Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Perception
Watching Don Cherry after last night's Flyer win over Toronto made me wonder why Toronto and Philadelphia are considered gritty, playoff teams but the Ottawa Senators aren't?
Cherry went off on how Jeremy Roenick and Keith Primeau are warriors. I don't remember him saying anything like that about any of the Senators.
He also praised the Leafs for their giving it their all in their series against the Flyers. Why didn't he say anything like that after the Senators lost to Toronto? After all, the Sens came back to tie game 6 in regulation and also went on to win the game in overtime. The Sens also didn't get blown out in game 5 of their series. The played poorly in game 5 but they only lost because of a bad bounce that sent the puck in the net off of Brian Smolinski's skate.
Basically how history has presented itself in the playoffs is that the Sens can't beat the Leafs who can't beat the Flyers who can't beat the Sens. Those great playoff warriors in Roenick and Primeau against Ottawa have scored 0 goals and 3 assists in 11 playoff games with Roenick getting credit for all 3 assists. So why does Ottawa get the short end of the stick when it comes to reputation?
I think the blame lies at the biased nature of the Hockey Night in Canada broadcasts. Bob Cole, Harry Neale, Don Cherry, Glenn Healy, and Scott Oake are all huge Leaf homers when they are doing HNIC playoff games involving the Senators. Who is a Senator homer on the broadcasts? The closest it gets is Greg Millen who I can't remember ever doing a Senator playoff game in recent memory. Everything on HNIC is viewed through a blue and white filter. Listening to Bob and Neale go off on Mattias Timander getting a delay of game penalty for dislodging the Flyer net, while completely ignoring that Alexei Ponikarovsky should have been the player getting penalized for crosschecking Timander from behind into the net to cause it to be dislodged, disgusted me.
The HNIC broadcasts glorify the Leafs, and when (not if) someone beats them, then they are glorified because they beat the great Toronto Maple Leafs. Until the Senators beat the Maple Leafs they will never receive the credit they are due. Even if they win the Stanley Cup. (0) comments
Cherry went off on how Jeremy Roenick and Keith Primeau are warriors. I don't remember him saying anything like that about any of the Senators.
He also praised the Leafs for their giving it their all in their series against the Flyers. Why didn't he say anything like that after the Senators lost to Toronto? After all, the Sens came back to tie game 6 in regulation and also went on to win the game in overtime. The Sens also didn't get blown out in game 5 of their series. The played poorly in game 5 but they only lost because of a bad bounce that sent the puck in the net off of Brian Smolinski's skate.
Basically how history has presented itself in the playoffs is that the Sens can't beat the Leafs who can't beat the Flyers who can't beat the Sens. Those great playoff warriors in Roenick and Primeau against Ottawa have scored 0 goals and 3 assists in 11 playoff games with Roenick getting credit for all 3 assists. So why does Ottawa get the short end of the stick when it comes to reputation?
I think the blame lies at the biased nature of the Hockey Night in Canada broadcasts. Bob Cole, Harry Neale, Don Cherry, Glenn Healy, and Scott Oake are all huge Leaf homers when they are doing HNIC playoff games involving the Senators. Who is a Senator homer on the broadcasts? The closest it gets is Greg Millen who I can't remember ever doing a Senator playoff game in recent memory. Everything on HNIC is viewed through a blue and white filter. Listening to Bob and Neale go off on Mattias Timander getting a delay of game penalty for dislodging the Flyer net, while completely ignoring that Alexei Ponikarovsky should have been the player getting penalized for crosschecking Timander from behind into the net to cause it to be dislodged, disgusted me.
The HNIC broadcasts glorify the Leafs, and when (not if) someone beats them, then they are glorified because they beat the great Toronto Maple Leafs. Until the Senators beat the Maple Leafs they will never receive the credit they are due. Even if they win the Stanley Cup. (0) comments
Monday, May 03, 2004
Grading the grades
The Ottawa Sun's Bruce Garrioch in his latest article demonstates, once again, why he is the laughingstock of the hockey media.
His article grades the Ottawa Senators on their seasons individually. When doing this there are two ways to do so. You either grade on their performance or you grade on how they lived up to expectations. I have no idea which Garrioch decided to use.
Care to guess who received the only F from Bruce? His favourite whipping boy, Radek Bonk. Not Patrick Lalime whose brutal play this season cost them first place in the division, a more favourable matchup in the first round plus the two brutal goals in game 7. But the sixth leading scorer on the team who missed 16 games due to injury. While Bonk had far from his best season, he was far from the worst player on the team.
But maybe Bruce was basing his grades upon what was expected of the player? Then why did Lalime only receive a C? Or Antoine Vermette, who wasn't even expected to make the team, received only a C+?
Another confusing grade is the B given to Martin Havlat. He had his best season by far as an Ottawa Senators while averaging a point a game despite missing training camp due to contract negotiations.
If it weren't for the B+ given to Martin Prusek, I'd wonder if Garrioch had a problem with Czechs. Especially because I bet he would have given Rachunek an F as well if he hadn't been traded.
I also can't understand Chris Phillips getting an A while Wade Redden, who had a superior year leading NHL defencemen in goals, gets only a B+. (0) comments
His article grades the Ottawa Senators on their seasons individually. When doing this there are two ways to do so. You either grade on their performance or you grade on how they lived up to expectations. I have no idea which Garrioch decided to use.
Care to guess who received the only F from Bruce? His favourite whipping boy, Radek Bonk. Not Patrick Lalime whose brutal play this season cost them first place in the division, a more favourable matchup in the first round plus the two brutal goals in game 7. But the sixth leading scorer on the team who missed 16 games due to injury. While Bonk had far from his best season, he was far from the worst player on the team.
But maybe Bruce was basing his grades upon what was expected of the player? Then why did Lalime only receive a C? Or Antoine Vermette, who wasn't even expected to make the team, received only a C+?
Another confusing grade is the B given to Martin Havlat. He had his best season by far as an Ottawa Senators while averaging a point a game despite missing training camp due to contract negotiations.
If it weren't for the B+ given to Martin Prusek, I'd wonder if Garrioch had a problem with Czechs. Especially because I bet he would have given Rachunek an F as well if he hadn't been traded.
I also can't understand Chris Phillips getting an A while Wade Redden, who had a superior year leading NHL defencemen in goals, gets only a B+. (0) comments
