|
Some Concerning Developments With Team Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
Is Team Canada Setting Itself Up For Failure?
Canada is in a strange position at this Olympics. They are so much the favorite that any moves they do or do not make elicit almost no response. Whether it’s leaving three of the best players in the NHL off their team or making extremely odd lineup decisions, the fact that they are coming off a Gold Medal in 2010 seems to make Yzerman and Babcock nearly infallible.
I can’t remember if it was like this in 2006 following the Gold in 2002 Salt Lake City, but I know that after the terrible 2006 Olympics, the build up to the 2010 Vancouver Games was nothing but second guessing and apprehension. This makes sense, and I do get it. Mike Babcock and Steve Yzerman have – by winning Gold – earned a measure of autonomy and trust. If they want to make whacky roster decisions, well, no one is going to say anything until it’s too late.
Well, no one but me.
Look, on one hand I realize that these guys are very prepared and that they are among the most knowledgeable hockey people on earth. I thought leaving Giroux off the team was a horrible move the first time they did it, but by the second time, I had to admit: These guys watch more hockey, study it more, have guys to bounce opinions off of, and have more access to scouts, statisticians, video and computers than I ever will. They have their jobs for a reason. And there’s a reason I will spend the Olympics on the couch.
That doesn’t, however, make them infallible and while I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on a single strange move, or even two, I do start to get worried when their appears to be a pattern of insanity and bad moves surrounding the team.
I am happy that they earned the right to do whatever they want, but ask Wayne Gretzky how that worked out for him. Wayne didn’t lose his job because he suddenly turned stupid; they took team Canada away from him because he lost. It’s not like Turin was his fault, but when you are such massive favorites, people don’t care about things like small sample size, the fact that these kind of small tournaments are subject to massive doses of luck and randomness or any other reasonable justification for losing: When Canada loses it’s a disaster. Now, 2/3 of the country can’t be bothered to vote and 1/6 of the Country is so poor they don’t know when they’ll eat next, but the losing at hockey is the kind of thing that really screws with the important stuff like Tim Horton’s making faux-nationalistic commercials so cheesy you just want to gouge your eyes out.
Now, just because I poke fun at how seriously we take this stuff, doesn’t mean I don’t care. I care deeply and on a level that my conscience brain knows is kind of silly and ridiculous. So, I will be one of those people in line with a pitchfork ready to run Babcock and Yzerman out of town (figuratively at least) when and if they lose.
Now, I am not saying that they will lose. It wouldn’t matter if they tried to lose, they would still be the tournament favorite by a large margin. The other teams just aren’t going to be skating John Tavares on the fourth line. That’s called an embarrassment of riches, and, when you combine that kind of depth with the fact that they won the most recent Gold Medal, it’s understandable that people are giving Babcock and Yzerman a wide margin for error.
But I think that the questionable decisions are starting to pile up, so let me play devil’s advocate.
Here is my list of things I don’t necessarily like about what’s going on so far:
1. Player Selection:
Kunitz, Carter and Sharp are all world class players. But I don’t think It’s controversial to suggest that Taylor Hall – who is having an absolutely fantastic year – Claude Giroux and Eric Staal are all better players. Cite whatever you stats you want to, but Patrick Sharp is an afterthought when teams defend against the Blackhawks. They focus their defense on Hossa, Kane and Toews. Sharp is not a bad player, but he is racking up points at the pace that he is because he gets to exploit secondary defensive players for a significant portion of his ice time. Not to take anything away from him, but Eric Staal is the primary focus of the best defenseman and defensive forwards every time he steps on the ice. To compare their stats is foolish.
I have no problem with stats – they are a great tool. But the rejection of someone like Staal over Sharpe is based only on stats. Watch the two play: there is no doubt who is better. Now look at the stats and it’s reversed: now Sharp is suddenly better. The inherent problem with stats in the NHL is that there are too many players on hockey teams playing in too many different situations, which makes too many variables and thus comparing team to team is virtually useless. The only way to use statistics to compare Staal and Sharpe is to put Staal on Chicago and see what happens.
