The Washington Capitals have started the (apparently) first female NHL fan club.
One question: what the hell took so long for something like this to happen?
I really hope this is successful and will mark a shift in the perceived notions of female hockey fans. Personally, I think the attempt to get more female fans by offering pink jerseys was deplorable. I’m a fan and I wear my team’s colours with pride. I think any self-respecting female hockey fan would NEVER bastardize her team by wearing baby pink and no self-respecting male hockey fan would allow his girlfriend/wife/sister/mother to wear such a jersey. But they must be doing well because the awful pink things are still around.
But I digress.
As a female fan, I find most (if not all) of my male friends are impressed by my knowledge, ask me questions, don’t take offense when I know more than them and enjoy engaging in debates with me. But outside of my group of friends, it’s hard to find any real respect for the female fan. In the media, it’s still men who call the games, appear on the sports talk shows, write the sports columns and are heard on the radio. When women do appear, it’s as the token eye candy and often in a lesser role, like reading the news from the teleprompter rather than offering insight and opinion on the game. (The Globe and Mail had an excellent article on female sportscasters and the sexism that is still rampant and likely won’t go away any time soon.)
Cassie Campbell has proved to be an exception, but she’s not a consistent enough presence with the CBC to really indicate a changing of the guard, if you will. But that’s not to knock what she’s done for the game since retiring as a player. She’s pretty damn cool and has my utmost respect.
But now that a team has an official female fan club, maybe this will mark the change that is sorely needed in the game. There’s so much talk about the “new NHL”, with the new rules and the salary cap and teams going bankrupt – oh, wait, that’s not really happening. My bad. But with this “new NHL” (ugh, hate that term), new sportscasters should follow. Women can bring a lot to the analysis of the game and I’m sure can more than hold their own with the Bobs McKenzie and Cowan and with any hockey broadcast team assembled by TSN or SportsNet or CBC Sports or The Fan 590 or The Globe & Mail or The Toronto Star or…well, you get the picture.
First, a fan club; tomorrow, THE (NHL) WORLD!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
There's nothing new about it
I have an irrational hate-on for the term "new NHL". Ever since the lock-out ended, everyone and their uncle has been referring to the NHL as the "new NHL".
It is not new.
Just because every member of the hockey media is 40+ and associates the name Crosby first with Still & Nash and then with Sydney doesn't mean the game became "new" for the 05/06 season. It's a salary cap people. Believe it or not, hockey was not the first sport to come up with this astounding idea nor will it be the last. There is nothing "new" about setting a limit on what teams can spend on players. It's not like they decided to put eleven guys on per side, switch the game to a field, have them run instead of skate, then have them use their feet to kick a ball and call the game the most common-sense name they could think of (soccer, of course).
It's still hockey. Okay, maybe finally making Bryan McCabe irrelevant is deserving of new, but really now. What else changed since the lock-out? There are still plenty of big contracts (see Ovechkin, Alex; Lecavalier, Vincent; DiPietro, Rick), Martin Brodeur is still stopping not only the puck but the little flecks of ice that also fly up with the puck, Gary Bettman is still a moron and the Leafs still suck.
So enough with this "new NHL" nonsense. The only thing that would make it new would be to get rid of all the tired old hockey media and replace them with me.
It is not new.
Just because every member of the hockey media is 40+ and associates the name Crosby first with Still & Nash and then with Sydney doesn't mean the game became "new" for the 05/06 season. It's a salary cap people. Believe it or not, hockey was not the first sport to come up with this astounding idea nor will it be the last. There is nothing "new" about setting a limit on what teams can spend on players. It's not like they decided to put eleven guys on per side, switch the game to a field, have them run instead of skate, then have them use their feet to kick a ball and call the game the most common-sense name they could think of (soccer, of course).
It's still hockey. Okay, maybe finally making Bryan McCabe irrelevant is deserving of new, but really now. What else changed since the lock-out? There are still plenty of big contracts (see Ovechkin, Alex; Lecavalier, Vincent; DiPietro, Rick), Martin Brodeur is still stopping not only the puck but the little flecks of ice that also fly up with the puck, Gary Bettman is still a moron and the Leafs still suck.
So enough with this "new NHL" nonsense. The only thing that would make it new would be to get rid of all the tired old hockey media and replace them with me.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Hey man - you're an all-star - get your game on - go, play
It's All-Star Weekend in the NHL this weekend. Yawn.
