And do you know why? Because forwards were not expected to be good defensively back then when they were offensive forces and thus, it was not a hot topic of discussion.
In any case, my opinion on Yzerman's defensive play back then is based on what I saw with my own two eyes.
Which, for me, is a guy that was asked to play on the offensive side of the puck and carry the offense.
Again though, after seeing the way he killed penalties, it was not a surprise to me how easily he transitioned to playing on the defensive side of the puck.
Well on the eyes and memory thing Demers, Murray, and Yzerman himself are of a different opinion, their eyes would be the most scrutinizing of Yzerman and they made their opinions known at the time so they were just relying on eyes not eyes + memory.
Again i totally understand that people have vastly different opinions on D much more so than O because it isnt nearly as easily captured by a stat (IMO offensive stats leave much to be desired too but thats another convo) but still in this case nobody in this thread (except maybe eva) is saying Yzerman was elite defensively early like he was later...
And either way i still dont think the with/without win % stat shows anything specifically about two way play and intangibles. Not to mention in Yzerman's 88 and 94 cases there seems to be decent evidence that the disparity was due to other reasons anyway.
And do you know why? Because forwards were not expected to be good defensively back then when they were offensive forces and thus, it was not a hot topic of discussion.
In any case, my opinion on Yzerman's defensive play back then is based on what I saw with my own two eyes.
Funny that, because I complained back then that Yzerman didn't get enough credit for his defensive work.
but still in this case nobody in this thread (except maybe eva) is saying Yzerman was elite defensively early like he was later...
I am saying he was an an elite offense-first forward who played very good defense, and then in 1994 he turned into an elite defense-first forward with very good offense.
Yzerman wasn't "elite" defensively until the early 90s. But he was never "terrible" defensively.
Can't remember having seen this link posted, but it's interesting given the comparisons of Messier vs Esposito, and now Messier vs Yzerman. An "expert (journalist) panel" - members are listed - recently came up with a 'Top 10 Centres of All Time' list by assigning 10 points for 1st through 1 point for 10th system came up with the following order:
As much as Yzerman is being underrated here, Messier had the better career.
I always liked the Sakic Vs Yzerman argument over Messier.
Yzerman was an elite talent for sure, but Messier was one of those generational players that you rarely see. Who else plays like him now? (Not Taylor hall....)
The reason the Oilers were so dominant is because they had 3 generational talents in Gretzky, Messier and Coffey and a very good supporting cast.
I agree for sure that Yzerman was a better goal scorer and later on much better defensively.
But the argument was about their careers. And despite being a jerk at times, Messier wins easily.
Can't remember having seen this link posted, but it's interesting given the comparisons of Messier vs Esposito, and now Messier vs Yzerman. An "expert (journalist) panel" - members are listed - recently came up with a 'Top 10 Centres of All Time' list by assigning 10 points for 1st through 1 point for 10th system came up with the following order:
I didn't supply it as a "calibration". It's just interesting that a panel of "experts" sees it basically just as close as we do, and the order was interesting.
As for the Espo thing, realize that it still would have taken three more 1st place votes to move him above Messier (Greg goes on to say he still would have put Espo after Messier anyway), so the difference of one voter moving to Espo likely simply results in a bit more distance between him and Yzerman/Trottier/Sakic as opposed to a drastic re-ordering.
Well on the eyes and memory thing Demers, Murray, and Yzerman himself are of a different opinion, their eyes would be the most scrutinizing of Yzerman and they made their opinions known at the time so they were just relying on eyes not eyes + memory.
A players coach commending the team leader to the press is quite a common occurrence.
And yet at the time, less people were surprised than you think when Keenan left Yzerman off team Canada in favor of Brent Sutter, Dale Hawerchuk and a very young, never played an NHL game Eric Lindros.
A players coach commending the team leader to the press is quite a common occurrence.
And yet at the time, less people were surprised than you think when Keenan left Yzerman off team Canada in favor of Brent Sutter, Dale Hawerchuk and a very young, never played an NHL game Eric Lindros.
