PDA

View Full Version : Criticism about Defensive hockey. Whats the fuss?


puckbrain
June 2nd, 2003, 01:34 AM
From many media outlets like CBC, TSN.ca, and hockey fans have recently been critical of how NHL hockey has gotten to be very boring.

The reasons for boring hockey are utilization of the neutral zone trap, and defensive systems.

Many fans have voiced displeasure that Bettman is in denial that the game of hockey is suffering because defensive hockey is not very entertaining.

If you know NHL history, defensive hockey has always been part of NHL hockey history.

I think the reason why fans, and journalists have been critical about the state of the game is that these same people watched Gretzky's Oilers and Mario's Pens who play an offensive style that was never seen in the NHL before.

Here is an article I found in a Sports Illustrated article dated November 16, 1981. During the early 80's, hockey purists complained the NHL has gotten too offensive minded and defensive hockey was not be utilized by the younger players.

The puck doesn’t stop here
By Mike DelNegro
Sports Illustrated
November 16, 1981

They are pointing an accusing finger at Bobby Orr and Mike Bossy. They’re blaming Europe, Swiss-Cheese goalies and coaches. Everybody is in a dither over the fact that the scoring in the NHL games is assuming NBA proportions.

Take last Saturday night: Boston 10, Quebec 1; Toronto 9, Los Angeles 4; Pittsburgh 7, Philadelphia. On Sunday it was Chicago 10, Calgary 4.

Nine or more goals were scored in 68 of the first 154 games this season. There have been no 1-0 or 2-0 games and only five shutouts. All but three teams have given up seven or more goals at least once.

Three weeks ago the Flyers faced Montreal; both teams were undefeated at the time. In the days when Bernie Parent and Ken Dryden were the goalies, these clubs played classic close-to-the-vest hockey. Not this time. The game was an 11-2 blowout for the Canadiens. Six nights later in Quebec, Montreal was up 4-1 after one period. Once upon a time a three-goal lead was as safe as a certificate of deposit. No longer. Quebec cranked up and won 5-4.

“It used to be you’d get three or four goals and you were a cinch to win,” says Pittsburgh GM Baz Bastien. “Now you can score five, and there’s a good chance you’ll lose.” The statistics support his observation.

The beginnings of the trend were evident last season. Montreal, which won the Vezina Trophy for giving up the fewest goals (232), was scored on 28 times more than any previous Vezina winner had been. In 1953-54 the six NHL teams scored a total of 1,009 goals, an average of 4.8 a game.

Last year the league’s 21 clubs averaged 7.7 goals, the highest since the NHL introduced the center red line in 1943. And so far this season, the average has jumped to 8.1. Contrary to popular assumption the increase cannot be attributed to more shots on goal. In fact, they have remained fairly constant over the last two decades. (Chart not shown)

The ones suffering the most are, of course, the goalies. Look at what happened to Chicago’s Tony Esposito. In 1970-71, Espo yielded 1.76 goals a game. Last year he gave up 3.75. So far this season, souped-up rival attacks have burned him for 5.37 goals a game. “Low averages are getting to be impossible,” says Esposito. “Today you can go through a whole season without a shutout.” In 1969-70 Esposito had a league-high 15 shutouts in 63 games. In 1979-80 he led the league with six. Last year he had none for the first time in his career.

It isn’t just the powerhouses that are running up scores, either. Against Calgary two weeks ago, Detroit got a dozen goals. That’s more than the Red Wings had scored in a game since 1944. To prove that barrage was no fluke, last week the Red Wings scored 10 goals against the Kings. Philadelphia has given up 42 goals in its last six games, and Edmonton already has scored 81 goals in 15 games. Last year the Oilers didn’t score their 81st goal until Nov. 28. Two Oilers, Paul Coffey (21 points) and Risto Siltanen (19), are among the league’s top scorers. And they’re defensemen.

“Fans like to see 6-5 games more than 1-0 games,” says Edmonton’s Wayne Gretzky, who has 15 goals and 14 assists and is three games ahead of his record setting scoring pace of last season. “I know we prefer them, too. If we can get into a basketball game, we love it.”

Many purists maintain that the primary reason scoring is going through the roof is that today’s players are trigger-happy. They are the biggest, fastest and most accomplished skaters the NHL has ever seen. And just about every one of them is a shooter. “In my time you could cheat a little,” says former Black Hawk Goaltender Glenn Hall. “You’d say; ‘The shot is going to come from there because that’s where the goal-scorer is.’ Now they’re all goal-scorers.”

What has been happening, says Chicago Coach Keith Magnuson, is simple enough: “In junior hockey a young player concentrates on offense because he knows that that more he scores, the higher he’ll be drafted.” Well before he reaches the NHL, a player knows that scorers earn the biggest bucks. Also, since expansion in 1979-80 and the lowering of the minimum draft age to 18 in 1978, the NHL has been overrun with young players.

The average age in 25.3, the lowest in history. What these youngsters do best is shoot, shoot, shoot. “The shooters are definitely smarter,” says Montreal Goalie Rick Wamsley. “They don’t waste time with the puck. They’ve seen the success that Bossy has had with the Islanders, and he doesn’t look before he shoots. A puck hits his stick and he lets fly. The goaltender has no time to get set.”

It’s tempting to blame the scoring explosion on poor goaltending. While the quality of NHL goaltending is at a ridiculously low level, these beleaguered guardians all too often are left to fend for themselves. The era of the defensive defensemen—someone who hung tough to protect his goalie—is long gone. “Defense doesn’t matter anymore,” says Frank Mahovlich, the former Maple Leaf, Red Wing and Canadien marksmen, “not only to defensemen, but to forwards as well. Forwards don’t come back to help out often enough, so there are more scoring chances and therefore more goals. Today everyone goes for goals. We did in my day, too. But we also checked. No one does that job now.”

Says former Boston Coach Don Cherry, “There’s no contact anywhere in the game this year. When was the last time a team drafted a checker?” According to St. Louis Center Mike Zuke, “Probably the hardest commodity to find in hockey is a defensive defensemen. Agents, for young players especially, can’t sell there clients on the intangibles of defense; they can’t show statistics on that.”

Today’s young defensemen are products of what one NHL coach calls “the Bobby Orr baby boom.” Orr revolutionized the concept of playing defense. He controlled play, handled the puck, shot and scored. “The best defensemen today are offensive defensemen,” says Toronto GM Punch Imlach. “Orr’s responsible for that. Everyone is trying to play the way he did. Naturally, they can’t.”

What’s more, no longer do NHL coaches rely chiefly on one line to light up the scoreboard. Most teams now have two or three that can. What with all the firepower from defensemen as well as forwards, coaches have quit trying to protect leads. A few years ago teams would get one or two goals ahead and play keep-away. Toronto won Stanley Cups in 1962, ’63, and ’64 by making one goal look as big as 10; old opponents must still bear the marks left by the Leafs’ barbed-wire defense. But now, a lead is merely a spark for piling on more goals.

Moreover, coaching—read teaching—is a lost art in North America, except on the college level. In the Soviet Union, teams practice three times as often as they play. In the NHL, however, with an 80-game, six-month schedule, teams typically play three games in a week while practicing only twice.

Still another factor in the scoring surge has been the replacement of oversized, immobile goons with small, quick players who can score. This swing toward speedy skaters is largely the result of the European influence on the NHL. In 1975-76 there were 12 European-born players on the NHL rosters. Now there are 54.

“Because of the larger ice surface in Europe, a player has to skate well to be a star over there,” says Montreal Managing Director Irving Grundman. “But it’s well known that the Europeans aren’t as strong defensively, especially in their own zone, as NHL players are.” Yet, Europeans have largely taken the place of enforcers who couldn’t score. Time was a club had only a few players who got 20 goals in a season. Last St. Louis had 10 with 20 or more.

As the pucks fly, it’s easy to see that there is also more individualism out there than ever before. Edmonton Coach Glen Sather tells Gretzky he doesn’t care if he checks. Montreal’s Mark Napier says, “It takes more of a team effort to win by a shutout than to win in a shootout.”

And such team efforts are becoming increasing rare. Whether the scoring explosion is good for the sport is another matter. Hockey people disagree. Several executives around the league concur with Red Wings’ Coach Wayne Maxner, who says, “People came to see Bobby Hull shoot the puck. They didn’t come to see him check.”

Perhaps, but people don’t go to games to see cheap goals and one-way hockey. As Ed Van Impe, a former defensive defenseman for the Flyers, points out. “For the life of me, I can’t understand why the European should dictate the style of play in the NHL. Hockey is very entertaining over Europe, but it’s like the Ice Capades.”

jb4725
June 2nd, 2003, 08:43 AM
Thanks for posting that article. I am a big believer in defensive hockey. That's why the Leafs aren't going to win until Quinn isn't coaching. Anyhoo, this article proves that no one is ever happy with what they have.
JB

puckbrain
June 2nd, 2003, 05:10 PM
Is it ironic that the hockey "purists" are now those critics who lament that 20 years ago in the 21 team NHL hockey was better and want to go back to the good ol days when goalies were pathetic and players didn't backcheck.

