View Single Post
04-01-2010, 12:36 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Detroit
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No, Z is not better than Feds defensively. He's a hard worker but Feds was a Red Army-developed center. Who wrote the book on two-way play and puck possession?

Feds is perhaps the best two-way player to ever play hockey, not just on the Wings.

And Feds is definitely more of the lady's man.

Edit: Bure was asked about the Bure-Feds-Mogilny line, and who was the best scorer. Bure laughed that Feds was the defensive guy. It's funny because I think Feds had the stronger overall stats-- especially playoffs. I'll let someone else dig up the numbers. (Obviously noting Bure's shortened career, and that Feds played on a defensively-oriented Bowman-appointed Wings/center.)
I agree that Fedorov was better defensively that Z. However, I don't think the gap was very big, and if not for Fedorov's speed he wouldn't have been the better of the two. Z is a far, far harder worker than Fedorov ever was. But when someone is disciplined and can skate as effortlessly as Sergei did, effort isn't enough to bridge the gap.

As far as offense, Fedorov was certainly not devoid of talent but he also wasn't a pure scorer, nor did he have elite puck skills. He reached 40 goals just once, and had more than 35 just three times. Fedorov never scored 30+ in more than four consecutive seasons. Z's numbers, outside of the one Hart trophy year Fedorov had, compare quite favorably to Fedorov's.

What I say about both is that neither are generational greats, like Crosby, AO and Datsyuk are. Fedorov created offense with speed and turnovers, and Hank does it with effort (IMO a lot like Forsberg in his prime). Using those means they get some good results. But outside of brief stretches, they don't have the skill to rank among the game's greats for any length of time. They're not the type to compete for the scoring title on an annual basis.

I also think it, then, hyperbole to say that Fedorov was the best two-way player of all time. His offensive side was lacking to earn that accolade, IMO. Is being the best defensive forward of his generation while possessing above average offensive ability enough to make him the best? I think that holds only of someone is weighting defense more, which I personally don't do. Defense can be taught, offense can't. So I believe that offense should count more.

I'm not a lady, but I think Emma disagrees with your comment about Fedorov being more a lady's man. I honestly think Fedorov's record in that area is quite suspect. He pursued a scandalously underage girl at one point, and has Tara Reid on his history. Ouch.

Nope, as a guy I have to say that Z has been far more successful in this area.

Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
Fedorov also had to bulldog his way through the deadpuck area on the offensive end. We all griped about the crap Hal Gill got away with but that pales in comparison to what used to be done by everybody in the name of defense.
1. The game has opened up a little, but not much. The goalies are better now than they've ever been. Players are in far better physical condition than they've ever been. So, on balance I don't think there's much disparity. Fedorov had teammates (Shanny, Yzerman) who were scoring 40+ goals when he was not, while other players around the NHL were scorching the score sheet to the tun of 50 or 60 goals.

2. Fedorov had better talent around him for most of his career. Count the HoF players he had as linemates in his prime, and compare it to Z's situation. Huge difference.

Last edited by doublejack: 04-01-2010 at 12:43 PM.
doublejack is offline   Reply With Quote