HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-09-2012, 09:10 AM
  #226
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
This was creative:



Guy Lafleur was creative, Bobby Orr was creative etc.

Cycling, dump and chase and crash the net aren't.
Those players would have to completely reinvent their games to cope with modern defenseman and defensive tactics, or get embarrassed. Try getting cute with Chara and you're going for a rough ride.

And I think they could, great players adapt. Orr would know better than to try walking around Lidstrom like he did with 70s slugs, he'd have the skill and smarts to adjust. But they'd be forced into playing a safer game. Today's stars are in not less skilled or creative than yesterday's, in fact many can pull of moves not seen back then. They just can't take the same risks as often, or their team would get burned and they'd get benched.

revolverjgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 09:36 AM
  #227
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw View Post
Those players would have to completely reinvent their games to cope with modern defenseman and defensive tactics, or get embarrassed. Try getting cute with Chara and you're going for a rough ride.

And I think they could, great players adapt. Orr would know better than to try walking around Lidstrom like he did with 70s slugs, he'd have the skill and smarts to adjust. But they'd be forced into playing a safer game. Today's stars are in not less skilled or creative than yesterday's, in fact many can pull of moves not seen back then. They just can't take the same risks as often, or their team would get burned and they'd get benched.
I agree.

I always think about the Denis Savard play where he undresses the entire Oilers team a few times on the PK and scores a short handed goal. I can't help but think if he had tried that in the late 90s, a Scott Stevens would have just blasted him into pieces at center ice.

Greats will be greats anyway, but there's a ton of **** that used to work that won't fly in today's game.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 10:21 AM
  #228
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
The players of today can't take a lot of risks because it is so highly competitive (along with more parody due to the cap) and the lack of creativity you point out is mostly because there isn't enough time and space out there. Put one of those current players on the ice with lesser players and they will have more time and space and they can be more creative, imaginative and entertaining. Those creative skills are not lacking, it's just not worth it to take risks with how the league is set up and how deep the talent level is.

Another issue is that the players are bigger and faster yet the rink size hasn't changed. That's rather obvious IMO. It's not like they can't make a fancy pass or stick handle. I think you are underrating just how good the average NHL player is right now. It's at a higher average level than ever before and I hear people in the game continuously say this. On this board some people want to deny that.

I'm a Red Wings fan and Datsyuk is as creative as any player in history IMO. I loved watching Lemieux back in his prime, too. You must admit it was easier to be creative back in the 80's when defending and goaltending were behind what they are today. I've played pick up hockey with teenagers in Toronto that won't even make the NHL and their hands are just ridiculous. Young players today are not lacking skills or creativity. No bloody way. Like I said, you aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

I am not underrating the skill level or training level of today's players.
You however, are confusing how well a player can stickhandle with being creative. They are NOT the same.
Kovalev was/is one of the most skilled players ever, he was playing back in the early 90's when there was more space and he wasn't as creative as Gretz, Mario, Yzerman, Savard ect, ect.
When I talk about being creative, I'm talking about the ability to make plays out of nothing and use your teammates. Not how well you can't beat people one on one or what shootout move they can come up with.
Making plays not making moves. HUGE difference!

As far as your argument of Lemieux only being able to be as creative because there was more time and space...ummm...do you mean back in the day as in about a decade ago in the middle of the freakin dead puck era (no space period and goalies were wearing even bigger equipment than they have today) when, at age 37, long past his prime, he scored 37 goals and 76 points in just 43 games?
Or exactly 10 years ago in 2002 during the Olympics, when he pulled off the previously mentioned fake shot on Ritcher against the best of the best? He didn't even touch the puck and it was one of the most creative plays ever!
Pretty much just flushed that argument of yours down the toilet eh

What we have today are better teams, not better players.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 08-09-2012 at 10:28 AM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 11:03 AM
  #229
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I am not underrating the skill level or training level of today's players.
You however, are confusing how well a player can stickhandle with being creative. They are NOT the same.
Kovalev was/is one of the most skilled players ever, he was playing back in the early 90's when there was more space and he wasn't as creative as Gretz, Mario, Yzerman, Savard ect, ect.
When I talk about being creative, I'm talking about the ability to make plays out of nothing and use your teammates. Not how well you can't beat people one on one or what shootout move they can come up with.
Making plays not making moves. HUGE difference!

