View Single Post
11-22-2011, 12:23 AM
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,381
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
This isn't about how "good" Perreault looked doing it. We all know how beautiful he was to watch on the ice but this is not my point. When you watched the game you were more drawn to Perreault than you would be to Alfredsson. He had the puck more, the play revolved around him more when he was on the ice. He was more the central part of the play. He had more skill, talent, speed.

Put it this way. When you watch a shinny game there is always one of those kids that can just flat out play better than anyone else. It doesn't matter if his style is Phil Esposito's or Guy Lafleur's, you notice that guy more than the others. To me, that's the eye test. Perreault definitely played the game better and more efficiently than Alfredsson in relative to others on the ice against him.
Look, basically what I'm saying that you won't pick up on here is that there is sometimes a wide discrepancy between "talent" and "actual results". No doubt in my mind that Perreault was more talented than Alfredsson. but that's not how I judge players.

Well, do you feel the same about Alfredsson? As for your question, if a player dominates the play on the ice better than another player, there is a very good case he is a better player
To answer those three things, Perreault was more pleasing to the eye and more explosive, and Alfredsson appears to have made more of an impact on the ice. The latter outweighs the former.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote