View Single Post
04-13-2013, 05:20 PM
Registered User
Sentinel's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,519
vCash: 500
People who think Fedorov and Datsyuk are overrated simply have their noses buried in stats and see nothing else. They just don't see the game behind the numbers. Hockey is not track-and-field, where only numbers matter. In hockey you have to look at the whole thing. Two of the criteria for me that are not defined by stats are "helping your team" and "doing things that nobody else can do" (especially on the consistent basis, which is where players like Kovalev fail). Both 91 and 13 belong squarely on top.

I'm not even touching their artistic value. Without Fedorov and Datsyuk hockey would lose a large chunk of its spectator appeal.

I have yet to see one viable argument for this idea that doesn't rely on making excuses for Fedorov or the always popular, 'you just don't understand how great he was'. He simply is NOT that calibre.
He simply was, and you just don't. Too bad.
Fedorov > Selanne (peak, prime, and face-to-face, not career)
Fedorov > Lindros (peak, career, and face-to-face, not prime)
Fedorov >> Kariya (peak, career, and face-to-face, not prime)

Last edited by Sentinel: 04-13-2013 at 09:43 PM.
Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote