True - but that's the articificial decisions of the media. When people were given the free choice, they picked curling over hockey. That can't be good for hockey. Certainly it doesn't hurt. For hockey, any positive publicity is extremely helpful. I'm just saying they have a long way to go when people were picking curling over them.
The best Russians played but there were a few questionable decisions like selecting Afinogenov over Kovalev. They picked Afinogenov because he played with Kovalchuk most of this season and put up points for an improved offense in Atlanta (no defense though) while Kovalev is on the downturn of his career. I still would have found room for Kovalev. He's a much better player than Afinogenov. The Russian braintrust also decided to make the 3rd and 4th liners, and part of the defense, KHLers even though those players are used to playing on bigger rinks, where there is a drastically different style of play. Some think those Russian decision-makers wanted to prove the quality of the ever-growing KHL to the rest of the world. The Russian coaches also seemed to get thoroughly out-coached by the Canadian coaches. Like the KHL players, they are used to the larger ice surface, which drastically changes coaching tactics and strategy. The Canadian coaches were able to put together a simple and effective gameplan and got the players to all buy in (credit the players for putting their egos aside and buying in, as well). Most of the Russians were playing selfish, one-on-one hockey and there seemed to be no cohesion between the players, as if there wasn't any real gameplan, or just a crappy one. It was as if the coaches had no idea how the Canadians were going to play and were caught off guard. They made no in-game adjustments, not even factoring in how they waited too long to pull Nabokov. The forwards continued to get shut down in the neutral zone and at the opposing blueline trying to make fancy plays to get into the offensive zone. Despite seeing that strategy fail repeatedly, it didn't seem like the coaches encouraged them to dump pucks in and try to establish a forecheck like the Canadians were so effectively doing to the Russians at the other end. The Russian forwards had no defensive awareness/responsiblity, other than Datsyuk and a couple of others. In addition to not playing any defense, the forwards weren't coming back or moving to give their defensemen better passing targets. That led to numerous giveaways and odd-man rushes the other way for the Canadians. Regardless, after the top 2 lines and the goalies, the Russians don't have the quality of depth of the Canadians. No matter who the Russians selected, they wouldn't have been as good of a team in terms of top-to-bottom talent. The Swedes were the next most talented team in this tournament, in my opinion, by a wide margin over Russia or even Team USA. Looking back, Russia would have certainly fared better using less KHL players and picking a coach, or coaches, with more experience with the smaller ice surface. I believe the Canadians and Americans were the only two teams that were made up entirely of players used to playing in NHL-sized rinks. Not surprisingly, they ended up in the finals and looked more in sync and prepared for the more physical style of play. If anybody watched Sweden, they looked great, too, and outplayed every opponent they faced. In a single-elimination format, though, anything can happen and they ended up getting knocked out despite completely carrying the play against Slovakia and every other team they faced. If this tournament was played on international-sized rinks, the outcome probably would have been very different for several teams.
The media often makes their "artificial decisions" on the biggest sporting news of the day... and the ones that the public will most likely respond to. I think you're being over-zealous in thinking the public picked curling over hockey. More people may have watched curling due to the times it was on (which was almost always). The public was shown curling in the daytime, primetime, late night, and weekends (not really a "free choice") Hockey was only shown live, often in either the afternoon slot or late-night slot (given that they were west coast games). Second, there were far more frequent curling events than there were hockey games. Third, it wasn't like hockey and curling were going head to head, playing at the same time, and people were choosing one over the other. If that was the case, NBC would have saved the finals for curling for today's prime sunday matchup... on tape delay if they had to... rather then show the hockey game. Which, btw, probably got more viewers than all of curling combined... so you definitely can't say more people watched curling than hockey.
The strategic aspect is pretty interesting considering how much of the game appears helter skelter to the casual fan. I'm surprised with the Olympics being an international event that NHL-size rinks were used over international ones. Nice read.
Just wanted to add that Team Russia's goalie has a consistent history of choking away clutch games (Nabokov and San Jose are basically the Mavpricks of the NHL). Also, Team Russia's defensemen were flat-out terrible. And Team Canada seemed to put in a consistent effort to head-hunt the top guys like Ovechkin...Canadian players were laying out huge hits all over the place. Made it very uncomfortable for the skill guys out there. Even Ovie, who usually doesn't mind getting into scraps was a little uncomfortable with 6'4-6'5 behemoths like Rick Nash and Shea Weber trying to basically kill him.
That's because Curling is actually a good TV sport. I mean you can kind of actually see what's going on, which goes a LONG way. Hockey meanwhile presents horribly on TV. I've never seen a sport that has such a great discrepancy with regard to in person and broadcast as hockey. I go to a few NY Rangers games a year. Let me tell you they are awesome. The crowd is jacked, even though the rangers are kind of fair to middling, and the sport itself is really fun to watch. Contrast that with trying to watch the Rangers on TV - I usually last about five minutes before I change the channel. Way back when FOX put the artificial graphic around the puck to enhance TV viewing, they were much maligned and roundly scorned, but you know what? At least they tried, which is more than I can say for anybody else.
I hear you. The fact that they play on skates and ice makes the game chaotic at times and brings a huge element luck to the sport in comparison to other major sports. At the same time, there is an enormous amount of strategy involved, much of which I don't even know despite watching hockey for nearly 30 years. I think a lot of Americans are still missing out on a phenomenal sport. I get more tense and excited watching hockey than all other sports combined. The fast pace of the game is incredible and it's a physical and violent sport, all characteristics that should appeal to the American audience. There is no out of bounds in hockey so players are getting plastered into the boards throughout the game. You can punch a guy's teeth out and split his head open and be back on the ice the next period after serving your penalties. :grin: There is a huge element of skill and intelligence involved, as well. It's not all just brute force, even on the smaller NHL rinks. The international style of play is more based on speed and skill, comparatively. I love watching that brand of hockey, too. The NHL is much more physical in addition to the speed and skill.
This isn't true. Both curling and hockey were being shown live on CNBC and MSNBC during the day - during primetime, neither was on because you had primary NBC coverage. That's certainly true - there were more curling events, but curling is also done 4 games at a time, so not all of them were shown. In fact, the majority weren't shown. I'm not positive, but I believe they did actually go head to head at times. I didn't say more people saw curling than hockey - I said they did so on the cable coverage. Curling was the most viewed of the cable events. The execs expected hockey to be, and I doubt curling coverage would have translated to NBC well. But more people watched the curling, for example, than the similarly timed afternoon first Canada-USA hockey game. I'm not making value judgments on the sports or suggesting that curling has more fans than hockey. I'm just saying that people weren't flocking to watch hockey, which doesn't really bode well for them moving to ESPN or getting away from Versus and the like anytime soon. The Olympics helps the sport - just not nearly enough to fix the mess they are in.
I watched a lot of Olympic coverage the past two weeks. I think I saw at least some of every sport. I think I enjoyed the curling over everything else. I enjoyed some of the Hockey, especially the game today, but it was the curling that I kept waiting for every day. I still can't believe the Canadian women lost that last match.
Nothing intimidates Ovechkin. :grin: He got discouraged because of the scoreboard. Seriously. I watch every game this guy plays. You can't intimidate him, physically. When he gets off his game, it's something mental. The guy is the most physically fearless player I've seen in decades, particularly for a skilled forward. He has no respect for his body or anybody else's. But, yes, the Canadians came out much stronger physically in that game than I had seen in any of their previous games. Good decision by the coaches and good follow through by the players. I think they knew the Russians would be rusty from having multiple days off and knew they would probably lose the energy battle if it was close in the 3rd period. They wanted to jump on the Russians early and boy, did they do just that. They also killed the Russian defense on the forecheck, as you alluded to. But that was also on the forwards for their lazy and, at times, non-existent backchecking and defensive awareness. It was also on the coaches for not preparing them before or during the game. Nabokov has come up short in big games several times. I know his history well. I lived in San Jose for over a year. Having said that, it was target practice for the Canadians early and often. There were breakdowns and giveaways all over the place in front of him. I made the statement in a separate hockey forum that two Nabokovs would have had trouble keeping the puck out of the net. Bryzgalov or Varlamov would have suffered a similar fate. Brodeur or Luongo would have been picked apart, too, with the lack of team defense and the unmatched intensity. If the Russians want to take anything positive out of that humiliating beat down, it would be that the Canadian coaches and players were highly motivated to bring their A+ games and it showed from the time the puck dropped until the game was well out of reach.
And the rest of the world views America as the bully that shoves the fat kid in the locker. I'd rather be the lovable fat kid...
I have been getting into hockey now that I live in Detroit. The Wings will sneak in the playoffs and at least make it back to the Stanley Cup Finals again.
That was during the pre-Shuster era. Shuster changed everything with his epic performance in Vancouver. He will forever be a hero for inspiring the rest of the American athletes not to choke over and over and over and over again. Unlike Nick Anderson and his quadruple choke job, Shuster was able to propel his fellow olympians on to bigger and better things - namely, a record-breaking number of Winter Olympic medals. For that, he will forever be a hero. All hail Shuster! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Spoiler Sigh...
I totally agreed about watching hockey on TV vs watching it in person at the arena. Totally awesome experience and the atmosphere is like a rock concerts. Maybe 3D tv will help get more people interested in watching hockey.
well, this is the most hockey I ever seen in my life. classic game, this final, nice way to end the Olympics. But even I watched some hockey these 2 weeks, Im not going to watch the NHL. I didnt understand curling either but seems interesting. well until the next time...
