As the season closes in, I'm always amazed at the variable levels of optimism and pessimism from fans and reporters for their given teams. The Habs are no exception. If anything, the peaks and troughs seem higher and deeper in Montreal.
Overall, I'd have to say I am getting a vibe of general optimism form Habs fans these days. Despite a relatively quiet summer and little overall change to team make up, the Canadiens supporterate is upbeat.
So upbeat, in fact, that I am finding myself reading more often than not that the Canadiens have a baseline level from which they can only do better, and that baseline seems to be well within the playoff threshold by most accounts.
Every year this happens, not just with the Habs, but with all teams. Analysts take the past and use some imagination and rational projection to prognosticate on what will come about.
The issue I take with this approach is that it generally focuses far too heavily on the positive direction. In most schemes all young players progress, all career best years are only foundations for more career best years and few ever decline.
Progress it seems is taken for granted.
Rarely do I read that Erik Cole might have an Edmonton debacle as he did his only other time outside North Carolina. Few and far between are the reports of Gionta possibly dropping off or Plekanec slipping in offensive production. I don't think anyone has dared write that PK Subban might be susceptible to a sophomore setback that the vast majority of his peers are not immune to.
All I read is about Gomez having nowhere to go but up. Eller continuing to make strides and the like.
I just thought that for a true balance, we should probably have a look at what we all, honestly, are probably taking for granted this season:
1) Tomas Plekanec posting 20+ goals and at least 57 points
2) Carey Price providing top-10 NHL goaltending
3) Hal Gill not getting figured out by fast forwards
4) Brian Gionta in the higher 20s in goals
5) Max Pacioretty scoring at the rate he did on his curtailed streak
6) Markov and Subban clicking on the PP
7) Emelin, Diaz or whichever AHLer having few growing pains
8) Not missing Hamrlik
9) Cammalleri repeating playoff magic
10) Team morale staying high no matter what happens
I very much hope the team does well. Yet I don't take for granted this will happen. Every team has its surprises and every team suffers setbacks, no matter how good. It may not be one of the things I have listed above, but something on the Montreal Canadiens will go awry and decline from the idealized painting we have in the endless August prognostications.
I do still despite this balanced head find I have more hope than some years that the team will close the season with a few games in the 82 to spare.
I won't make a prediction on points or on placement, but I will predict this: we will have reasons to cheer and reasons to fret in 2011-12, and we will have to watch the games to see how this new group of 23 players will fare against the 29 other new groups of players.
Showing posts with label Progress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Progress. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Friday, July 03, 2009
Did the Montreal Canadiens need to be overhauled?
It's been swept under the rug a bit, but I still think it's a very pertinent question
To headline writers, Bob Gainey has blown up a team that crashed and burned in 2009.
To anyone with a developed memory and a modicum of sense, Bob Gainey also blew up the team that won the Eastern conference, and were it not for one hot and one cold goaltender might have battled the Penguins for a place in the Stanley Cup finals. Not only that, the team was an example of well-oiled NHL machine for 18 of the last 24 months.
I think those facts make the question very valid.
My personal opinion on the matter was that the Canadiens as a unit of players were largely fine. In my opinion, they did not need an overhaul. In fact, on the eve of free agency, I mused that bringing in a couple of new defenders (to replace Bouillon, Dandenault, Brisebois and perhaps Komisarek) might be change enough. I longed for another scorer (as everyone always does), but didn't think the playoffs hinged on it. I think the captain was a keeper. I think that Kovalev and Tanguay have been great performers for Montreal, given the inevitable drop in goals from players who come here.
Obviously Gainey and I should have talked.
Gainey, who happens to be privy of all the pertinent facts (to my very limited idea), thought differently.
Let's assume change is/was necessary...
I have to stretch to accept this view, but with an effort I can see it. But in the end, one has to defer to those with the inside scoop and those with the experience in the business. The amazing thing is, once I did this, I began to understand what Bob Gainey did over the Canada Day break.
Once you see change is necessary, you can see why Koivu wasn't offered a contract, why Higgins was traded, why Bouillon, Begin and Dandenault were ditched, why none of the coaches are back and why Gainey signed the players he did.
I even start to think of reasons why the change might have been necessary, like the fact Koivu and Kovalev never wanted to play together, like assistant captains Higgins and Komisarek being apologists and excuse generators after losses, like Dandenault constantly complaining about ice time. The list goes on.
Change of culture
I think what Bob Gainey identified that the rest of us were kidding ourselves about was the reason the Canadiens were ultimately underachieving at this point of the team's progression. I think Bob found a deep rooted problem with work ethic, entitlement and laziness. And how else to purge that than to clean house.
