The Trouble With And Thankless Task Of Building A Canadian Olympic Hockey Team
Yesterday, I arrived about 100 pages into Dick Irvin's book "Behind The Bench", which concerns itself with life as an NHL bench boss. Coach Mike Keenan is one of two dozen fascinating subjects interviewed in the book, and he recalled a particular and poignant moment during his first steps as Team Canada's coach in the 1987 Canada Cup.
In the short tale, Keenan recounts first arriving in the dressing room on day one of camp and addressing his players with a simple question that counfounded the group. The discourse went something like this:
"How many minutes are in a hockey game?"
The players looked at themselves, some hesitating to answer to obvious bait for fear of looking silly, while others spoke up loud and quick.
"Sixty, coach."
"Wrong," came Keenan's reply. "There are six players on the ice during games. The correct answer is 360 minutes."
Players were a little caught off guard, unsure exactly where Keenan was headed. The he began:
"We are 20 players. The goalie gets sixty minutes. We are down to 300 now. Gretzky, Lemieux and Messier get about 20 minutes each. Now we are at 240, with 16 players left."
Keenan continued, "The top defensive pairing will see close to 22 minutes each, leaving us with 196 minutes left to divide. Four wingers will play an average of up to 18 minutes per game. That's 124 minutes left, for those who are counting."
The players began looking at themselves.
"The second set of defensemen are set to get 20 minutes each, so now we have 84 minutes left, for six forwards and two defensemen to share. 40 of those 84 minutes are taken up by the blueline, leaving about 7 minutes and a bit for the 6 remaining forwards to share. Let's try to be disciplined. Each penalty we take cuts into the already reduced icetime much of this team will already be dealing with."
Back a few months ago when Team Canada GM Steve Yzerman announced the lineup that would represent the country's hopes at the 2010 Olympic Games, there was the general consensus that he and his associates chose a fairly well balanced club. Yes, there was the usual nitpicking about the odd omissions, with names such as Jeff Carter, Mike Green and a trio of Tampa bay Lightning players mentioned most. Some quarters raised eyebrows at the inclusion of Patrice Bergeron, Brendan Morrow and Eric Staal.
For myself, when these types of teams are assembled, I tend to pay particular attention to what forms the bottom line in the role call, meaning the third and fourth liners and role players. In looking at this club, I felt that Yzerman and company had done well to include those names that raised eyebrows, as it showed that he understood he was building a team, and not just assembling an All-Star squad of high profile names. In essense, it is not a roster that Yzerman has to fill, but in fact a distinction of different roles on a hockey club that need to be fitted.
In short, role players are needed to perform tasks such as penalty killing, playing on their off wing, winning faceoffs, being strong in one on one battles and in doing all varieties of general dirtywork while producing results at low ice time minutes. Selecting just the right candidates for such jobs is often where these tournaments are won and lost. Time will quickly decide how Yzerman did.
Recalling Canada Cup teams of the past, the Canadiens entries have included players such as Brent Sutter, Bob Gainey, John Tonelli, Shayne Corson, Kevin Dineen, Bob Bourne, Butch Goring and Ken Linseman - all selected for their elbows and shoulders as much as for their hockey sense. None were unanimous, and each came under a certain fire when announced.
In 2006, the Canadian Olympic team included Kris Draper, a wise choice, perhaps at the wrong time. Sometimes they get this right, and sometimes they don't.
The combined selection of players must also tend to categories such as an absense of ego in the teams scheme of things, a balance self starting leadership mixed in with foot soldier mentality, and an enormous sense of pride in the most menial tasks for the good of the whole.
Yzerman and company assuredly checkmarked all these prerequisits in forming the current group, but the catch is how does one scout first line players for potential fourth line roles? Is it possible to have a recipe for understanding and observing a player given 20 minutes per game and guessing how he would perform under the constrains of an eight minute game?
The margin of error is almost inexistent. The twenty best players of a country on paper cannot often add up to what is the best possible team on the ice. The flaw is in the tournament format itself, and is an inherent complication teams such as the Swiss and German need not worry for.
Results on ice for Canada in tournaments such as these will always be varying. The demands and expectations placed on everyone, from the players to the coaches to management, are ridiculously out of proportion with the amount of time they have to prepare for games. Canada has been a superior hockey nation for the better part of the game's history, but it cannot always win. Though none of them will certainly do, there is no shortage of excuses when Canada comes up short.
There will be, however always sound reasons why it is the format itself, that fails these grand hockey exhibitions most.