As far as chemistry, defense or what “type” of players these are, I don’t buy it. These are all world class players. They can play with other world class players without skipping a beat. Do you think Crosby would suffer if he had to play with Hall and not Kunitz just because him and Kunitz have “chemistry”? I don’t and I think the notion is beyond ridiculous.
To conclude: Team Canada would be better with Hall, Giroux and Eric Staal than they are with Kunitz, Carter and Sharp.
2. Goalies.
Why is it so important that Luongo won the Gold in 2010? Anyone without selective memory syndrome should recall that many people considered Canada to have won despite Luongo and not because of him. I don't that is necessarily fair, but I also don't think he's in his prime anymore.
No doubt Luongo is one of the best goalies of the last decade. But where is the argument for starting him ahead of Price? Price is probably the single most talented goalie in the world. Put him in front the Blackhawks and I think he wins the Vezina for the next five years in a row. Again, stats just don’t tell the whole story. But, regardless, Luongo is on a team that has lost seven in a row and is in a total freefall. Find me one Vancouver fan who wouldn’t like Cory Schneider back right now!
It seems like a no-brainer. Just start Price and keep him in net unless he has a meltdown. Also, not to be a homer, but Mike Smith has been playing great for a month now. He’s probably also better than Luongo.
But from what I hear, Luongo will be the starter. At least in game one, which is against Norway, so what you hope to learn from that 12-0 slaughter I don’t know.
3. The Defense:
I am fine with the defense they chose. But from Bob McKenzie’s Tweets about the lines they are using I am very concerned because it seems they are going to use PK Subban as an extra defenseman.
Of all the things I don’t like about the team, this has to be the most egregious. PK Subban is the reigning Norris Trophy Winner and a guy who plays a solid game at both ends of the ice. He is the guy whose enthusiasm is contagious, and who is chippy, dirty, exciting, hard to play against and underrated defensively. Most importantly, he might be the best power play quarterback in the world. I am not saying for sure, but he might be. He's definitely the best Canada has.
Marc-Edouard Vlasic. Are you frigging kidding me? He’s a good player and I get you can’t take all offensive defenseman, but PK is just going to bring way, way more to the team. I think PK is better than every single player on the team’s defense except for Pietrangelo, who still doesn’t provide the game breaking abilities of PK.
To have PK and not use him is pure hubris. It’s like saying they could have brought Colton Orr and still won. I think it will end up being the worst decision they make.
4. The Line Combos:
According to McKenzie these are the current lines:
Kunitz-Crosby-Carter Sharp-Toews-Nash Marleau- Getzlaf- Perry and Benn-Tavares-Bergeron with Duchene and St.Louis as extras.
There are, to my eyes, several problems with these lines.
First of all, as already stated, I think they make way too much of a deal about chemistry. Crosby is not going to be noticeably better with Kunitz than he would be with Duchene. In fact I would argue he will be worse. Talent is talent. They should have Crosby with Tavares and Duchene. That’s a line worth getting excited about.
Duchene should not be a scratch. He’s too good. He’s a hundred times better than Kunitz. Also, if you move Tavares to Crosby’s wing, you can skate Bergeron as a centre. Why bring him if you’re going to play him on the fourth line as a winger? Just for PK?
If it was up to me – which it's clearly not – I would make the checking line Sharp-Bergeron-Carter and then I would put St.Louis with Toews and Nash while scratching Marleau, along with Kunitz.
I do really like the line of Perry-Getzlaf-Benn. I think that line is going to tear it up against the weaker lines of the other teams.
So, in conclusion, that’s what I think is wrong with Canada so far. I don’t want to be negative: I think they have a great team and likely will win the Gold. But, instead of waiting till it’s hindsight to complain, I thought I would point out a few potential problems. Keep in mind I respect Yzerman and his management group – they won the gold and they deserve to do what they want. But I think it’s good to remember that you could literally put anyone in charge and they’d still win the Gold, so it doesn’t make them infallible.
Thanks for reading.
Tweet: @Coyotes1234
Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»