Now, I'm not saying that Saku Koivu or Kovalev were slackers, but clearly they weren't able to rein in or convince the younger players, many of whom were and are still slackers to step in line.
It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if every player in the Canadiens organization (as well as all others) was a free agent this July, because that house cleaning might have taken a different direction. As it was/is, Gainey could only make changes to certain players, those whose contracts were under review.
The scorched earth approach that Gainey has favoured in his retooling has certainly made it possible for a change in culture. For one thing, it shows the young guys that what happened in the past is not acceptable. It also provides the team with new and willing additions who will come in and adopt the new system as if it has been the Habs way all along – they know no different.
In other words, Gainey has succeeded in changing the culture, if that was his goal.
I have been putting together an article for some time about the stomach for winning. There have been a lot of questions about the sentimentality and entitlement that was previously rife in Montreal – whether it be signing sub-par fan favourites or stubbornly sticking with prospects well past their due date. I won't get into the whole thing, suffice to say, i think Gainey has gone a long way to prove that he's willing to do what it takes to win now. He's fired his friends, he's alienated the press and making friends is nowhere near the priority on his list anymore.
You may not agree with his talent assessment re: players like Hal Gill and Brian Gionta, but you have to give the guy credit. He saw drastic change was needed and he made the difficult decisions it took to make the change drastic indeed. And he continues to face the all-knowing press...
Poll
I want to know what you all think. Did the Canadiens need to be overhauled to the extent that they were. Was Gainey's diagnosis right (regardless of what you think of his treatment course)?
Let us know.
To headline writers, Bob Gainey has blown up a team that crashed and burned in 2009.
To anyone with a developed memory and a modicum of sense, Bob Gainey also blew up the team that won the Eastern conference, and were it not for one hot and one cold goaltender might have battled the Penguins for a place in the Stanley Cup finals. Not only that, the team was an example of well-oiled NHL machine for 18 of the last 24 months.
I think those facts make the question very valid.
My personal opinion on the matter was that the Canadiens as a unit of players were largely fine. In my opinion, they did not need an overhaul. In fact, on the eve of free agency, I mused that bringing in a couple of new defenders (to replace Bouillon, Dandenault, Brisebois and perhaps Komisarek) might be change enough. I longed for another scorer (as everyone always does), but didn't think the playoffs hinged on it. I think the captain was a keeper. I think that Kovalev and Tanguay have been great performers for Montreal, given the inevitable drop in goals from players who come here.
Obviously Gainey and I should have talked.
Gainey, who happens to be privy of all the pertinent facts (to my very limited idea), thought differently.
Let's assume change is/was necessary...
I have to stretch to accept this view, but with an effort I can see it. But in the end, one has to defer to those with the inside scoop and those with the experience in the business. The amazing thing is, once I did this, I began to understand what Bob Gainey did over the Canada Day break.
Once you see change is necessary, you can see why Koivu wasn't offered a contract, why Higgins was traded, why Bouillon, Begin and Dandenault were ditched, why none of the coaches are back and why Gainey signed the players he did.
I even start to think of reasons why the change might have been necessary, like the fact Koivu and Kovalev never wanted to play together, like assistant captains Higgins and Komisarek being apologists and excuse generators after losses, like Dandenault constantly complaining about ice time. The list goes on.
Change of culture
I think what Bob Gainey identified that the rest of us were kidding ourselves about was the reason the Canadiens were ultimately underachieving at this point of the team's progression. I think Bob found a deep rooted problem with work ethic, entitlement and laziness. And how else to purge that than to clean house.
Now, I'm not saying that Saku Koivu or Kovalev were slackers, but clearly they weren't able to rein in or convince the younger players, many of whom were and are still slackers to step in line.
It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if every player in the Canadiens organization (as well as all others) was a free agent this July, because that house cleaning might have taken a different direction. As it was/is, Gainey could only make changes to certain players, those whose contracts were under review.
The scorched earth approach that Gainey has favoured in his retooling has certainly made it possible for a change in culture. For one thing, it shows the young guys that what happened in the past is not acceptable. It also provides the team with new and willing additions who will come in and adopt the new system as if it has been the Habs way all along – they know no different.
In other words, Gainey has succeeded in changing the culture, if that was his goal.
I have been putting together an article for some time about the stomach for winning. There have been a lot of questions about the sentimentality and entitlement that was previously rife in Montreal – whether it be signing sub-par fan favourites or stubbornly sticking with prospects well past their due date. I won't get into the whole thing, suffice to say, i think Gainey has gone a long way to prove that he's willing to do what it takes to win now. He's fired his friends, he's alienated the press and making friends is nowhere near the priority on his list anymore.