I've long been over the All-Star game. The skills competition might pique my interest from time to time but the actual game is hugely boring. Although if Gary Bettman wants to increase scoring in the NHL, maybe every game should be an All-Star game, what with all the scoring usually involved. That was one thing I never really understood. Given, the All-Star game should have the best goal-scorers playing but it should also have the best goaltenders playing. To me, that meant the scores should be 2-1 or 3-2, not 12-9 (in 2007) or 8-7 (in 2008).
Perhaps I would care more if there was some benefit to actually winning the All-Star game. The format is now Western Conference vs. Eastern Conference but the winning conference doesn't get any kind of advantage. I'm not sure what that advantage/prize/benefit would be, but there's got to be something. Without a reason for winning, the game is really just a watered-down version of the sport, with the best players playing mediocre at best.
What I do find interesting is that players who are chosen as all-stars but do not attend are penalized with a one-game suspension. This I don't even understand. I know Gary Bettman is desperately trying to sell the game but punishing players for not attending? Maybe they just want a break. Two notables suspensions are Nicklas Lidstrom and Pavel Datsyuk, both of Detroit, who will miss a game next week. Frankly, I think it should be the player's decision to attend, if chosen as an all-star. Every year, there are plenty of great players not chosen for the game so if your first choice can't make it, then move along to the next...and the next...and the next...however many times it takes to round out the team.
But really, in the end, it doesn't matter all that much. The game is really just a way for the NHL to make some money, for the players' pension fund to fatten up a bit more and for avid NHL fans to actually figure out what to do with a Saturday night when there's no relevant game to watch.
One bright spot: Zdeno Chara and his charity challenge during the Skills Competition. THIS is the kind of thing that makes it great.
I've long been over the All-Star game. The skills competition might pique my interest from time to time but the actual game is hugely boring. Although if Gary Bettman wants to increase scoring in the NHL, maybe every game should be an All-Star game, what with all the scoring usually involved. That was one thing I never really understood. Given, the All-Star game should have the best goal-scorers playing but it should also have the best goaltenders playing. To me, that meant the scores should be 2-1 or 3-2, not 12-9 (in 2007) or 8-7 (in 2008).
Perhaps I would care more if there was some benefit to actually winning the All-Star game. The format is now Western Conference vs. Eastern Conference but the winning conference doesn't get any kind of advantage. I'm not sure what that advantage/prize/benefit would be, but there's got to be something. Without a reason for winning, the game is really just a watered-down version of the sport, with the best players playing mediocre at best.
What I do find interesting is that players who are chosen as all-stars but do not attend are penalized with a one-game suspension. This I don't even understand. I know Gary Bettman is desperately trying to sell the game but punishing players for not attending? Maybe they just want a break. Two notables suspensions are Nicklas Lidstrom and Pavel Datsyuk, both of Detroit, who will miss a game next week. Frankly, I think it should be the player's decision to attend, if chosen as an all-star. Every year, there are plenty of great players not chosen for the game so if your first choice can't make it, then move along to the next...and the next...and the next...however many times it takes to round out the team.
But really, in the end, it doesn't matter all that much. The game is really just a way for the NHL to make some money, for the players' pension fund to fatten up a bit more and for avid NHL fans to actually figure out what to do with a Saturday night when there's no relevant game to watch.
One bright spot: Zdeno Chara and his charity challenge during the Skills Competition. THIS is the kind of thing that makes it great.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
When good teams go bad
It's Saturday night, which means Hockey Night in Canada on the good ol' CBC. Tonight it's Montreal at Ottawa. The high-flying Habs have been having a wonderful season, which only sweetens this season being the Canadiens' centennial. Ottawa, on the other hand, is not so hot this season.
So what happened to the mighty Senators? This is the team that went to the Stanley Cup finals in the 2006-07 season; sure, they lost to Anaheim in five games, but they went to the final. The following season saw them finish seventh in their conference and lose round one of the playoffs in four games, to the Pittsburgh Penguins. And now, a season and a half after that stellar Cup run, the Senators are fifth of five in their division and 13th in the Eastern Conference. They are actually doing worse than the Toronto Maple Leafs! So, again, what happened???
Over on www.tsn.ca, James Duthie offers his opinion and it seems valid: the team has lost their mojo, their spark, their drive. Okay, I can buy that but what makes a team lose their confidence? Sure, losing the Stanley Cup final to a team originally founded by Disney can take you down a few pegs but this is a team that is still stacked with stellar players (Dany Heatley, Daniel Alfredsson and Jason Spezza immediately come to mind).
What do I think happened? Why, I thought you'd never ask. It all rests with the goaltending. Ray Emery led the way in net when the Sens went to the final in 06/07 but fell from grace the following season, partly due to poor on-ice performance, partly due to off-ice antics and infighting with teammates. Since then, Ottawa hasn't been able to get a solid starting goaltender. This season, Ottawa has the goaltending tandem of Alex Auld and Martin Gerber, who are both good goalies in their own rights. But they just aren't bringing that standing-on-his-head play that seems to be needed in the NHL today to make a team a contender.
Of course, having not-as-strong goaltending doesn't break a team, but it can start them on the downward spiral, resulting in the aforementioned overall loss of mojo. Where do they go from here? Like any team that finds itself on the wrong side of playoff contention, they should rebuild. This might mean a fire sale of their talent, perhaps letting go of one of the Heatley/Alfredsson/Spezza trinity and focusing more on the younger talent. This could be good (see: Pittsburgh Penguins) or it could be bad (see: Tampa Bay Lightning) but it certainly has to be better than staying on their current course because, really, no one wants to be the team that is worse than the Leafs.
So what happened to the mighty Senators? This is the team that went to the Stanley Cup finals in the 2006-07 season; sure, they lost to Anaheim in five games, but they went to the final. The following season saw them finish seventh in their conference and lose round one of the playoffs in four games, to the Pittsburgh Penguins. And now, a season and a half after that stellar Cup run, the Senators are fifth of five in their division and 13th in the Eastern Conference. They are actually doing worse than the Toronto Maple Leafs! So, again, what happened???
Over on www.tsn.ca, James Duthie offers his opinion and it seems valid: the team has lost their mojo, their spark, their drive. Okay, I can buy that but what makes a team lose their confidence? Sure, losing the Stanley Cup final to a team originally founded by Disney can take you down a few pegs but this is a team that is still stacked with stellar players (Dany Heatley, Daniel Alfredsson and Jason Spezza immediately come to mind).
What do I think happened? Why, I thought you'd never ask. It all rests with the goaltending. Ray Emery led the way in net when the Sens went to the final in 06/07 but fell from grace the following season, partly due to poor on-ice performance, partly due to off-ice antics and infighting with teammates. Since then, Ottawa hasn't been able to get a solid starting goaltender. This season, Ottawa has the goaltending tandem of Alex Auld and Martin Gerber, who are both good goalies in their own rights. But they just aren't bringing that standing-on-his-head play that seems to be needed in the NHL today to make a team a contender.
Of course, having not-as-strong goaltending doesn't break a team, but it can start them on the downward spiral, resulting in the aforementioned overall loss of mojo. Where do they go from here? Like any team that finds itself on the wrong side of playoff contention, they should rebuild. This might mean a fire sale of their talent, perhaps letting go of one of the Heatley/Alfredsson/Spezza trinity and focusing more on the younger talent. This could be good (see: Pittsburgh Penguins) or it could be bad (see: Tampa Bay Lightning) but it certainly has to be better than staying on their current course because, really, no one wants to be the team that is worse than the Leafs.
The beginning
Those who know me know I'm a hockey fan. I like to think of myself as a big hockey fan, full of knowledge and insight and pithy analysis. I want to start writing here to see if this is actually true.
The simple fact is that I love hockey. While I have favourite teams, I like to think of myself as not just a fan of those teams but as a fan of the game itself. My main fandom rests in the NHL but I'm also a huge fan of most Team Canada endeavours, the IIHF and I try to follow the AHL, with varying degrees of success. I've also got opinions and tend to overdo it with my friends, so this is also a good place for me to sound off on the good and not-so-good of my beloved sport.
So here goes...
The simple fact is that I love hockey. While I have favourite teams, I like to think of myself as not just a fan of those teams but as a fan of the game itself. My main fandom rests in the NHL but I'm also a huge fan of most Team Canada endeavours, the IIHF and I try to follow the AHL, with varying degrees of success. I've also got opinions and tend to overdo it with my friends, so this is also a good place for me to sound off on the good and not-so-good of my beloved sport.
So here goes...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
