I have to say I am a little sick of hearing that fans will have to do without hockey this fall. It's a pervasive arrogance that would allow player and owner alike to believe that one league equates to an entire sport with worldwide participation.
That said, the NHL is still the unquestioned standard bearer of the sport. The best players in the world ply their trade in NHL arenas (usually) and the game at its highest level is normally found in one of 30 North American cities.
Showing posts with label soccer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soccer. Show all posts
Friday, September 21, 2012
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Height Of Sport
Second only to the Canadiens in my personal sporting hierarchy is international football. England is my poison.
Yesterday, I watched as my second team gave a clinic to the 9th ranked team in the world – beating Croatia 5-1 with as many near misses as goals. No matter how exciting rookie's skating backwards in Brossard can be – I'm afraid Habs news took a back seat.
Not only was it exciting, it ended well – something I can't take for granted in watching sports these days. And thank goodness for England; because, if I'm honest, they probably give me more exciting moments than from 15-odd years of Canadiens hockey have. David Beckham's injury-time free kick against Greece in 2001, Michael Owen's run against Colombia, the 5-1 mauling of Germany are moments that stand up with The Kovalev:Koivu:Zednik line clinic against Boston, Theodore's pirouette save and the thrashing of Carolina pre-Gerber pulling.
Hockey still wins 350 nights out of 365, hence the blog. But some nights football can just take over with it's magic.
Last night was one of those nights for me. You see, it's getting down to the wire in qualifying campaigns for next summer's World Cup in South Africa. The first round of the NHL playoffs is the only real equivalent to nights like last night in hockey terms. A night where many teams could qualify, and many could be eliminated. A night where the possibilities for future match-ups create the intrigue and the suspense. A night where I care about every game and every goal because it could affect my team.
40 teams faced off in 20 matches yesterday. A few teams qualified (England – hooray, Paraguay) and several were ousted (Saudi Arabia, Trinidad, Finland, Belarus, Scotland, et al). And the competition tightened with about 50-odd teams vying for the remaining 21 places.
It's an excitement that would be hard to replicate in hockey, to be fair, since rivalries between teams rarely reach the pitch they can when it's countries involved. And quite simply, there just isn't the blanket interest from every region of the world (sans N America, of course) that football can count on. At the very least, the Olympics give us all a chance to cheer for something/someone else than the marathon to the Cup.
The run down
If members of the Canadiens organization and alumni are soccer fans, this is what they would have seen and felt last night:
Jaraoslav Halak: Witnessed his countrymen exact an efficient plan in Belfast to beat Northern Ireland with a 0-2 victory. Any and all Slovaks are probably quite proud of this edition of their national team which is one point away from clinching the first place in any tournament round-robin competition since independence.
Roman Hamrlik, Jaroslav Spacek, Tomas Plekanec: Viewed a lesson in how to come back from the brink. 5th in the group and with a negative goal difference things didn't look good. A couple of good results from the other group members and a romp of 7-0 over tiny San Marino takes them back within reach of a playoff shout. They'll need help from their former countrymen to do it now, so look for the D to be extra nice to Halak.
Brian Gionta, Hal Gill, Paul Mara et al: The Americans again look poised to qualify while their population ignores them. The team on the rise walked over Trinidad and Tobago who won't be making a return to the party this time. Chances that the guys watched? Slim. But like hockey, soccer is a niche sport in the US – sometimes the players come from the same pool (Higgins, for example, starred in both).
Scott Gomez: Scott has double CONCACAF celebrations as his native US have assured themselves that place I mentioned above. and, in handling the thus far impressive Costa Rica, Mexico, the country of his paternal ancestry has now also assured themselves the same breathing room.
Yannick Weber, Robert Mayer: The Swiss got a free ticket into Euro as hosts and didn't avail themselves very well at all, winning a single match. Before last night the Swiss were teetering on the edge of another qualification, but took the lead from their goaltenders rather than their ski team as they crumpled under the pressure. Losing the lead they had gained in the first half, Switzerland only managed a 2-2 draw against footballing minnows Latvia. If Weber and Mayer are keen scoreboard watchers like most soccer fans, they will have had reason to celebrate some, though, as Greece managed to prove once again what a fluke the European championship was as they handed a rare point to Moldova (costing themselves a valuable 2 points). Switzerland still hold the cards, so the young Habs may still be smiling.
Andrei Markov, Alex Kovalev: Russia, with football's version of Scotty Bowman at the helm (Guus Hiddink), again impressed. They have paced Germany all the way and it seems that their match against each other on the 10th of October in Moscow could be a qualifying classic.
Saku Koivu, Petteri Simila: When you get drawn into a group with Russia and Germany in most sports, you're not going to be going home happy many times. Last night, though, the Finland football team showed why how much they miss the leadership that their national hockey team has, as they somehow managed to draw a game with a principality 3 miles across (Liechtenstein). usually Liechtenstein restrict themselves to taking points from Luxembourg.
Brothers Kostitsyn: Not much joy for the Kostitsyns as Belarus' draw vs. Ukraine means they won't go any further. On the bright side, by holding the Yellow and Blue to a point, the lovely Belarussians made my afternoon a lot more enjoyable – as it meant England would only require a single point from a draw for automatic qualification. One less distraction for the brothers won;t be a bad thing – though perhaps they'll turn to Mother Russia?
George Gillett: Watched as his main men Fernando Torres, Dirk Kuyt and Steven Gerrard all flew on qualified teams – Gerrard with 2 exceptional England goals. More joy as Glen Johnson (sounds like a hockey player) showed his worth on the England wing.
Habs bandwagon: The Habs bandwagon will be happy, because the team they supported all along (after Zidane's headbutt) also won on the night and Italy look safe to qualify without a playoff. The first country to be asked to do so as defenders of the crown.
Cristobal Huet, Mike Ribeiro: Hockey sensibilities aside, i am English after all. I had to shoehorn the fact that both France and Portugal may falter this year in somehow. France managed a draw and saw favourable results from their rivals so aren't down and out yet. Portugal is set for a shower of Ronaldo tears as they made their bed long ago. Ask Italy what happens when Sweden and Denmark stand in your way to qualification (I'm sure we won't see that kind of sportsmanship from never-dived before Portugal, though).
Obviously we hope all the Canadiens have a really celebratory June, but if they are soccer fans, at this point it looks like Halak, Johansson, Weber and the American contingent may need the most beer and BBQ meat on hand. I'm already planning for the most exciting month of the quadrennial.
June 11:
World Cup Opener – 11 am
Game 2 – 1:30 pm
Stanley Cup clincher? – 7 pm
A man can dream...
Yesterday, I watched as my second team gave a clinic to the 9th ranked team in the world – beating Croatia 5-1 with as many near misses as goals. No matter how exciting rookie's skating backwards in Brossard can be – I'm afraid Habs news took a back seat.
Not only was it exciting, it ended well – something I can't take for granted in watching sports these days. And thank goodness for England; because, if I'm honest, they probably give me more exciting moments than from 15-odd years of Canadiens hockey have. David Beckham's injury-time free kick against Greece in 2001, Michael Owen's run against Colombia, the 5-1 mauling of Germany are moments that stand up with The Kovalev:Koivu:Zednik line clinic against Boston, Theodore's pirouette save and the thrashing of Carolina pre-Gerber pulling.
Hockey still wins 350 nights out of 365, hence the blog. But some nights football can just take over with it's magic.
Last night was one of those nights for me. You see, it's getting down to the wire in qualifying campaigns for next summer's World Cup in South Africa. The first round of the NHL playoffs is the only real equivalent to nights like last night in hockey terms. A night where many teams could qualify, and many could be eliminated. A night where the possibilities for future match-ups create the intrigue and the suspense. A night where I care about every game and every goal because it could affect my team.
40 teams faced off in 20 matches yesterday. A few teams qualified (England – hooray, Paraguay) and several were ousted (Saudi Arabia, Trinidad, Finland, Belarus, Scotland, et al). And the competition tightened with about 50-odd teams vying for the remaining 21 places.
It's an excitement that would be hard to replicate in hockey, to be fair, since rivalries between teams rarely reach the pitch they can when it's countries involved. And quite simply, there just isn't the blanket interest from every region of the world (sans N America, of course) that football can count on. At the very least, the Olympics give us all a chance to cheer for something/someone else than the marathon to the Cup.
The run down
If members of the Canadiens organization and alumni are soccer fans, this is what they would have seen and felt last night:
Jaraoslav Halak: Witnessed his countrymen exact an efficient plan in Belfast to beat Northern Ireland with a 0-2 victory. Any and all Slovaks are probably quite proud of this edition of their national team which is one point away from clinching the first place in any tournament round-robin competition since independence.
Roman Hamrlik, Jaroslav Spacek, Tomas Plekanec: Viewed a lesson in how to come back from the brink. 5th in the group and with a negative goal difference things didn't look good. A couple of good results from the other group members and a romp of 7-0 over tiny San Marino takes them back within reach of a playoff shout. They'll need help from their former countrymen to do it now, so look for the D to be extra nice to Halak.
Brian Gionta, Hal Gill, Paul Mara et al: The Americans again look poised to qualify while their population ignores them. The team on the rise walked over Trinidad and Tobago who won't be making a return to the party this time. Chances that the guys watched? Slim. But like hockey, soccer is a niche sport in the US – sometimes the players come from the same pool (Higgins, for example, starred in both).
Scott Gomez: Scott has double CONCACAF celebrations as his native US have assured themselves that place I mentioned above. and, in handling the thus far impressive Costa Rica, Mexico, the country of his paternal ancestry has now also assured themselves the same breathing room.
Yannick Weber, Robert Mayer: The Swiss got a free ticket into Euro as hosts and didn't avail themselves very well at all, winning a single match. Before last night the Swiss were teetering on the edge of another qualification, but took the lead from their goaltenders rather than their ski team as they crumpled under the pressure. Losing the lead they had gained in the first half, Switzerland only managed a 2-2 draw against footballing minnows Latvia. If Weber and Mayer are keen scoreboard watchers like most soccer fans, they will have had reason to celebrate some, though, as Greece managed to prove once again what a fluke the European championship was as they handed a rare point to Moldova (costing themselves a valuable 2 points). Switzerland still hold the cards, so the young Habs may still be smiling.
Andrei Markov, Alex Kovalev: Russia, with football's version of Scotty Bowman at the helm (Guus Hiddink), again impressed. They have paced Germany all the way and it seems that their match against each other on the 10th of October in Moscow could be a qualifying classic.
Saku Koivu, Petteri Simila: When you get drawn into a group with Russia and Germany in most sports, you're not going to be going home happy many times. Last night, though, the Finland football team showed why how much they miss the leadership that their national hockey team has, as they somehow managed to draw a game with a principality 3 miles across (Liechtenstein). usually Liechtenstein restrict themselves to taking points from Luxembourg.
Brothers Kostitsyn: Not much joy for the Kostitsyns as Belarus' draw vs. Ukraine means they won't go any further. On the bright side, by holding the Yellow and Blue to a point, the lovely Belarussians made my afternoon a lot more enjoyable – as it meant England would only require a single point from a draw for automatic qualification. One less distraction for the brothers won;t be a bad thing – though perhaps they'll turn to Mother Russia?
George Gillett: Watched as his main men Fernando Torres, Dirk Kuyt and Steven Gerrard all flew on qualified teams – Gerrard with 2 exceptional England goals. More joy as Glen Johnson (sounds like a hockey player) showed his worth on the England wing.
Habs bandwagon: The Habs bandwagon will be happy, because the team they supported all along (after Zidane's headbutt) also won on the night and Italy look safe to qualify without a playoff. The first country to be asked to do so as defenders of the crown.
Cristobal Huet, Mike Ribeiro: Hockey sensibilities aside, i am English after all. I had to shoehorn the fact that both France and Portugal may falter this year in somehow. France managed a draw and saw favourable results from their rivals so aren't down and out yet. Portugal is set for a shower of Ronaldo tears as they made their bed long ago. Ask Italy what happens when Sweden and Denmark stand in your way to qualification (I'm sure we won't see that kind of sportsmanship from never-dived before Portugal, though).
Obviously we hope all the Canadiens have a really celebratory June, but if they are soccer fans, at this point it looks like Halak, Johansson, Weber and the American contingent may need the most beer and BBQ meat on hand. I'm already planning for the most exciting month of the quadrennial.
June 11:
World Cup Opener – 11 am
Game 2 – 1:30 pm
Stanley Cup clincher? – 7 pm
A man can dream...
Friday, November 07, 2008
Team Ownership
For Sale Or Not, And Who To Believe
Team Ownership
For Sale Or Not, And Who To Believe
In the build up to the season, through training camp and since, hockey has provided a nice distraction to all the bad news coming out of fund management firms, banks and finance ministers the world round.
And while Canadiens fans have been treated to more good news than most on the ice, behind the scenes in the NHL owners circuit I was starting to get a sneaky feeling that something may be brewing.
So when I awoke this morning and saw this story from RDS about Jim Balsillie and the Montreal Canadiens, I can’t say I was blown away. George Gillett has come out and flatly denied the statements of devious Jim (of Nashville saviour fame). The story is so sensitive in Montreal that RDS has already changed the headline three times in a few hours and have settled on George Gillett’s denial. So, those waking up later will have to rely on my word that this all happened.
So now we have one leaked comment, probably out of context from La Presse. And we have a statement from the guy who should know best, the guy who owns and would have to sell the Canadiens. Most would give the benefit of the doubt to the defender here – the owner.
However, the question about this statement is whether we can take it at face value. George Gillett, for all his likable qualities (and recent PR about them in the North American press) has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth a bit recently. You wouldn’t have to tour the terraces at Anfield (Liverpool FC’s home ground) for very long to find someone with something negative to say about our Georgie Boy. He's admitted his embarrassment at the situation himself, in fact.
The reason: fans feel they have been lied to. George and his partner Tom Hicks (also owner of the Dallas Stars) made three pivotal promises when they took over the club:
1) They would increase the funds available for transfers
2) They would build a new stadium
3) They would not burden the club with their own personal debts
A year and a bit later, it seems they have mostly defaulted on all three promises. The transfer kitty initially jumped but was topped up almost immediately through the sale of players – bringing them back to the starting point and no extra cash layout. The stadium is on hold. And, the Americans have borrowed heavily while using the club profits to pay down the interest – exactly as they promised they wouldn’t. From the Gazette:
Incidentally, Gillett and Hicks also flatly denied claims of selling the club, which juxtaposes with the engagement of Merrill Lynch by the two men. From the Times:
There is obvious concern over broken promises; but, that to me is actually very reasonable given that no one at all, banker, businessman or doomsday merchant, predicted the global banking system to fall down.
No, the biggest concern is the third point – that Gillett operates his companies while carrying a great load of debt. Liverpool FC is in debt. The Canadiens too, are in a massive hole of debt ($240 million, in fact, as per Forbes). Rough calculations of the Habs finances show that although it is some team’s plans to pay down debt (Red Wings anyone), Gillett’s plan is to service the interest and no more.
I don’t want to be alarmist, it is common business practice to run enterprises in this way. The problem is, October showed us that what is known about business is all up in the air now. If banks can go out of business overnight, can’t venture capitalists too? Can people like Gillett continue to operate businesses as they always did without any consequences?
Is it not conceivable that sports leagues will suffer eventually from the credit crunch as well? Wouldn’t it be feasible that individuals who rely on credit to finance upwards of 50% of their empires might also have to re-adjust?
Put those two together and you have George Gillett's predicament, nice guy and brilliant owner that he has been for Montreal
So, in light of all that, should we really be surprised that rumours of selling the Habs should crop up just now?
I, for one, am not surprised. News like this was to be expected, whether true or not. I would be no more surprised if it were true than if it were a fabrication – both scenarios make sense to me.
Nor am I worried. For all the credit we give George Gillett, it is Bob Gainey who takes care of us fans. He will still be as intelligent, calculating and frugal as he is now even under the RIM tycoon. I don’t see the change of ownership as a threat to the viability of the Canadiens over the long term or to their play on the ice.
If as a fellow fan, this interests you as much as it does me, though. I suggest you keep your eyes on the British press in January of next year, as it will be very interested to see how Gillett does in refinancing his massive debt in the UK (due to come up with RBS late January) – a debt that makes the Canadiens $240 million debt looks like a pittance; and one that probably has the potential to knock two pretty big business men down if the bankers are hard on them.
If only for the good of the Canadiens, I hope that January brings good news, whether it be for Gillett or Balsillie…
As a closing thought, I will reflect on the naive days of my youth, when Molson owned the team. At that time, I was a fan who dreamt of being a club owner. I imagined club ownership to be an extension of fandom, with more decision making power. For people who spend form their own pockets to push their team over the top – for pride, for pleasure, for us.
As time has gone by, it has become increasingly clear to me that owners are not in these ventures to make a loss, or even to break even. They are in the business of owning sports franchises for one reason – making money. I don’t hold it against them. Nor will I cry for them when they don’t.
And while Canadiens fans have been treated to more good news than most on the ice, behind the scenes in the NHL owners circuit I was starting to get a sneaky feeling that something may be brewing.
So when I awoke this morning and saw this story from RDS about Jim Balsillie and the Montreal Canadiens, I can’t say I was blown away. George Gillett has come out and flatly denied the statements of devious Jim (of Nashville saviour fame). The story is so sensitive in Montreal that RDS has already changed the headline three times in a few hours and have settled on George Gillett’s denial. So, those waking up later will have to rely on my word that this all happened.
So now we have one leaked comment, probably out of context from La Presse. And we have a statement from the guy who should know best, the guy who owns and would have to sell the Canadiens. Most would give the benefit of the doubt to the defender here – the owner.
However, the question about this statement is whether we can take it at face value. George Gillett, for all his likable qualities (and recent PR about them in the North American press) has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth a bit recently. You wouldn’t have to tour the terraces at Anfield (Liverpool FC’s home ground) for very long to find someone with something negative to say about our Georgie Boy. He's admitted his embarrassment at the situation himself, in fact.
The reason: fans feel they have been lied to. George and his partner Tom Hicks (also owner of the Dallas Stars) made three pivotal promises when they took over the club:
1) They would increase the funds available for transfers
2) They would build a new stadium
3) They would not burden the club with their own personal debts
A year and a bit later, it seems they have mostly defaulted on all three promises. The transfer kitty initially jumped but was topped up almost immediately through the sale of players – bringing them back to the starting point and no extra cash layout. The stadium is on hold. And, the Americans have borrowed heavily while using the club profits to pay down the interest – exactly as they promised they wouldn’t. From the Gazette:
"Liverpool has been saddled with big debt after the takeover by Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr., owner of the Canadiens. But that duo has been hit hard by the credit crunch and plans to build a new stadium have been put off because they haven't been able to raise the money."
Incidentally, Gillett and Hicks also flatly denied claims of selling the club, which juxtaposes with the engagement of Merrill Lynch by the two men. From the Times:
“The American businessman has been at the centre of the turmoil that has engulfed the Anfield club since he and Hicks took control. Plans to build a new stadium in Stanley Park have been shelved while the pair attempt to ride out the global economic crisis although as reported in The Times last month, they have signalled that they are ready to sell their stake at Anfield after engaging Merrill Lynch, the investment bank, to find a buyer for the club.”
There is obvious concern over broken promises; but, that to me is actually very reasonable given that no one at all, banker, businessman or doomsday merchant, predicted the global banking system to fall down.
No, the biggest concern is the third point – that Gillett operates his companies while carrying a great load of debt. Liverpool FC is in debt. The Canadiens too, are in a massive hole of debt ($240 million, in fact, as per Forbes). Rough calculations of the Habs finances show that although it is some team’s plans to pay down debt (Red Wings anyone), Gillett’s plan is to service the interest and no more.
I don’t want to be alarmist, it is common business practice to run enterprises in this way. The problem is, October showed us that what is known about business is all up in the air now. If banks can go out of business overnight, can’t venture capitalists too? Can people like Gillett continue to operate businesses as they always did without any consequences?
