade went right through the shin guard.

There was a lot of stuff going on in the '72 series. Both sides can claim to have given as good as they got.

Back to last night, if the Wings had concerned themselves less with Malkin, and more with their own game, perhaps there would be fewer tears this morning in the beer of Hockeytown.

Sat, 2009-06-13 16:49

#50

Fidel

That's not exactly what I heard team Canada's players say about it in a TV documentary on the series. They said Kharlamov was a constant scoring threat and setup man for the Russians then, and that somebody had to do something about it at the time. The Canadians said they were surprised to see Kharlamov back on the ice, although the slash slowed him down considerably. Tit for tat my eye. Paul Henderson called Clarke a bushwhacker, and that it was the low point in the series.

As for the series, I think the Red Wings can still hold their heads high. They came within a crossbar of tying it with minutes to go in the third. And then Fleury's diving save in the final moments was a game saver.

All in all, I think the hard work of the plumbers on both teams were amazing at times when the real scoring threats were held off the board - like Malkin with just a couple of goals in the series and Crosby with a single tally. I should think most teams will want to trade for and draft a few "big" players for their teams now for balance, grinders like Henrik Zetterberg 5'11" 195lbs, and Maxime Talbot who scored two goals including the winner in what was the biggest game of the year. Those guys really carved up the ice with their two-way transitional game and speedy attacks. It's now demonstrated that Detroit's puck control game can be countered. What a tight series though except for game five.

Sat, 2009-06-13 16:54

#51

Tommy_Paine

Oh, I didn't mean it was tit for tat. The legend is one of the coaches winking at Clarke, and saying "that Kharlamov is killing us...." I'm just saying there was some pretty desperate play on both sides, and the Marquis of Queensbury was not in attendance behind either bench.

I think the Henderson comment came out decades after the fact.

Just reading that comment, Fidel, reminds me of something. Didn't the league crack down on interference, hooking, slashing, etc., to allow the skill players to play? Although the refs seemed to have pocketed their whistles to soe extent after game 4 or so, it still doesn't explain why the big guns were all shut down.

I guess even with the rule changes, the coaches have found ways to stop the skill players from exhibiting their skills. Even scoring rates generally aren't what they used to be back in the good ol' days of clutch and grab hockey.

Reasons, anyone?

Pages

Topic locked