You may not agree with his talent assessment re: players like Hal Gill and Brian Gionta, but you have to give the guy credit. He saw drastic change was needed and he made the difficult decisions it took to make the change drastic indeed. And he continues to face the all-knowing press...
Poll
I want to know what you all think. Did the Canadiens need to be overhauled to the extent that they were. Was Gainey's diagnosis right (regardless of what you think of his treatment course)?
Let us know.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Out of the Sporting Vacuum
Wow, if you disowned baseball when the Expos skipped town and aren't desperate enough that CFL, or minor tennis/golf tournament news can tide you over for weeks at a time, you will have no doubt noticed (as I have) that mid-summer is a vacuum for sporting excitement.
Enter the Summer Olympics. And for the first time in recent memory, they're actually taking place in the summer!
No matter what your usual sporting flavour is, there should be something to tickle your fancy at the Olympics. There are loads of sports and in excess of 300 different events over a couple of weeks. For the hockey fan, there's lots on offer (take what much of the world calls hockey for one...).
If you are of the ilk that enjoys being lifted out of your seat by a good bout, then excitement is around the corner – the Olympics are home to numerous forms of fighting, from the boxing preferred by Lyle Odelein, the martial arts Jarkko Ruutu practices and the Greco Roman wrestling of about 95% of the other fights on ice.
If fighting is not your thing, maybe speed is. If so, then you have track, cycling, swimming, rowing, canoeing, and every other imaginable way to get from A to B fastest (jumping, vaulting, riding a horse...).
And for those who enjoy the team synergy and the cooperation for a common goal, watch volleyball (the beach variety, if you read Four Habs Fans more than you should), basketball, soccer, baseball (for the last time) and one of my favourites water polo.
I am looking forward to these Olympics. It will be a nice way to get through the doldrums of August without scouring the web for news of Scandinavian hockey holdouts. Of note, I encourage everyone to catch Thomas Hall's canoe races if they can. His heats are on August 18, and he would progress to races on August 20 and then 22 if he performs at his best. Tom's a formidable athlete and a fellow Montrealer.
Athletic excellence
All that brings me round to the point I wanted to make in this piece. Watch the Olympics and records will fall – they always do. Not just national records, but World records. Every Olympics someone runs faster than anyone has run before, someone jumps higher, throws further. Past athletic achievements are laid to waste.
When I think of this, it makes me think of hockey.
In hockey, we are blessed with many experienced and knowledgeable elder statesmen, particularly in the press. Their stories and insights from the past never fail to capture the imagination, stir the emotions. But one thing that has always bothered me about this old guard is the way they cling to the older generations of the game to the point of debasing the current era at times.
Sometimes I want to tell these guys to take a look around. An objective look. Admit that things have changed. Admit that players, tactics, training, coaches, managers and everything else has improved (not devolved).
How can I be sure?
Well, consider the Olympics again. In many (probably most) sports, the average athlete at these Olympics would have been a multi-medalist at any Olympics 30 years ago. In my own sport of swimming, the standards for athletes to make it to the 2008 competition would have claimed all but three gold medals at Montreal and Moscow. Even as recently as 20 years ago, people making the current qualifying times would have been unlucky to walk away without a medal. What this tells me is that between equipment, technique and training methods, athletes in many sports have improved by leaps and bounds over the years.
Is hockey the exception? Not likely.
You only have to watch 10 minutes of hockey from the 1960s, 70s or 80s to realise things are different. Improvement in goaltending has led to less poor quality goals. Improvement in player fitness has led to better defence, tighter games and more advanced tactics. Evolution in sticks and the way players shoot has changed the way (and the speed at which) the puck moves. No, hockey is like many Olympic sports, the champions of old would stand a chance with the athletes of today.
Progress. Not many can resist it. I'm tired of people who continually try to convince me I should. That's why I'll be watching the Olympics, like I watch my hockey – admiring the incredible skill and ability I can hardly believe, right before my eyes...
A curious Habs-related Olympic note
As I was browsing the usual sites, I couldn't help but notice that RDS has a section devoted to the Olympics. It is called Pekin 2008.
Unlike English countries, some countries and their linguists have decided not to evolve their spelling of the Chinese capital's name. In English, the name Peking (the Western version of the name for the metropolis) was gradually removed from documents and maps starting in 1949 – it is all but gone nowadays. The change was due to a change in Chinese government, which led to a decision on their part to spell out the name themselves in our alphabet (Beijing).
