View Single Post
03-21-2013, 12:43 PM
Registered User
OrrNumber4's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 9,196
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
So, ok, let me try to reconcile this again. NOW when faced with a player who was clearly not 'grity' (neither was Gretzy, he wasn't grity in the slightest, but not worth arguing) and was a great player it's 'not all players have to be grity'.

So by what measure do we not have enough 'grit'? Would a team full of lidstroms not win a cup? I'm pretty sure they would.

Grit is meaningless in the context of winning. It's an attribute, just like any other, that CAN be a good thing when used properly but certainly isn't required or even necessarily good depending on the player.
No, I don't think a team full of Lidstrom's could win a cup.

Bolded: Isn't this contradictory? How can grit be meaningless in the context of winning, yet still be a good thing?

I think like how just like you can't win a cup with a core of purely offensive guys, or purely defensive guys, or pure playmakers, or pure goalscoreres, etc. you need some grit/sandpaper in the core. The best teams can beat you multiple ways, ergo, the best teams have many ways to beat you.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote