This came to me a few days ago, and I have permission from him to post it! I really love this writing, and it's got some great points. This is in response to the article I wrote about Canada's loss to the Russians. It comes to us from Dave in Whitby. Enjoy
-----------------------------------------
Hi Corey,
I read your hockeyleaks blog & website every day. I also read your article
explaining your take on Canada's loss. While nobody can deny that the rest of the
world has improved significantly, Canada still had the group of players to beat.
The problem was that they were not the TEAM to beat, and they had a number of
disadvantages this time around, including a lack of hunger that drove them in Salt
Lake City.
In the 2002 Olympics, Canadian players didn't have to go many time zones away and
try to gel in a short time also. Yes, they didn't have much time, but it's a lot
easier to practice and get a rythme going when you can play in the same continent,
and Canada was also hungry for victory after their embarassment in Nagano. This
time, as the defending champs, Canada wasn't hungry enough to overcome the
disadvantages of having a collection of individual stars try to gel after going half
a world away, and having the most players who didn't play during the lockout. That
hurt Canada's veterans in particular.
The Swedes, Finns, Czechs, and Russians mostly played during the lockout, and all
had at least some players who were playing together prior to the Olympics, whether
it was in Europe or playing on the same NHL team (the Czech-dominated Rangers, the
Sedins in Vancouver, the Swedes in Detroit, etc.). Some of them were playing in the
NHL and had the same time-zone problem, but they had the hunger to overcome their
fewer disadvantages. Canada had the most disadvantages, and the least hunger.
Canada had a chemistry and cohesion problem this time, but it was as much a symptom
of the other problems as it was an issue by itself. I would have picked Spezza,
Staal, Phaneuf, and Crosby, and even Shanahan over the likes of Bertuzzi, St.Louis,
and LeCavalier, but the truth is that it wouldn't have been enough anyway. I think
that they would have played better, and possibly got a medal, but regardless of the
roster choices, we were destined to fall short of the gold.
Given the above, I think the most fair tournament for judging the world's best is
the World Cup. I was sad to hear recently that there are no plans to keep that
going in the near future. Hopefully that will change after 2010 Vancouver. The
World Cup has the advantage of running in the summer when ALL teams can afford a
true training camp to develop systems and team chemistry, and can have the proper
time to adjust to whatever timezone it is played in. Even more importantly, it
doesn't compress the NHL schedule, a problem both players and owners hate because it
increases the injury and fatigue risks. The World Cup is the the best for all.
--------------------------------
please email me with all feedback to cjohnson202@hockeyleaks.com, and I will forward it to him. Check the rumour mill for today's rumours, they should be up soon. I am very hard at work on getting ready for the trade deadline, none of you are ready for how crazy it really is going to be!!