Though the French lag in language evolution is not surprising, given their formal approach to such things, I found the possibility of a new name amusing. Given that Peking was spelled out Pekin in French, I think there is little doubt that the adaptation of Beijing into French would be done in the same way – giving me Begin.
Come to think of it, since it would obviously be far too confusing to have a Canadiens player and world city by the same name, I am betting the Office de la langue francaise is just waiting until Steve retires before putting the new name on the books.
Enter the Summer Olympics. And for the first time in recent memory, they're actually taking place in the summer!
No matter what your usual sporting flavour is, there should be something to tickle your fancy at the Olympics. There are loads of sports and in excess of 300 different events over a couple of weeks. For the hockey fan, there's lots on offer (take what much of the world calls hockey for one...).
If you are of the ilk that enjoys being lifted out of your seat by a good bout, then excitement is around the corner – the Olympics are home to numerous forms of fighting, from the boxing preferred by Lyle Odelein, the martial arts Jarkko Ruutu practices and the Greco Roman wrestling of about 95% of the other fights on ice.
If fighting is not your thing, maybe speed is. If so, then you have track, cycling, swimming, rowing, canoeing, and every other imaginable way to get from A to B fastest (jumping, vaulting, riding a horse...).
And for those who enjoy the team synergy and the cooperation for a common goal, watch volleyball (the beach variety, if you read Four Habs Fans more than you should), basketball, soccer, baseball (for the last time) and one of my favourites water polo.
I am looking forward to these Olympics. It will be a nice way to get through the doldrums of August without scouring the web for news of Scandinavian hockey holdouts. Of note, I encourage everyone to catch Thomas Hall's canoe races if they can. His heats are on August 18, and he would progress to races on August 20 and then 22 if he performs at his best. Tom's a formidable athlete and a fellow Montrealer.
Athletic excellence
All that brings me round to the point I wanted to make in this piece. Watch the Olympics and records will fall – they always do. Not just national records, but World records. Every Olympics someone runs faster than anyone has run before, someone jumps higher, throws further. Past athletic achievements are laid to waste.
When I think of this, it makes me think of hockey.
In hockey, we are blessed with many experienced and knowledgeable elder statesmen, particularly in the press. Their stories and insights from the past never fail to capture the imagination, stir the emotions. But one thing that has always bothered me about this old guard is the way they cling to the older generations of the game to the point of debasing the current era at times.
Sometimes I want to tell these guys to take a look around. An objective look. Admit that things have changed. Admit that players, tactics, training, coaches, managers and everything else has improved (not devolved).
How can I be sure?
Well, consider the Olympics again. In many (probably most) sports, the average athlete at these Olympics would have been a multi-medalist at any Olympics 30 years ago. In my own sport of swimming, the standards for athletes to make it to the 2008 competition would have claimed all but three gold medals at Montreal and Moscow. Even as recently as 20 years ago, people making the current qualifying times would have been unlucky to walk away without a medal. What this tells me is that between equipment, technique and training methods, athletes in many sports have improved by leaps and bounds over the years.
Is hockey the exception? Not likely.
You only have to watch 10 minutes of hockey from the 1960s, 70s or 80s to realise things are different. Improvement in goaltending has led to less poor quality goals. Improvement in player fitness has led to better defence, tighter games and more advanced tactics. Evolution in sticks and the way players shoot has changed the way (and the speed at which) the puck moves. No, hockey is like many Olympic sports, the champions of old would stand a chance with the athletes of today.
Progress. Not many can resist it. I'm tired of people who continually try to convince me I should. That's why I'll be watching the Olympics, like I watch my hockey – admiring the incredible skill and ability I can hardly believe, right before my eyes...
A curious Habs-related Olympic note
As I was browsing the usual sites, I couldn't help but notice that RDS has a section devoted to the Olympics. It is called Pekin 2008.
Unlike English countries, some countries and their linguists have decided not to evolve their spelling of the Chinese capital's name. In English, the name Peking (the Western version of the name for the metropolis) was gradually removed from documents and maps starting in 1949 – it is all but gone nowadays. The change was due to a change in Chinese government, which led to a decision on their part to spell out the name themselves in our alphabet (Beijing).
Though the French lag in language evolution is not surprising, given their formal approach to such things, I found the possibility of a new name amusing. Given that Peking was spelled out Pekin in French, I think there is little doubt that the adaptation of Beijing into French would be done in the same way – giving me Begin.
Come to think of it, since it would obviously be far too confusing to have a Canadiens player and world city by the same name, I am betting the Office de la langue francaise is just waiting until Steve retires before putting the new name on the books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)