GrasValley
June 2nd, 2003, 07:50 PM
It all depends on which direction you want the NHL to go. Should the league keep defensive hockey and lose a fan base and money for the good of the game and the die hard hockey fans?

On one hand, the true fans of hockey will love the game whether the scores are 1-0 or 9-6. I'm a big fan of defensive hockey myself. One of my favorite games I've ever watched was a 0-0 tie. It was Evgeni Nabokov's first game (I think) he and Patrick Roy were absolutely stunning, and no goals were scored. I heard many complaints about the game and how boring it was though. Too many Americans want to see goals.

The problem is presented when teams go Bankrupt. In the last few seasons, scoring has gone down and attendance has followed. When Gretzky started scoring, hockey started spreading, now that goalies are stopping shots, hockey is collapsing before our eyes. The process may be slow, but if defensive play continues, I think the league may shrink.

Which is better for hockey, more fans and sloppier defensive play or strong play, but less fans?

puckbrain
June 3rd, 2003, 01:28 AM
Historically, defensive hockey has always been part of the NHL culture way before either of us were born and will continue to be here when we disappear.

Lets be honest, hockey will never make it in the United States. Just like Ziegler said in the 80's, hockey is just a regional sport.

I think Bettman and his crew outta wake up that hockey will not make it in the US in terms of TV ratings.

You can place stanley cup games, regular season games, allow NHLers compete in the Olympics and put that crap on free TV and still get a small audience. The interest is not there folks, even when its high scoring!!!

Bettman by being an american himself should know that americans have a very, very short attention span and very stupid so most americans will not sit down watch a good defensive hockey game or even a high-scoring game.

Look at indoor soccer. Its very offensive-minded and has wide-open play, however it doesn't get exposure because americans don't like soccer.

americans would rather watch indoor, arena football game on TV compared to the NHL game.

Culturally, football, and basketball are things american kids grow up to become football stars and basketball stars. Hockey is a foreign sport.

americans don't like anything foreign to them.

Bettman needs to focus keeping hard-core fans and screw the causal fans. Let Biff and Buffy go and have them watch go to see a opera or something.

I'm even supporting contracting NHL teams. Let the teams like the Caps, Preds, Thrash, Light, Panth, the Coyotes, the ducks (yes, i said the ducks!!!), and blue jackets DIE!!!

Also, I didn't write the article. The article was written 21 years ago when this offensive-minded stuff started to happen.

GrasValley
June 3rd, 2003, 08:44 PM
I agree with most of what your saying, however, hockey became very popular here in the U.S. when it was high scoring. High scoring hockey is what brought the Ducks, Sharks, Coyotes, Thrashers, and many other teams to the league. As for contraction, I do agree that there are many teams that need to go. The Thrashers, Lightning, and Predators were a terrible idea. However, teams like Phoenix and San Jose have a huge local fan base. I think contracting is a good idea, but only contract those teams that nobody cares about. Until the playoffs, the Ducks had no fans, and unless they beat Jersey, they will go back to having no fans, its teams like those that need to go. The Sharks, being the only pro gig in San Jose, are huge year round. I would hate to deprive so many fans of their only team. I can't remember the last time the Sharks didn't sell out. As far as Americans go, most of them are stupid and I could care less about their basketball and football, however, there are a few smart one's like myself who still crave hockey 24/7. I would hate to deprive them of all hockey.

puckbrain
June 3rd, 2003, 11:34 PM
I wasn't following hockey during the early 90's but I noticed when Gretzky went to LA, it really changed the landscape of hockey in the U.S.

Unfortunately, I remember back in '88 when NHL decided to put their games on SportsChannel after having been on ESPN from '85 to '88; I felt really bad.

It is so ironic that during the wide-open 80's, Ziegler felt not to put the NHL on free tv and now years later NHL games are on free tv but the quality of the NHL games have declined.

IMHO, there should be some type of equilibrium. I like to see good offensive chances and also good defensive play.

Contraction is a good idea, however NHLPA will not go for it. Too many players and explayers will lose their jobs.

GrasValley
June 4th, 2003, 04:59 PM
Excellent point. If the league were contracted there would be a lot of jobs lost although it would be better for hockey in the long run. It would definitely be nice if an equalibrium of offense and defense could be found, but ultimately, it's out of our control. I guess we just get to sit back see what happens.

puckbrain
June 4th, 2003, 10:55 PM
Thats a good idea.

I wonder what the NHL will be like when a new CBA is worked out.

I feel that you better enjoy the Stanley Cup and 2003-04 season, because I feel a long lockout in 2004-05.