As far as your argument of Lemieux only being able to be as creative because there was more time and space...ummm...do you mean back in the day as in about a decade ago in the middle of the freakin dead puck era (no space period and goalies were wearing even bigger equipment than they have today) when, at age 37, long past his prime, he scored 37 goals and 76 points in just 43 games?
Or exactly 10 years ago in 2002 during the Olympics, when he pulled off the previously mentioned fake shot on Ritcher against the best of the best? He didn't even touch the puck and it was one of the most creative plays ever!
Pretty much just flushed that argument of yours down the toilet eh

What we have today are better teams, not better players.
You are arguing with yourself again and putting words in my mouth. I didn't state any of the above but somehow you took this leap from what I did state.

Lemieux was amazing and I loved watching him play. He could be creative in any era and was. I still maintain that in the 80's (and before then) it was easier for everyone to be more creative because they had more space and time. I wasn't trying to link Mario's abilities with the 80's even though I can see why you might confuse that since it's in the same paragraph.

As an aside - as much as I loved Mario I have to admit that for most of his career he was a floater and hung out at centre far too much for my tastes. I always felt he would have had more team success if he was onboard the whole time and tried to play more of an all around game instead of only focusing on offense for most of his career. He was surely capable of it as we saw in the two cup runs. As leader of the team he set a bad example even though he had godly skills.

Datsyuk isn't just a stickhandling wizard, he's got that 6th sense as well and he is creative in many ways. You probably already know this if you've watched him enough.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 11:04 AM
  #230
Ivan13
Avs/Habs fan
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 13,489
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw View Post
Those players would have to completely reinvent their games to cope with modern defenseman and defensive tactics, or get embarrassed. Try getting cute with Chara and you're going for a rough ride.

And I think they could, great players adapt. Orr would know better than to try walking around Lidstrom like he did with 70s slugs, he'd have the skill and smarts to adjust. But they'd be forced into playing a safer game. Today's stars are in not less skilled or creative than yesterday's, in fact many can pull of moves not seen back then. They just can't take the same risks as often, or their team would get burned and they'd get benched.
I was simply responding to a non-sensical point that past greats lacked creativity compared to todays NHL stars. Could Bobby Orr deke past the entire opposing team not once but twice? Probably not because of the changes in tactics, game preparation and other factors.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 11:16 AM
  #231
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,622
vCash: 500
OK, the creativity issue has been addressed. What about actual physical skills? It would seem to me the main hockey-playing skills haven't changed all that much since the O6 days: fast skating, hard and accurate shot, quick hands, passing, smarts, and overall hockey sense. And we hold the old days and modern players to the same standard, how would they do?

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 01:05 PM
  #232
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 500
Setting aside the fact that it is unfair to ignore the context of an athlete's accomplishments (indeed, I am not a smarter physicist than Albert Einstein, despite me knowing things he couldn't have known), there is a definite fallacy in correlating achieved talent with population.

Danincanada's point is that with increased population/participation, we should have more talented players now. If it is a bell curve, the percentages would be equal accross eras but the numbers wouldn't be.

The thing is, this is true for innate talent. The old joke that the most talented hockey players is a Czech farmer; he had the most innate talent but never picked up a stick. Realized talent, however, is a different thing. I find that Rhiessen's point is very true; hockey training today does not properly grow a star player's talent.

The rules of a sport, or more specifically, the doctrine of what is necessary to win, play a heavy hand in shaping the training of individuals.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 01:17 PM
  #233
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Danincanada's point is that with increased population/participation, we should have more talented players now. If it is a bell curve, the percentages would be equal accross eras but the numbers wouldn't be.
Indeed. More talented players, not more-talented players.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 01:34 PM
  #234
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Indeed. More talented players, not more-talented players.
And that's not necessarily the case now either because of the onus put on skating in today's NHL.
How many highly talented players like Jason Alison are on the outside looking in due to a lack of foot speed?

So again, while today's players are generally faster, bigger, stronger and trained more for a team game. They are not necessarily more skilled or especially more talented as a whole.

The kind of foot speed you need to make the NHL does almost as much if not the same amount of culling today as not having as many Euro's in the league in the past IMO.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 03:09 PM
  #235
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
The thing is, this is true for innate talent. The old joke that the most talented hockey players is a Czech farmer; he had the most innate talent but never picked up a stick. Realized talent, however, is a different thing. I find that Rhiessen's point is very true; hockey training today does not properly grow a star player's talent.
So which one is it?

Most people admit the players of today are bigger, stronger, and faster because they have more at their disposal (better equipment, training techniques, etc.). They can also shoot, pass and stick handle better because of this. They also have to think and react faster because the speed of the game is quicker. They train more and harder than ever before and most train for most of the summer.

Yet, according to you and Rhiesson they aren't being trained properly to excel and bring out their talents. The game is freakishly fast paced now and 90% of the players can riffle the puck, make crisp passes and skate like the wind so they get accused of playing like robots.

What exactly would make you happy then? The answer appears to be nothing.

I can admit that board play and playing not to lose isn't the most entertaining hockey but most of the time it's not due to the players not being talented, it's because they are cancelling each other out. The level of play and competition is higher than ever.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 03:21 PM
  #236
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And that's not necessarily the case now either because of the onus put on skating in today's NHL.
How many highly talented players like Jason Alison are on the outside looking in due to a lack of foot speed?

So again, while today's players are generally faster, bigger, stronger and trained more for a team game. They are not necessarily more skilled or especially more talented as a whole.

The kind of foot speed you need to make the NHL does almost as much if not the same amount of culling today as not having as many Euro's in the league in the past IMO.
I'm sure Jason Allison is the first player in NHL history who lost his job due to poor skating.

You need to be mobile to be good at hockey. That will probably never change. Allison had lots of offensive talent but he should have got into better shape and improved his foot speed if he wanted to continue playing in the league. It wasn't a problem with the NHL, it was a problem with Jason Allison.

It sounds like you don't want to see the best and most competitive players, you want to see a talented beer league with wide open play. You are stuck in the 80's man.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 03:43 PM
  #237
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
I agree.

I always think about the Denis Savard play where he undresses the entire Oilers team a few times on the PK and scores a short handed goal. I can't help but think if he had tried that in the late 90s, a Scott Stevens would have just blasted him into pieces at center ice.

Greats will be greats anyway, but there's a ton of **** that used to work that won't fly in today's game.
I know I might be nitpicking, but Scott Stevens played throughout the 80s as well

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 03:47 PM
  #238
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
I'm sure Jason Allison is the first player in NHL history who lost his job due to poor skating.

You need to be mobile to be good at hockey. That will probably never change. Allison had lots of offensive talent but he should have got into better shape and improved his foot speed if he wanted to continue playing in the league. It wasn't a problem with the NHL, it was a problem with Jason Allison.

It sounds like you don't want to see the best and most competitive players, you want to see a talented beer league with wide open play. You are stuck in the 80's man.

But I'm not seeing the best and most competitive players.
What I'm seeing is the best and most competitive faster robots dumping and chasing then cycling the puck in the corners for 60 minutes.

Either way, the speed of the game IS culling out talented players. Not to mention the salary cap on top of that.
How many teams can afford to have talented players on their bottom lines now? They can't. What happens is they end up taking the cheapest, fastest players to round out their rosters and play defense, not the most talented ones.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how all the dumping, chasing and cycling is considered being creative to you?

The game is too fast and players are trained to make the simplest and safest play possible at all times.

I wish it was still the 80's or even better, the early 90's. God that was fun hockey to watch. Not the over-paced robots we see play today.

Again, the players might be stronger, faster and better trained but they're not better actual players, just better robots.
Better teams, not better players.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 06:05 PM
  #239
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
You are focusing on a sport that is very North American based so the talent mostly increases due to growth in two countries. Hockey is more diverse and Track and Field is even more international than that. Take a look at the list of world records in track and field and you'll notice most records are from the last 20 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_in_athletics

Obviously this is due to several factors such as new training methods, improved nutrition, etc., and some athletes may be cheating the system with enhancing drugs and getting away with it...but you also must consider the amount of people striving to break these records. It has increased over the years as it has for hockey and other sports where competition has increased. Someone said it's apples and oranges to compare an individual event with a team sport, and I can agree with that, but the same logic applies.
Hard tracks allow sprinters to post better times.

And for all the talk about the size of the talent pool, tiny Jamaica is dominating sprinting right now. It's about the right talent pool and the development, not the size of the talent pool.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 06:17 PM
  #240
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
So which one is it?

Most people admit the players of today are bigger, stronger, and faster because they have more at their disposal (better equipment, training techniques, etc.). They can also shoot, pass and stick handle better because of this. They also have to think and react faster because the speed of the game is quicker. They train more and harder than ever before and most train for most of the summer.

Yet, according to you and Rhiesson they aren't being trained properly to excel and bring out their talents. The game is freakishly fast paced now and 90% of the players can riffle the puck, make crisp passes and skate like the wind so they get accused of playing like robots.

What exactly would make you happy then? The answer appears to be nothing.

I can admit that board play and playing not to lose isn't the most entertaining hockey but most of the time it's not due to the players not being talented, it's because they are cancelling each other out. The level of play and competition is higher than ever.
I don't think they shoot better or pass better.

They shoot harder but are less accurate. Many can barely get a backhand shot off with anything on it. Very few have a quick release like Bossy or Espo.

To me, on a whole today's players do not pass any better than previous NHLers.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 06:28 PM
  #241
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post

To me, on a whole today's players do not pass any better than previous NHLers.
I can not see how this is true. Despite having far more time and space to make decisions and measure passes, I see noticeably less crisp and accurate passing when I watch games from a decades ago. They had all day to move the puck compared to now but there was probably even more errors. Maybe some of this can be attributed to worse ice conditions, but regardless they look worse to me.


Last edited by revolverjgw: 08-09-2012 at 06:33 PM.
revolverjgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 06:30 PM
  #242
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And that's not necessarily the case now either because of the onus put on skating in today's NHL.
To be fair, there's no one thing that makes a hockey player talented. Skating ability is certainly one aspect of the game. It's not like it's irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Better teams, not better players.
This is entirely possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
And for all the talk about the size of the talent pool, tiny Jamaica is dominating sprinting right now. It's about the right talent pool and the development, not the size of the talent pool.
Indeed. They just swept the medals in the men's 200m, something only the US did in the past I think.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 07:13 PM
  #243
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
To be fair, there's no one thing that makes a hockey player talented. Skating ability is certainly one aspect of the game. It's not like it's irrelevant.
I'm not talking about full skating ability, I'm talking about a single aspect of it, straight line top end.

Going back to the Jamie Alison example, he was pretty agile, strong on his feet, was very shifty and actually had good acceleration. He just had a crappy top end.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 07:58 PM
  #244
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post


I wish this thread would just disappear sometimes. All people convinced players of today are so much better should be barred from the History section and have their own section where they can happily converse together.

And then I won't have to continually point out that a grey bearded slower less agile Ray Bourque was a Norris runner up in his last year in the 2000's just like in his first year in the 80's. Not getting blown away by all the 25 year old young guns of the new generation since someone from his generation could not possibly compete with these new modern athletes.

Unfortunately I doubt that you are alone in this type of thinking.

And to take the poor example of a Dman, and just 1 player at that to make a point about the general and overall skill level of the league is frankly really weak don't you think? If anything defense is the one position were great players age less quickly especially compared to forwards.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 08:04 PM
  #245
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Unfortunately I doubt that you are alone in this type of thinking.

And to take the poor example of a Dman, and just 1 player at that to make a point about the general and overall skill level of the league is frankly really weak don't you think? If anything defense is the one position were great players age less quickly especially compared to forwards.
So what you're saying is that any credible example or argument against your way of thinking should simply be written off as an exception to the rule.
Or in the case of Gretzky and Lemieux type players, should be written off as outliers and shouldn't count. Even though when discussing something like Adjusted Stats, suddenly, they are treated like everyone else.

Yep, sounds like more making it as you go kinda stuff but hey that's just how I see it.


For a guy that likes robots so much, you sure like to ignore logic

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 08:36 PM
  #246
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
There are all kinds of reasons to question whether a modern player like Stamkos could even play hockey at a high level a hundred years ago.
Do you actually believe that at all? You are talking about Stamkos right?

If there was a strong belief that it's the case that it's quite possible or even likely that a "guy like Stamkos" couldn't play 100 years ago I really wonder why we have "the sticky" in this section.

Quote:
But that makes no difference, because that is not the context in which he actually played, and as such it is unfair to him to raise such questions. Players cannot control the contexts in which they play, and to judge them on contexts that didn't even exist when they played is ridiculous.
It's never unfair to ask questions when we are doing comparisons between players.

You are right players can only control what they do on the ice when they play but as observers trying to measure something, ie. how they compare to each other, it is incumbent upon us to actually consider and ask more questions, not less.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 09:04 PM
  #247
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post

It's never unfair to ask questions when we are doing comparisons between players.

You are right players can only control what they do on the ice when they play but as observers trying to measure something, ie. how they compare to each other, it is incumbent upon us to actually consider and ask more questions, not less.
If that's truly your position on the subject, then how come every time someone brings up numerous generation to generation players like Jagr, Lidstrom and Bourque. Why do you attempt to dismiss those arguments so handily.
Those three players alone bridge the gap for the last 30+ years and should easily be the most accurate and most acceptable measuring stick used.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 09:32 PM
  #248
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
So which one is it?

Most people admit the players of today are bigger, stronger, and faster because they have more at their disposal (better equipment, training techniques, etc.). They can also shoot, pass and stick handle better because of this. They also have to think and react faster because the speed of the game is quicker. They train more and harder than ever before and most train for most of the summer.

Yet, according to you and Rhiesson they aren't being trained properly to excel and bring out their talents. The game is freakishly fast paced now and 90% of the players can riffle the puck, make crisp passes and skate like the wind so they get accused of playing like robots.

What exactly would make you happy then? The answer appears to be nothing.

I can admit that board play and playing not to lose isn't the most entertaining hockey but most of the time it's not due to the players not being talented, it's because they are cancelling each other out. The level of play and competition is higher than ever.
They are faster primarly because of the way the game is played. Short shifts versus longer ones. They are stronger because of training. Passing, shooting skills etc. there is a marginal difference if any at all.

And while they have more physical skills, the way the game is being taught has sapped away the creativity and hockey sense of the players. They play like robots, because the NHL culture has deemed that playing like robots is the way to win. There is an emphasis on not losing vs. not winning; this is all stuff you have heard before.

Look at a guy like Brett Hull. A player who when talked to is often baffled at how players positioned themselves on the ice. And Hull was notorious for popping out of nowhere to score the goal, even though his physical skillset wasn't that impressive. He was allowed to develop that skill. There are probably more players today with similar instincts, yet it is weeded out of them from the start.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 10:09 PM
  #249
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Indeed. More talented players, not more-talented players.
Are the two mutually exclusive? I'll add more later down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And that's not necessarily the case now either because of the onus put on skating in today's NHL.
How many highly talented players like Jason Alison are on the outside looking in due to a lack of foot speed?

So again, while today's players are generally faster, bigger, stronger and trained more for a team game. They are not necessarily more skilled or especially more talented as a whole.

The kind of foot speed you need to make the NHL does almost as much if not the same amount of culling today as not having as many Euro's in the league in the past IMO.
Once again you don't watch very much game film do you? Look at all aspects of the game play from the 70's then go down and watch a good local OHL or WHL team and tell me there is very much difference in the skill level and speed and pace of the game. And it's not just straight ahead speed either, players on the hole from top to bottom are much better skaters on any measure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
So which one is it?

Most people admit the players of today are bigger, stronger, and faster because they have more at their disposal (better equipment, training techniques, etc.). They can also shoot, pass and stick handle better because of this. They also have to think and react faster because the speed of the game is quicker. They train more and harder than ever before and most train for most of the summer.

Yet, according to you and Rhiesson they aren't being trained properly to excel and bring out their talents. The game is freakishly fast paced now and 90% of the players can riffle the puck, make crisp passes and skate like the wind so they get accused of playing like robots.

What exactly would make you happy then? The answer appears to be nothing.

I can admit that board play and playing not to lose isn't the most entertaining hockey but most of the time it's not due to the players not being talented, it's because they are cancelling each other out. The level of play and competition is higher than ever.
the time and space that offensive players have is often overlooked as well. even if one buys the argument that the average NHL can only skate faster and isn't more skilled, and I certainly don't, he is better equipped and coached to play defense and stop other players from attacking their zone in a creative way.

coaches use trhe cycle and tip and chase because they are trying to win games and the old free style ways of the 80's just don't work anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
But I'm not seeing the best and most competitive players.
What I'm seeing is the best and most competitive faster robots dumping and chasing then cycling the puck in the corners for 60 minutes.

Either way, the speed of the game IS culling out talented players. Not to mention the salary cap on top of that.
How many teams can afford to have talented players on their bottom lines now? They can't. What happens is they end up taking the cheapest, fastest players to round out their rosters and play defense, not the most talented ones.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how all the dumping, chasing and cycling is considered being creative to you?

The game is too fast and players are trained to make the simplest and safest play possible at all times.

I wish it was still the 80's or even better, the early 90's. God that was fun hockey to watch. Not the over-paced robots we see play today.

Again, the players might be stronger, faster and better trained but they're not better actual players, just better robots.
Better teams, not better players.
Maybe the game was more fun to watch in the 80's but it doesn't follow that those players were more talented just because everyone scored more.

anyone who has played any type of hockey at any level knows that with more time and space more players can be more creative. As the time and space and defensive capabilities of opponents get better, the ability for all players to showcase those skills is diminished. We see this natural evolution on a personal scale were almost every player dominates just a bit less as they move up from pee wee to jr to the AHL and NHL

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Hard tracks allow sprinters to post better times.

And for all the talk about the size of the talent pool, tiny Jamaica is dominating sprinting right now. It's about the right talent pool and the development, not the size of the talent pool.
And hockey programs in the development stages, ie BWC in greater Vancouver US development teams, Detroit elite teams ect are now producing more talent than the old lets the cream rise to the crop free flowing method of the past IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw View Post
I can not see how this is true. Despite having far more time and space to make decisions and measure passes, I see noticeably less crisp and accurate passing when I watch games from a decades ago. They had all day to move the puck compared to now but there was probably even more errors. Maybe some of this can be attributed to worse ice conditions, but regardless they look worse to me.
Some people just refuse to actually believe what they see when watching gamefilm. R71 is especially guilty of this as he already knows the answer before the question is even asked.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 10:12 PM
  #250
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Do you actually believe that at all? You are talking about Stamkos right?
1. No, I don't really believe it. It's not something I'm arguing, it's something I'm presenting to illustrate my point. I thought that was clear.

2. Even if I did believe it was true, it would be irrelevant, because my entire point is that such a comparison would be unfair to Stamkos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's never unfair to ask questions when we are doing comparisons between players.
That's a misrepresentation. It's never unfair to ask fair questions when doing player comparisons, obviously. My entire point is that this particular question is utterly unfair. If it's an unfair question, it's unfair to ask it by definition.

How an older player would play today is irrelevant, because he didn't play today. Similarly, how a modern player would play 100 years ago is irrelevant. It's an unfair question to ask, not least because it involves making all kinds of assumptions, since it deals with hypotheticals instead of reality. And notably, it's only ever asked of historical players, and not of modern ones. That's why I presented the Stamkos example.

I say again: why is today's version of hockey the standard against players of all eras should be compared? Why shouldn't we instead use 1950s hockey? Or 1910s?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
You are right players can only control what they do on the ice when they play but as observers trying to measure something, ie. how they compare to each other, it is incumbent upon us to actually consider and ask more questions, not less.
Pick the right questions, and I'm right there with you. It's not about asking questions in general, it's about this one specific question.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.