Is it not conceivable that sports leagues will suffer eventually from the credit crunch as well? Wouldn’t it be feasible that individuals who rely on credit to finance upwards of 50% of their empires might also have to re-adjust?
Put those two together and you have George Gillett's predicament, nice guy and brilliant owner that he has been for Montreal
So, in light of all that, should we really be surprised that rumours of selling the Habs should crop up just now?
I, for one, am not surprised. News like this was to be expected, whether true or not. I would be no more surprised if it were true than if it were a fabrication – both scenarios make sense to me.
Nor am I worried. For all the credit we give George Gillett, it is Bob Gainey who takes care of us fans. He will still be as intelligent, calculating and frugal as he is now even under the RIM tycoon. I don’t see the change of ownership as a threat to the viability of the Canadiens over the long term or to their play on the ice.
If as a fellow fan, this interests you as much as it does me, though. I suggest you keep your eyes on the British press in January of next year, as it will be very interested to see how Gillett does in refinancing his massive debt in the UK (due to come up with RBS late January) – a debt that makes the Canadiens $240 million debt looks like a pittance; and one that probably has the potential to knock two pretty big business men down if the bankers are hard on them.
If only for the good of the Canadiens, I hope that January brings good news, whether it be for Gillett or Balsillie…
As a closing thought, I will reflect on the naive days of my youth, when Molson owned the team. At that time, I was a fan who dreamt of being a club owner. I imagined club ownership to be an extension of fandom, with more decision making power. For people who spend form their own pockets to push their team over the top – for pride, for pleasure, for us.
As time has gone by, it has become increasingly clear to me that owners are not in these ventures to make a loss, or even to break even. They are in the business of owning sports franchises for one reason – making money. I don’t hold it against them. Nor will I cry for them when they don’t.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
One Game Away From Ultimate: A Real Championship Game
May was an interesting month for me sportswise. May, after all, is a month where it's all going on. The NHL playoffs are in full swing at the same time as the European football (soccer) leagues coming to a close. In the past, there was baseball too, but I try to forget that now.
Well, this year the month of May really did storm in like a lion, but it's gone out with a whimper that I am not even sure I can attach a lamb's vocal prowess to. With the Habs still in at the beginning of the month, every evening was hockey, every day was thinking about issues for the blog – live, sleep, drink hockey. The month wears on, the Habs go out, but we still have a thrilling last day finish to the Premiership, an all-English Champion's league final and a very interesting FA Cup match-up on the menu. The month ended with nothing.
Oh, did I forget to mention that there was NHL hockey beyond early May. If I did it's because I hardly noticed. Obviously, one should expect a defeated fan to withdraw for a while, but as I faced the prospect of watching a conference final game or even Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Final, I usually came to the conclusion that I had better things to do.
This can't be a good thing, surely. I mean, I think I would qualify as having a well-above average interest in hockey. After all, I read and write about the sport even into the summer months. I even watch the draft... For the average fan, where's the attraction? Pittsburgh and Detroit fans excepted, how many fans of other teams give a toss about the conference finals, about the final?
Very few is my guess.
My May experience did, however, put all these sports issues into a new light. While I totally withdrew from watching my favourite sport, I still found loads of enjoyment in sporting events – even after my favourite teams had been excluded from contention (Liverpool and Villa, of course).
The lesson I learned (at least when I wasn't blinded by complete bias for anything the Canadiens do) is that the spectacle of the sport matters too. Watching a trophy game between Cardiff City and Portsmouth FC turns out to be a heck of a lot more invigorating than Dallas vs. Detroit in a conference final. I would much rather watch a meaningful game for 90+ minutes than a whole series of games over 2 months that leave me with a feeling of "let's get this over with".
Interestingly, this brought me back to the history of the Stanley Cup – which believe it or not, was not just a device to get people around North America to watch 2500+ more or less meaningless games before watching the one where a team hoists the reward. After all, it's not as if 10,000 teams play in knockouts to get this far. We are talking about a mere 30 teams:
14 teams play 82 games for nothing
8 more play 86-89
4 more still 90-96
2 more 94-103
And one lucky team plays 98-110 games to prolong their agony
The last team standing is rewarded for not forgetting why they started the competition in the first place.
Is the final too long?
The Cup was, at first, a Challenge Cup. It stayed this way for the first 21 years of competition, in fact. What made this era very interesting (apart from the fact that Montreal clubs dominated) was that the Cup was handed out based on the result of a single, all-to-play-for game.
Of course, it was a bit more complicated than that – it was actually the league that held the Cup. So, the winner of the league from which the trophy holders originated played for the Cup in the regular season. The Challenge game was a game at which the winner of a rival league could challenge for the Championship.
Although you can see the seeds of the current format within those pre-NHL cup years, it is the number of games taken to settle the championship which intrigue me. At the very beginning, the Cup was awarded based on a single game, 21 years later they had accommodated both teams need for revenue by making the final a 2-game total-goals http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifseries.
Interestingly, . It stayed that way until the mid 20s, and was a best-of-three right up until 1937 (43 years after the first Cup final) and 20 years into the NHL.
So why is this history important? Well, it's interesting for one thing. But it also blows that old traditionalist riposte out of the water when they try to suggest that best-of-seven is the be-all and end-all.
My personal view is that there need to be more meaningful games in this affair, not more meaningless ones. Obviously every game matters, but to a casual observer or a non-partisan nutcase hockey fan, even, how important is Game 2 or 3? How exciting is Game 4 when it's not elimination? Game 5?
The playoffs are too long: no question
While there is some merit to the argument that a final series should be longer, there is not much logic to be uttered for the 7-game series over all 14 other playoff series.
The history of the best-of-seven moneymaker throughout the playoffs is even briefer than it is for the final. The league did use best-of-sevens during the original six era, but that amounted to three series. When the league expanded beyond 12 teams, they took a step back and added an extra round with best-of-threes to start. They gradually moved to best-of-fives in the 1980a and finally best-of-sevens – but only in 1986!
If you think about it, is there much reason for a best-of-seven between a first and eight place team after they have battled through 82 games already to prove their worth? Couldn't the first round be settled in a best-of-three? A two-game total goals, maybe? or, for the truly daring, a single game?
Ditto the second round and the conference finals.
Perhaps, if the first round was shortened, the appetite would be such that an escalating number of games would fit: Round 1 (2-game), Round 2 (Best-of-three), Round 3 (Best-of-five) and a longer final. I would go shorter throughout...
The spectacle
I have been asking myself, if there is only one trophy that ultimately matters in hockey, why do we need to go through with 8 months and 100 games worth of play to see who wins?
How about from another angle:
What do the Super Bowl and the World Cup Final have in common?
Well, they both pretend to be the pinnacle of achievement for footballers the world over (Of course, only in one of the sporting events do players actually use their feet for more than 8 seconds, but that's not the point).
They are also the biggest events in sports. People take notice. People plan their lives to fit these events in. People care. And, not only people from the participating cities or countries, but from across North America and the World, respectively.
I for one would like to watch more games where both teams could walk away with hardware. Right now we have to hope for Game 7s. A few tweaks (or a 1-game match) and the NHL could coax Game 7s right off the bat.
Is it only me? What do you all think?
Well, this year the month of May really did storm in like a lion, but it's gone out with a whimper that I am not even sure I can attach a lamb's vocal prowess to. With the Habs still in at the beginning of the month, every evening was hockey, every day was thinking about issues for the blog – live, sleep, drink hockey. The month wears on, the Habs go out, but we still have a thrilling last day finish to the Premiership, an all-English Champion's league final and a very interesting FA Cup match-up on the menu. The month ended with nothing.
Oh, did I forget to mention that there was NHL hockey beyond early May. If I did it's because I hardly noticed. Obviously, one should expect a defeated fan to withdraw for a while, but as I faced the prospect of watching a conference final game or even Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Final, I usually came to the conclusion that I had better things to do.
This can't be a good thing, surely. I mean, I think I would qualify as having a well-above average interest in hockey. After all, I read and write about the sport even into the summer months. I even watch the draft... For the average fan, where's the attraction? Pittsburgh and Detroit fans excepted, how many fans of other teams give a toss about the conference finals, about the final?
Very few is my guess.
My May experience did, however, put all these sports issues into a new light. While I totally withdrew from watching my favourite sport, I still found loads of enjoyment in sporting events – even after my favourite teams had been excluded from contention (Liverpool and Villa, of course).
The lesson I learned (at least when I wasn't blinded by complete bias for anything the Canadiens do) is that the spectacle of the sport matters too. Watching a trophy game between Cardiff City and Portsmouth FC turns out to be a heck of a lot more invigorating than Dallas vs. Detroit in a conference final. I would much rather watch a meaningful game for 90+ minutes than a whole series of games over 2 months that leave me with a feeling of "let's get this over with".
Interestingly, this brought me back to the history of the Stanley Cup – which believe it or not, was not just a device to get people around North America to watch 2500+ more or less meaningless games before watching the one where a team hoists the reward. After all, it's not as if 10,000 teams play in knockouts to get this far. We are talking about a mere 30 teams:
14 teams play 82 games for nothing
8 more play 86-89
4 more still 90-96
2 more 94-103
And one lucky team plays 98-110 games to prolong their agony
The last team standing is rewarded for not forgetting why they started the competition in the first place.
Is the final too long?
The Cup was, at first, a Challenge Cup. It stayed this way for the first 21 years of competition, in fact. What made this era very interesting (apart from the fact that Montreal clubs dominated) was that the Cup was handed out based on the result of a single, all-to-play-for game.
Of course, it was a bit more complicated than that – it was actually the league that held the Cup. So, the winner of the league from which the trophy holders originated played for the Cup in the regular season. The Challenge game was a game at which the winner of a rival league could challenge for the Championship.
Although you can see the seeds of the current format within those pre-NHL cup years, it is the number of games taken to settle the championship which intrigue me. At the very beginning, the Cup was awarded based on a single game, 21 years later they had accommodated both teams need for revenue by making the final a 2-game total-goals http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifseries.
Interestingly, . It stayed that way until the mid 20s, and was a best-of-three right up until 1937 (43 years after the first Cup final) and 20 years into the NHL.
So why is this history important? Well, it's interesting for one thing. But it also blows that old traditionalist riposte out of the water when they try to suggest that best-of-seven is the be-all and end-all.
My personal view is that there need to be more meaningful games in this affair, not more meaningless ones. Obviously every game matters, but to a casual observer or a non-partisan nutcase hockey fan, even, how important is Game 2 or 3? How exciting is Game 4 when it's not elimination? Game 5?
The playoffs are too long: no question
While there is some merit to the argument that a final series should be longer, there is not much logic to be uttered for the 7-game series over all 14 other playoff series.
The history of the best-of-seven moneymaker throughout the playoffs is even briefer than it is for the final. The league did use best-of-sevens during the original six era, but that amounted to three series. When the league expanded beyond 12 teams, they took a step back and added an extra round with best-of-threes to start. They gradually moved to best-of-fives in the 1980a and finally best-of-sevens – but only in 1986!
If you think about it, is there much reason for a best-of-seven between a first and eight place team after they have battled through 82 games already to prove their worth? Couldn't the first round be settled in a best-of-three? A two-game total goals, maybe? or, for the truly daring, a single game?
Ditto the second round and the conference finals.
Perhaps, if the first round was shortened, the appetite would be such that an escalating number of games would fit: Round 1 (2-game), Round 2 (Best-of-three), Round 3 (Best-of-five) and a longer final. I would go shorter throughout...
The spectacle
I have been asking myself, if there is only one trophy that ultimately matters in hockey, why do we need to go through with 8 months and 100 games worth of play to see who wins?
How about from another angle:
What do the Super Bowl and the World Cup Final have in common?
Well, they both pretend to be the pinnacle of achievement for footballers the world over (Of course, only in one of the sporting events do players actually use their feet for more than 8 seconds, but that's not the point).
They are also the biggest events in sports. People take notice. People plan their lives to fit these events in. People care. And, not only people from the participating cities or countries, but from across North America and the World, respectively.
I for one would like to watch more games where both teams could walk away with hardware. Right now we have to hope for Game 7s. A few tweaks (or a 1-game match) and the NHL could coax Game 7s right off the bat.
Is it only me? What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)