To that end, it is my hope that at one point, the NHL and the IIHF decides that hockey is smarter as a Summer Olympic event some day.
Personally, from a coaching standpoint, I don't have much to draw upon as far as a bank of experiences, but Keenan's point does recall something I did as coach of the only All-Star team (of sorts) that I ever selected and managed.
It was in 1988, and somewhere in a box lies a dusty old runner up trophy that must have cost all of $10 at a local shop. I was an associate Pee Wee A house league coach back then, and I was asked to put together a team of major boys for a minor Bantam tournament. I had been coaching for a little over a year and didn't know a whole hell of alot, but something in Keenan's Team Canada must have struck a note, because my mini tryout camp was all about finding the right pluggers. This story might have similarities with the difficulty of putting tournament teams together as a whole. For what it's worth, here it is here.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Finding the right pluggers is why Shane Doan and Ryan Smyth have been part of just about every Team Canada for the last ten years. They can play on the top line at the WC, or on the bottom line at the Olympics, and perform well at either.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
I’d consider Alex Burrows and Patrick Sharp, actually. Doan was high on my list, too, but so was Morrow and Richards. Bergeron wasn’t anywhere near it, though.
The biggie cut would have been Thornton… him and Getzlaf are just too samey, and I’d count on Getzlaf and his RH shot more so than Big Joe. That being said, with Getzlaf’s injury I might have made some drastic moves.
Admittedly, this speed at C thing is why I am a huge Toews booster, and think he should actually be the #2 centre (or #3, I suppose) on this team. Crosby, Toews, and Getzlaf down the middle. Richards as the checking centre. Heatley and NAsh with Getzlaf, Stamkos and St. Louis with Crosby, Iginla and Marleau with Toews. Burrows, Doan, Sharp fill out the roster. I like mixing in guys who haven’t been only top liners their whole career with the high end talent.
Alternative lines: Burrows – Crosby – Iginla and Stamkos – Toews – St. Louis. I’d also consider Jordal Staal for some extra size on the bottom line at C (he’s used to a support role, too), drop Marleau and move Richards to the wing. Sharp can get some shifts with Toews on occasion, but be used as a PKer.
Speedier team, more defined roles, and it subs the second best Canadian point getter (Thornton) for the fourth and fifth, and second best goal scorer (Stamkos, St. Louis).
Oh yeah, and Green is definitely in. I actually like the D a lot, but I guess I’d take out Boyle based on perfromance since he’s a rightie. I think you’ll need a guy like Seabrook at some point and he should be playing more. In a perfect world, you’d take out Pronger or Niedermeyer.
You can’t leave your 3 best PP performers at home (Green, Stamkos, St. Louis).
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
Thornton is a definite pressure cooker dud, the ultimate no show when it matters most. Marleau on the contrary, does put up numbers on a team with a bad playoff rap.
Green, I’m not yet wholly sold on just because of PP prowess. Not sure the whole game is where it needs to be yet.
Burrows and Stamkos, just because of their youth, would have made my list. On a short tourney 60 games into a long season, it makes more sense to be younger as a team.
Sharp, I want to say yes to, but I’ll admit I’m just not quite familiar enough with him.
On D, I thought of Kris Letang over Boyle.
But the point of Green is to have him not be in your top 4, but on the PP unit. He plays 25+ minutes a night for the league’s top team, so I don’t see a problem in giving him a small role (even as the 7th D). He has 7 PP goals this year, which is significant. This is two Team Canada’s I felt he was unjustly snubbed for now… I felt the same way back in 2005 with the World Junior team. Not that they needed his help, though, it was just a personal gripe.
Speed is huge for me up front. That’s why I’d see if I could keep Marleau and dump a guy like Perry.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
Biggest problem for me
has been the double standard in regards to the goaltending.
Plenty of veterans were left of the team for youth, a changing of the guard, but Brodeur was handed the starting job without earning it. Yes, he continues to put up strong stats, but so did Clemmensen in the same role.
What has Brodeur done since 2003?
2004 – outplayed by Robert Esche in a 1st round loss
2006 – outplayed by Cam Ward in a 2nd round loss
2008 – outplayed by Henrik Lundqvist in a 1st round loss
2009 – outplayed by Cam Ward in a 1st round loss
He has won two post season series since 2003 while playing on a team that has been the higher seed in 5 of the 7 series. He is 1-1 against the Swiss in the Olympics even though his team outshot the Swiss 80+ to 40. How many games in his 3 Olympics has Canada been outshot?
Why was he handed the starting gig? Cam Ward has a Conn Smythe and has beaten him head-to-head twice. He has won six of the last 7 playoff series he has played. Fleury has won 7 of his last 8. Luongo is unproven and has just as many playoff series victories in the last 4 seasons.
What it shows me is that the management staff overvalues goaltending statistics and reputation more than skater stats and rep. If they treated Green and Stamkos the same way they treated Brodeur’s stats then they would be on this team. How Ward didn’t make the team is beyond me.
My one and only dig with Brodeau is that he’s sheltered on a team that plays to suit his strengths. On a wide open Team Canada, he’s assured to be left to his own devices too often. My thinking is to put a goalie in there who is used to playing behind a freewheeling team and that guy would be Fleury, whose time has come. Luongo for me, still has accomplished very little.
Well, you got to give Luongo a chance to prove he can at some point. He has a couple of World Cup victories from ‘04 in relief of Brodeur and he’s only now on a real contender in the playoffs, on which he hasn’t had a lot of opportunity to take them deep.
Ward should have definitely been in the mix.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
I disagree on Fleury
Fleury would not have a Stanley Cup ring if he was playing for the Canucks and Luongo probably would if he played for the Penguins. Even in winning the Stanley Cup his SV% was mediocre and goal support through the roof.
Brodeur plays an archaic style of goaltending. Poke checks, kick saves, double pad stacks are an inefficient way to play goal. His movements leave all types of holes for pucks, pucks that would hit Miller, Luongo, Ward, Fleury and Hiller in the pads. When you play the way Brodeur does, your reflexes become your game and age robs you off your reflexes (see Cujo).
Marty is there on REP and inflated team stats.
Based on their last two seasons I would have gone
1. Luongo
2. Ward
3. Fleury
With Ward being my number one should Luongo falter. IMO
Not sure I get the outplayed by the opposing goalie angle, because the teams in front of them have most of the say.
That said, Brodeur outplayed, if you will, J.S. Giguere, the eventual Conn Smythe winner, in 2003.
Ward, who I like much, has had an injury this season, while playing on the league’s third worst team. I can’t fathom how he would even begin to be evaluated fairly in terms of what team Canada needs. If he’s judged based on rep alone, then that’s the same measuring stick used for Brodeur I guess.
Go take a look at the amount of shots Brodeur faced in regards to his opposition over the last decade. When you enter as a higher seed, have home ice advantage and face 30 fewer shots over a series and your statistics are inferior, it isn’t a huge leap to say he was outplayed.
But you know yourself that the quantity of shots is often decieving, and no measure of the quality of the shots themselves.
Until a team shooting percentage stat for entire seasons is dredged up to sort that teams who shoot less score more than those who fire away with reckless abandon, I can’t say that one measure is more acurate than another. As an extreme, average goalies have registered 45 save shutouts…legends like Dryden has games like December 31, 1975.
No matter how it is sliced, Brodeur on his particular team, in their given style of play, has done what has needed to be done to win.
How that all translates to his play with different editions of Team Canada’s is a wide open variable.
How can you go with Ward ahead of Fleury based on the last three season.
The Luongo “what if” with the Penguins makes no argument at all. It’s like saying if Palmateer would’ve been a Hab, he’d be Ken Dryden. That’s just empty speculation. My point is that Fleury, being on the team he is on, is hence suited for what Team Canada would need of him. He’s got all the accolades Luongo has and then some.
So far as winning medals on Canadian teams go, I put a lot less stock in what a goalie has accomplished in the past on super stocked teams. It’s more relevant to me what Fleury did with the Pens over the last two season that what Luongo did in whatever role and circumstance in ’04.
So I guess Tom Barrasso was better than Patrick Roy and Ed Belfour in 1991 and 1992?
I don’t judge goaltenders on stats. I judge them on technique, quality of shots, goal support etc. Statistics lead you to poor conclusions (ie Tim Thomas, Roman Cechmanek, etc).
Feel free to believe that Fleury is better than Luongo, he isn’t.
Chris, I quote you from above…
Go take a look at the amount of shots Brodeur faced in regards to his opposition over the last decade. When you enter as a higher seed, have home ice advantage and face 30 fewer shots over a series and your statistics are inferior, it isn’t a huge leap to say he was outplayed.
I tend to look at goalies in a similar way, in the context of the team they play for over an extended period of success or failure. I don’t get too excited over the one year wonders a la Penney, Raycroft, Dafoe et al. One statistical season can be an aberration where a career of success tells the true story.
In pure terms of technique and style, Osgood and Fuhr drove me nuts, but it can’t be argued that they didn’t serve their paticular teams well over the long haul.
I think that for every rule in goaltending, there just might as well be an execption. It’s an instinctive position. Goalies that play a mess of a game can confound as well as those based and bred in a hermitic style. Case in point – Dominic Hasek!
Calm down
Canada, you have a great team and the tournament is not over. I tried to say this in another blog (not sure I got my point across) , in my opinion, Canada gains less in winning than they lose in not winning. If Canada were not to win gold, the selections of players, coaching decisions etc are scrutinized to the deepest detail (as the posts above attest), If Canada wins gold, of course there will be joy, but look at the talent base they can choose from – I would imagine a win would be more of a relief, a reinforcement of the system and less pure joy. Anyhow, I hope you could get what I am trying to say.
As for the summer olympics, I often ask how the NBA managed to get a sport invented as a winter exercise (and played professionally and at each level of schools in the winter) as a summer olympic sport. No schedule nightmares with he NBA, no cramming a season around a 2 week break and in theory, time enough to practice and create team chemistry (can’t be certain they succeed there) prior to the games.
But, where would the winter olympics be without hockey? It is the signature event of the games. What other competition would draw the market share that the Can-US game created already (not even in the medal round)? Does the NHL have that kind of pull with the Olympic committee? Not to mention that the summer games are pretty full and us old timers are used to hockey being in the winter olympics – can’t touch tradition!!
What other competition would draw the market share that the Can-US game created already (not even in the medal round)?
How about they replace the hockey pros at the winter games with the junior teams from the WJC? Would you say win / win?
The NHL may or may not have that kind of pull with the IOC, but a dozen teams in the states bleeding money right now are doubtful to ratify the next CBA if it includes winter Olympics.
As far as traditions go, the Summit series, the Canada Cups and the one World Cup of hockey were all in late summer and fall.
What you said about the entire nation flipping out over one loss is entirely accurate. Winning would be relief. Being that the juniors lost to the U.S., if the Canadian women and mens team were to be shut out of gold medals we’d have 4 years of “What’s Ailling Canadian Hockey?” articles.
We exaggerate because it threatens one claim to superiority Canada gets every tournament. Some people cannot wrap their brains around the notion that hockey can continue to be “Canada’s Game” while other countries are equally proficient in the sport. The more we beat the drum about owning the game, the harder it will be on occassions when we lose.
No worries David, the point comes across loud and clear. It should be echoed!
RE Calm down
Robert,
I like the idea of WJC, because it resembles the national squads of the late 80s and early 90s. Another idea I thought of after psoting was to move the hockey to summer months during the winter olympic year and reserve the medals for the tournament. The host city would get a second shot at filling it’s venue, the teams could truly practice as a team and the best the NHL (and KHL to a certin degree) has to offer would be on display in the Olympic spotlight. Since the summer olympics are 2 years away, no threat of cutting into their revenue.
As far as the notion of Canada’s sport goes, I have grown up here in the States watching kids from Taiwan whip our butts in the Little League World Series. We can’t win at Baseball at the WBC, can’t remember ever winning at the Olympics (before the political idiots kicked baseball out as if it’s not played all over the world) and other events. But I am confident that a team of American players from the highest level could compete and win a baseball championship. Canada and hockey are the same way. Great players, good coaching and the important ability to learn from other programs and adjust. Baseball is better from having players from all over Latin America, the Far East etc and hockey is way better for having players from all over Europe. But, the sport is Canada’s and everyone should be proud of how hard everyone competes to make the game better.
Thanks David, the story of the Taiwanese kids in baseball really puts a perspective on things.
In hockey terms, it just goes to show that while the sport might be Canada’s game in heritage, it does not own it, and is far from the only country to have mastered it. United States hockey is catching up at a rapid pace. At the last WJC, it took me a whole minute to get over Canada losing to the U.S. kids. A win such as that one, was a win for the betterment of hockey in North America. The bottom line is that it prospers the development of additional players into the hockey programs all over the States. One day, perhaps not that far off, the numbers rising from the States will see to it that the NHL standard is raised and the talent pool that goes towards filling out 30 hockey clubs is much more vaste and deep.

by 

















