| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 22:46:48
I've ranted about this a lot on other threads, and I've never received a decent response that explains why it is that people feel the need to destroy the superstar hockey player.
I'm older - been around since the days of Bobby Orr, and it never ends...
Wayne Gretzky is an opportunist, he never blocks shots, he needed Semenko because he was a wimp who only succeeded because of the other great players on his team.
Mario Lemieux had an attitude, he was lazy and not as good as Gretzky, and certainly not a team guy like Messier.
Messier is on drugs. He might be gay (yes, I heard that one - like it matters anyway). He and Anderson do coke all the time.
Crosby is a whiner. He only won the scoring championship last year because he plays with better players than anyone else (Maxime Talbot, you have been noted).
I'm a Canadian hockey fan, and each one of these guys has been my favourite player at one time or another, and every time, I've had to endure the haters who always take what's wrong with a player (however inconsequential or untruthful it may be) and make that the issue that they focus on.
Sidney Crosby is not a whiner. Yes, he complained a few times during his rookie season, and it made the highlight reels and radio talkshows (you'd be upset too, did any of you haters see what he went through, like broken teeth from a high stick from Hatcher with no call made, lazy teammates, etc.??). But as a guy who has hardly missed a game the Kid has played in the NHL, literally, this so-called "whininess" has amounted to about three minutes of his 4000 minute career, to date. But the media loves the hate angle, so that's what people see. Then, that becomes their reality, and they don't flinch when it comes to questioning it. It just become the truth.
The rest of Sidney's minutes have been played with more heart, passion, love of the game and dedication than any 20-year-old has even shown me in hockey, and believe me, I've watched my share of games and players over the years (and your share, too).
Why do we do it, especially in Canada? Why do we pick out a negative and run with it...and then attempt to vilify these great players, who we should be so proud of?
No - check that...why do some of YOU do it? With little or no actual knowledge, you come onto message boards or whatever and start going off on stuff with no real validity other than highlight reel snippets and Don Cherry wannabe sportscasters.
I'd like to know what makes you people tick, and why you choose to hate great players? John Tavares, take note, because no matter what you do or who you are as a person, these people will rip you to shreds, too, when your time comes.
Yes, I'm frustrated by this. Thanks for noticing.  |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| andyhack |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 06:22:29
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
Andyhack, I agree with most of what you said. Many good points.
Maybe the one I don't, though, is the notion that a superstar overshadows a regualr great player. I'd argue that many a regular player have been delivered superstar status on the backs of their megastar linemate/teammate.
For example, Charlie Simmer is one guy I think of from my youth as a big goal scorer. He was a part of the triple crown line with Marcel Dionne and Dave Taylor.
Charlie Simmer on his own is probably an average or maybe even below average player, but I remember that for a couple of years, a lot of us kids might say, "I'm Charlie Simmer" while playing a game of street hockey and whatnot. Playing with Marcel Dionne made his career, really.
I think it probably works both ways.
Flyguy - No question that superduperstars help players around them and have certainly helped the stats of certain players. I won't argue that, but I'm not sure that fact negates my point much. In fact, in some ways, I feel it enhances it because, with Simmer for example, it likely is only because he played with Dionne that fans can make the assessment, as you did, that maybe he was "below average". After Dionne, Simmer went to Boston in the mid 80s, and without any major superstar, up front anyway, he had these seasons,
63 GP 33G 30A 63P
55 GP 36G 24A 60P
Basically, if he plays full seasons then he's up in the 40 goal bracket somewhere. Maybe my standards are lower than yours, but even factoring the obvious benefit to his whole career which came from the experience of playing with Dionne in L.A., I'd say those numbers prove that he was a pretty good player in his own right.
So, it's a bit of a side point to the main thing I was getting at in the earlier post, but I think its sort of too bad for the Charlie Simmers and the Bernie Nicholls of the world, that they have to live with this sort of "they were made by the superstar" thing. I don't lose sleep over it mind you! (by the way, I discussed Bernie once in another thread - a look at his numbers shows that he had a very solid career going before Gretzky - in some ways, I think he would have been more highly regarded historically WITHOUT Gretzky, as the result of his amazing numbers with Gretzky is that a lot of people just say, "Gretzky made him". That's not true).
Anyway, Dionne is a little different from what I was getting at with "superduperstar" comment actually. In fact, he's one of the "victims" of the superduperstar thing I was trying to get at. He and Trottier, to some extent Lafleur, and guys like Mikita, Ratelle and so on. My feeling is that their accomplishments are looked at in somewhat of a lesser way (or just not looked at - "overshadowed" I guess) because of the out of this world numbers put up by Gretzky and Lemieux. It maybe particularly bugs me with Trottier because he brought so much more to the table than what can be expressed by stats. I'd like to see some of the room taken for Gretzky and Lemieux at the HHOF devoted to Trottier (I wasn't even a Trottier fan by the way - destroyed one of his hockey cards when I was a kid by writing "choke" on the top of it - it's his friggn Rookie card too! ).
And the problem also trickles down to lower category guys, like Simmer. What we used to call "good" (scoring thirty goals) or very good (scoring forty goals) now we call "average". There are lots of factors to why this is, and I'm not putting it all on the legacies of Gretzky and Lemieux, but I do think their legacies are tied to it.
But that's not tearing down a superduperstar. It's just commenting on what may be an unavoidable consequence of a superduperstar's legacy. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 22:20:03
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I think the thing that Fly originally talked about were the guys out there that would just bash the crap out of a player without any substance to it and/or not look at a players positives as he does this. Of course the would be difference of opinions. It's the ability of a person to appreciate the other opinion and take it into consideration. You don't have to agree, but take it into consideration.
I find those people out there that don't take other opinions into consideration very ignorant, and that, I believe, is the frustrating thing to Fly. And so many of us as well.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
Yep. Well said. It's comments like the one made on the "07/08 Points Race" poll, where one person said, "It better not be Crosby". Okay, but elaborate. Don't just make a statement like that after I spent six paragraphs outlining why he will win it without some kind of explanation. I'd rather discuss it, than be condescended to.
Like this - Beans I totally get what you are saying about Iginla and Lecavalier and how they have carried teams on their backs to victory, as they both have, both on their club teams and internationally. I just think Crosby's unique talents and drive to be the best will leave us someday saying this was a laughable argument (which is not to say the talents of those two are laughable - because they are both in my top five favourite current players. Their combination of grit and talent is unmatched by anyone in the NHL, I'll give you that. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 15:01:10
I think the thing that Fly originally talked about were the guys out there that would just bash the crap out of a player without any substance to it and/or not look at a players positives as he does this. Of course the would be difference of opinions. It's the ability of a person to appreciate the other opinion and take it into consideration. You don't have to agree, but take it into consideration.
I find those people out there that don't take other opinions into consideration very ignorant, and that, I believe, is the frustrating thing to Fly. And so many of us as well.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| SuperSakic |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 11:03:53
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I really agree with Andy's comments about the danger in both blindly hating and player and blindly loving them. I would like to consider myself the middle guy, partially. I'm the guy that said Gretzky did benefit from Semenko, the wasn't as good as others on defense, and he had the benefit of playing with great player, and I can see you point that Orr "could" be the best ever. I don't agree, but I can see your point. However, it's the guy out there that didn't see Gretzky's elusiveness as part of the reason he didn't get hit, or the fact that he got paid to score not to defend, or that those players also had a huge benefit from playing with him, those are the guys I just can't appreciate.
That's the part that is missing a lot today. It's the appreciation of someone's opinion. Personally, I think Crosby is a top 5 in the league player. Not the best in the league. That would go to either Iginla or Lecavalier in my books. Reason being, Crosby doesn't play on the penalty kill nor has he shown me that killer instict of taking his team on his back and winning game on his own. I do believe that one day he will be the best, but it's not today.
Now, can you appreciate that opinion and see the validity in the statements??? You can still disagree, but that doesn't mean my statement is wrong and I'm a moron, and why I can't I see the truth, and he's 20 and he's a Hart winner, blah blah blah.
Can you say, "Hey, I hear ya, but I don't agree." That is true critique of a player, not bashing or destroying.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
And isn't that what all these discussions are about anyway? So that we can discuss our differences of opinion? I mean, how would this board be if everyone just agreed on everything? Thems would be very boring discussions indeed!
ps. I'm with you on the Iginla and Lecavalier choices. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 08:23:15
I really agree with Andy's comments about the danger in both blindly hating and player and blindly loving them. I would like to consider myself the middle guy, partially. I'm the guy that said Gretzky did benefit from Semenko, the wasn't as good as others on defense, and he had the benefit of playing with great player, and I can see you point that Orr "could" be the best ever. I don't agree, but I can see your point. However, it's the guy out there that didn't see Gretzky's elusiveness as part of the reason he didn't get hit, or the fact that he got paid to score not to defend, or that those players also had a huge benefit from playing with him, those are the guys I just can't appreciate.
That's the part that is missing a lot today. It's the appreciation of someone's opinion. Personally, I think Crosby is a top 5 in the league player. Not the best in the league. That would go to either Iginla or Lecavalier in my books. Reason being, Crosby doesn't play on the penalty kill nor has he shown me that killer instict of taking his team on his back and winning game on his own. I do believe that one day he will be the best, but it's not today.
Now, can you appreciate that opinion and see the validity in the statements??? You can still disagree, but that doesn't mean my statement is wrong and I'm a moron, and why I can't I see the truth, and he's 20 and he's a Hart winner, blah blah blah.
Can you say, "Hey, I hear ya, but I don't agree." That is true critique of a player, not bashing or destroying.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 22:55:46
Andyhack, I agree with most of what you said. Many good points.
Maybe the one I don't, though, is the notion that a superstar overshadows a regualr great player. I'd argue that many a regular player have been delivered superstar status on the backs of their megastar linemate/teammate.
For example, Charlie Simmer is one guy I think of from my youth as a big goal scorer. He was a part of the triple crown line with Marcel Dionne and Dave Taylor.
Charlie Simmer on his own is probably an average or maybe even below average player, but I remember that for a couple of years, a lot of us kids might say, "I'm Charlie Simmer" while playing a game of street hockey and whatnot. Playing with Marcel Dionne made his career, really.
I think it probably works both ways.
++++++
Hey PainTrain, thanks for the nice words about Nick. He is not a flashy player by any stretch, but he is about as steady as they get on the blueline. He rarely makes a glaring mistake, and his passing skills are vastly underrated. He plays zero powerplay, which is a bit odd to me, because since he was 4, he's always been an offensive player, but you know how Lemaire likes his defencemen to be stay at home...he's a UFA at the end of the year, and I would not be surprised if he gets some offers that will surprise people. I think a lot of hockey people see that he's a guy that has been steadily improving every year defensively, and has offensive upside that has been untapped as of yet. He's still only 25 years old, and it's like he's been in the NHL forever (he just played his 400th game a few nights ago). |
| andyhack |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 21:23:48
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
I've ranted about this a lot on other threads, and I've never received a decent response that explains why it is that people feel the need to destroy the superstar hockey player.
I'd like to know what makes you people tick, and why you choose to hate great players? John Tavares, take note, because no matter what you do or who you are as a person, these people will rip you to shreds, too, when your time comes.
I can understand your frustration with the blind hatred some people have towards superstars. A lot of it, as mentioned by others, is likely just a basic weakness related to very petty things inside the defective specimen known as the "human being".
But I think Guest 8228 made a very good point about acknowledging that even superstars have flaws. There is, in my opinion, a very useful and, in fact, positive aspect to not just pointing out the "flaws" of superstars, but simply trying to analyze the full picture of the game of a "superstar". Blind hatred of a superstar may be a bad thing, yes, but blind passion for a superstar ain't such a good thing either in my book. Discussing the various aspects, good and bad, about a superstar's game, helps bring balance to a conversation about the superstar I believe.
Main point - It's important to distinguish between the "Analyzing Thing" and the "Hating Thing".
If a guy says to me, "Wayne Gretzky was a sissy, sucked defensively, always cherry-picked and really was not that great", I'd say the guy probably just blindly hates Gretzky.
But if the guy next to him says, "Well, Gretzky benefited from Semenko and other guys who protected him, cherry picked a lot but also did amazing things offensively, wasn't very good defensively but that wasn't his job, and may not necessarily be the greatest player ever", I'd say that guy comes nowhere near hating Gretzky.
And, I gotta tell you, there WILL be a third guy, and you know what he is going to say! It's gonna go something like this, "What the ffffff are you talking about. Don't even think about it. Wayne Gretzky was the greatest player ever and if you don't think so, you need major therapy!". And that third guy's presence just highlights even more the reason why it's important to have the second guy there, in my opinion.
There are a number of other angles to this too, Flyguy. It's a very interesting topic. One is that, as much as you may get sick of people knocking superstars, there are others out there, like me, who almost wish that the superstars weren't that "super" because they tend to dwarf the accomplishments of otherwise very respectable players - guys who kind of get lost in the shuffle of history due to the extraordinary attention paid to the superstars. So when I see Mario's Penguins playing Bernie Federko's Blues in the 80s maybe I'll cheer for Bernie and his team just cause I want to see the little guy achieve more than the Giant. Doesn't mean I "hate" the Giant though. Just don't cheer for him.
And there are guys, again like me, who have been fans of teams forever who have not won Cups the way Wayne, Mark, Mario, Guy and so on have. So when I see ANYONE who hasn't won a Cup yet up against a team led by one of the Giants, I want to see that guy win more than the Giant. Again, doesn't mean I "hate" the Giant. Just don't cheer for him.
So, no hatred against Gretzky, no hatred against Mario, and no hatred against Sid, but, I absolutely do NOT want to see any of them ever win anything ever again!!! In Sid's case, it's just cause of the city he happens to play in (they have won enough!) - I'd rather see your buddy on the Minnesota Wild win! - or the Blues.
Anyway, this last one is obviously something that fans of successful teams of the last thirty years (Montreal/Edmonton/Pittsburgh...) can't relate to. My guess is that the percentage of guys who either "hated" or simply didn't cheer for Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier and so on was particularly high in cities like Boston and Toronto which have not seen the "success" which these superstars represent in far far far too long!
|
| PainTrain |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 19:43:07
That's cool Fly! I truly respect Nick Shultz one of the more under rated players in the league. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 19:37:50
quote:
Originally posted by PainTrain
Fly who is your friend on the Wild?
Nick Schultz. I've known him and his family all my life. My wife also works with his mom. He's a great guy, and his family are tremendous people. If I had to name five people in the world that deserve success and happiness, Nick is one of them. |
| hkalirah |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 18:42:46
Haha, guess I know a thing or two afterall :). all joking aside. Excellent topic.
Wings are used to fly, Leaves only fall. |
| PainTrain |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 18:38:10
Fly who is your friend on the Wild? |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 17:14:46
A few things to reply to...(thanks for the great comments)....
- Threads that go off in a different direction don't bother me. We don't live in bubbles, and neither should our conversations. If a thread evolves, so what? If this one does, that's fine.
- I do rip into Gonchar (my least favorite player) and most other Russians. Fair enough, and point taken. But they really DO suck, so it's different.
- I have thick skin, I just want to know where people's heads are at when they only focus on the negative, and in many cases, negatives that are only partially true and perhaps completely untrue.
I'm fair about Crosby - I said he did whine in his rookie year. At the time, I wanted him to stop complaining and focus on the game (but I loved the fact he cared, and saw it as a positive, really).
- hkalirah's point about team loyalty struck me...I have no real team allegiance, so I guess that makes complete sense. I live in Saskatchewan, so I'm not super close to any NHL city. I am partial to the Oilers (have been since I was a kid), but in all my years, I've had many favourite teams. Come to think of it, none of them has had anything to do with the actual city or geography. I always chose them based on my favourite players at the time. Boston (Orr), Montreal (Dryden), Oilers (Gretzky), Detroit (Yzerman), Philadelphia (Lindros), Colorado (Sakic), Boston again (Thornton), Minnesota (a friend of mine plays for them), and most recently the Penguins (Crosby).
That was kind of a "uh-huh" moment for me, hkalirah. Thanks for pointing that out, because in truth, I never really considered that point of view. I just thought all Canadians should blindly love Canadian players like I do (because that's my experience based on where I live). I guess if a guy scores 6 points on the team you live and die with, that's gonna leave an impression, and not a happy one. |
| PainTrain |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 17:00:31
I think a big reason people bash the superstars is because they don't want to jump on the bandwagon. I respect Crosby a whole lot and what he's accomplished so far is absolutely fantastic but is he my favourite player? No. My favourite player is Joe Thornton, why? Because I like watching him play, he plays aggressive and good behind the net. I don't jump on the Bandwagons but you have to really look at the game before you bash anyone and you can't hate Crosby for whining 3 minutes in his career like Fly said. You have to respect the rite things. What Crosby's done is great and you should respect that. What Boulerice did is stupid and you should get mad at that.
What Willus said is also a very valid reason why people bash the superstars.
Eat,Sleep,Watch Hockey,Play Hockey
The Perfect Life! |
| admin |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 15:44:57
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
......The biggest problem I have is the Mods, and Admin do not keep the posts on topic. For example the “What’s happening with Teemu” topic turned into the Niedermayer debate. Mods, or Admin need to ask people politely to stay on topic, or start a new discussion on the topic they like to debate. I have seen Admin say this a few times in the past but not enough.....
noted....and try to stay on topic please |
| Guyle Fielder |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 14:17:08
We love to build them up...
tear them down...
and we really love it when they bounce back from that.
Agreed, human nature. Superstars get extra heat, but they get the extra glory too when things go well.
I have no problem with it. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 10:21:29
I don't know that it's any different for the Superstars. People critcize all players. You for instance don't like Gonchar or any other Russians and I've read you rip them pretty hard at times. Whether peoples criticisms are warranted I guess is the part you're probably having the issue with, no?
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 09:46:24
Ahhh!!!! It's just human nature! We do it with celebrities of all types. Movie stars, musicians, business tycoons, supermodels. It's all an attempt to bring these people down to our own level. It's the curse of celebrity, and most of these people have learned to accept it. Don't let it bother you. Chances are, you've done it yourself at one point.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs. |
| Guest8228 |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 09:12:03
quote:
Originally posted by hkalirah
...however you can’t really blame a person for staying loyal to his team.
Wings are used to fly, Leaves only fall.
Maybe you can blame a person for being loyal to a team when a discussion is about a player.
You (meaning a generic wings fan) hated Chelios before he came to your team. Now you love him. That’s a very insular mindset IMO.
There should be a difference in respecting a player's ability and liking the player.
I'm a little bit all over the place with this post, but the point is: loyalty to "your team" shouldn't mean anything in player discussions. If you (by "you", I mean anyone) can admit that the player in question helps his team win and does more good than harm, bashing him because he's not on your team is immature in most cases.
With all of that, there are some truths in life: People have flaws, therefore players have flaws. Even the greats have flaws. Does Crosby whine? Sure he does. Does he do it more than most? Probably not.
Accepting that YOUR guy has some flaws is part of this discussion. Accepting and respecting the ability of the greats is part of it too.
-Anonymous opinion |
| hkalirah |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 06:47:45
I think the reason why people hate on the greats is because they’re not a fan of that specific team.
The same people who hated on Grant Fuhr in Edmonton loved him when he came to Toronto. Right now, Leafs fans hate Crosby, mainly because of that 6 point game against them last year. But in the minds of Leafs fans, Mats Sundin is the greatest player in the NHL. Cujo was the talk of the town in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, but the day he left for Detroit, he was ostracized.
It’s not only Toronto fans, the same thing goes for fans in Montreal, with Patrick Roy. Pittsburgh did that to Jagr. There are so many examples.
Is it right? No it’s not right, talent is talent, however you can’t really blame a person for staying loyal to his team.
Wings are used to fly, Leaves only fall. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 06:01:42
You have to have thicker skin.
There are people that will come on this board, or any other board for a matter of fact, that will always have a negative comment about a player, or rule etc. These people have formed opinions that cannot be changed. If you post something, and they disagree, give it up, their opinion will not change, if you try to change it you will become frustrated…
The biggest problem I have is the Mods, and Admin do not keep the posts on topic.
For example the “What’s happening with Teemu” topic turned into the Niedermayer debate. Mods, or Admin need to ask people politely to stay on topic, or start a new discussion on the topic they like to debate. I have seen Admin say this a few times in the past but not enough.
So many topics become Orr, or Gretzky debates when the original topic had nothing to do with either, and sometimes the original topic was excellent but becomes muddled with posts that have nothing to do with it…
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
|
|