Specifically commending the defense of a player who has a clear reputation as a flashy offensive dynamo is noteworthy. Why does Murray bring up Yzerman's play in his own end when doing an interview about his 50th goal in 93? Or him nearing 1000 points? Both offensive milestones. I can buy a "biased exaggeration" explanation for Demers but not Murray who didnt always have a great relationship with Yzerman. And Yzerman himself seems to be biased against himself when speaking about his play so...
For the Canada Cup 91, actually from what i have read it seems that during the first 2 games when Yzerman had still not left the team (he was on the taxi squad and was not cut outright like in 87) fans specifically cheered his name during a game . Pretty odd for a player not playing. And it clearly was a big enough deal to get the kind of press it did back then. It wasnt like cutting Sakic or Oates who themselves were both emerging superstars.
A players coach commending the team leader to the press is quite a common occurrence.
And yet at the time, less people were surprised than you think when Keenan left Yzerman off team Canada in favor of Brent Sutter, Dale Hawerchuk and a very young, never played an NHL game Eric Lindros.
Luckily they won because it was stupid to leave Yzerman off that team. Especially in hindsight... Considering how well Yzerman could play in a defensive roll.
A players coach commending the team leader to the press is quite a common occurrence.
And yet at the time, less people were surprised than you think when Keenan left Yzerman off team Canada in favor of Brent Sutter, Dale Hawerchuk and a very young, never played an NHL game Eric Lindros.
Revising history seems to happen commonly around here. Picking dirk graham over Stevie was universally accepted as one of the dumbest choices ever made by team Canada staff. Stevie was solid in his own end by this time. Keenan got lucky, because this decision was stupid and criticized by everyone who followed hockey at the time. Canada won despite these poor decisions.
Revising history seems to happen commonly around here. Picking dirk graham over Stevie was universally accepted as one of the dumbest choices ever made by team Canada staff. Stevie was solid in his own end by this time. Keenan got lucky, because this decision was stupid and criticized by everyone who followed hockey at the time. Canada won despite these poor decisions.
well, graham was the best defensive winger in the game at the time, and a guy who was intimately familiar with the coach's gameplan. hardly an indefensible pick.
now, if you were to say yzerman over brent sutter, that makes sense. both are natural centers. but even though yzerman can play wing, the argument for having a natural winger who was the reigning selke winner over a converted star offensive center who is above average-to-very good defensively is a solid one.
A players coach commending the team leader to the press is quite a common occurrence.
And yet at the time, less people were surprised than you think when Keenan left Yzerman off team Canada in favor of Brent Sutter, Dale Hawerchuk and a very young, never played an NHL game Eric Lindros.
The lack of "surprise" was because the lines from Keenan to Sutter, Graham, and Hawerchuk were easy to draw; a separate issue from disappointment in seeing talent like Sakic and Oates cut, and Yzerman relegated to the press box. Yzerman himself wasn't even that surprised after watching the first few games up there, commenting that he could see that he didn't fit Keenan's "plan" to "run around for 30 second shifts like a Chinese fire drill" (pg. 150, The Canada Cup of Hockey Fact & Stat Book, Anderson, 2005).
I believe this was after the conversation he had with Keenan in which Keenan told him he "had a bad camp, and had bad habits". Of course, Keenan had no problem adding Messier (who originally refused invitation for injury reasons) a day before the first game, i.e. at the end of training camp.
Keenan was really lucky that the other teams in the tournament either featured historically weak or disappointing teams, themselves. No Stastny, Svoboda, Klima, Ruzicka or Holik for the Czechs. The USA was without Turcotte (injured), Kevin Stevens, Iafrate, Housley, Ramsey, Langway (all refused), and Brian Mullen (left to rejoin San Jose). The Finns had the nickname "Team Terrible" going into the tournament - 'nuff said (although they certainly pulled together as a team). The Swedes (defending world champs I think) were without Loob, Gustafsson, Erixon, Eklund (all refused) and Olausson (illness). The Soviets were without the KLM line, Fetisov (not invited - in NHL), Bykov, Khomutov (not invited - in Europe), Mogilny, Bure, Konstantinov (all in NHL training camps), Kovalev, Kasparaitis (both cut), Irbe (refused to play for Soviets anymore - Latvian), and Kamensky (best forward, suffered broken leg in warm up game vs Sweden).
well, graham was the best defensive winger in the game at the time, and a guy who was intimately familiar with the coach's gameplan. hardly an indefensible pick.
now, if you were to say yzerman over brent sutter, that makes sense. both are natural centers. but even though yzerman can play wing, the argument for having a natural winger who was the reigning selke winner over a converted star offensive center who is above average-to-very good defensively is a solid one.
But not exactly one Keenan made in the '87 Canada Cup, when he ran a lineup consisting of 7 natural centres: Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier (centre as of '84/85), Hawerchuk, Tocchet, Sutter, and Gilmour. Imagine if Troy Murray (Selke winner in '86 for the pre-Keenan Blackhawks) had made it that year instead of any of them, lol.
The lack of "surprise" was because the lines from Keenan to Sutter, Graham, and Hawerchuk were easy to draw; a separate issue from disappointment in seeing talent like Sakic and Oates cut, and Yzerman relegated to the press box. Yzerman himself wasn't even that surprised after watching the first few games up there, commenting that he could see that he didn't fit Keenan's "plan" to "run around for 30 second shifts like a Chinese fire drill" (pg. 150, The Canada Cup of Hockey Fact & Stat Book, Anderson, 2005).
I believe this was after the conversation he had with Keenan in which Keenan told him he "had a bad camp, and had bad habits". Of course, Keenan had no problem adding Messier (who originally refused invitation for injury reasons) a day before the first game, i.e. at the end of training camp.
Keenan was really lucky that the other teams in the tournament either featured historically weak or disappointing teams, themselves. No Stastny, Svoboda, Klima, Ruzicka or Holik for the Czechs. The USA was without Turcotte (injured), Kevin Stevens, Iafrate, Housley, Ramsey, Langway (all refused), and Brian Mullen (left to rejoin San Jose). The Finns had the nickname "Team Terrible" going into the tournament - 'nuff said (although they certainly pulled together as a team). The Swedes (defending world champs I think) were without Loob, Gustafsson, Erixon, Eklund (all refused) and Olausson (illness). The Soviets were without the KLM line, Fetisov (not invited - in NHL), Bykov, Khomutov (not invited - in Europe), Mogilny, Bure, Konstantinov (all in NHL training camps), Kovalev, Kasparaitis (both cut), Irbe (refused to play for Soviets anymore - Latvian), and Kamensky (best forward, suffered broken leg in warm up game vs Sweden).
That doesn't exactly make Yzerman sound like a versatile player at the time.
But not exactly one Keenan made in the '87 Canada Cup, when he ran a lineup consisting of 7 natural centres: Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier (centre as of '84/85), Hawerchuk, Tocchet, Sutter, and Gilmour. Imagine if Troy Murray (Selke winner in '86 for the pre-Keenan Blackhawks) had made it that year instead of any of them, lol.
fair point, though i only count six.
re: the 91 team specifically, i made the point in another thread that it was weird for keenan to take two pat burns forwards in corson and courtnall but not carbonneau, who was obviously the better defensive player. someone, i think TDDM, speculated that both were natural wingers that could also play center if need be. fleury is another example of that versatility. seems like that was the MO in '91: more true wingers.
i have no idea, but maybe this was the influence of burns and brian sutter on keenan'sstaff, as opposed to muckler in '87?
The lack of "surprise" was because the lines from Keenan to Sutter, Graham, and Hawerchuk were easy to draw; a separate issue from disappointment in seeing talent like Sakic and Oates cut, and Yzerman relegated to the press box. Yzerman himself wasn't even that surprised after watching the first few games up there, commenting that he could see that he didn't fit Keenan's "plan" to "run around for 30 second shifts like a Chinese fire drill" (pg. 150, The Canada Cup of Hockey Fact & Stat Book, Anderson, 2005).
I believe this was after the conversation he had with Keenan in which Keenan told him he "had a bad camp, and had bad habits". Of course, Keenan had no problem adding Messier (who originally refused invitation for injury reasons) a day before the first game, i.e. at the end of training camp.
Keenan was really lucky that the other teams in the tournament either featured historically weak or disappointing teams, themselves. No Stastny, Svoboda, Klima, Ruzicka or Holik for the Czechs. The USA was without Turcotte (injured), Kevin Stevens, Iafrate, Housley, Ramsey, Langway (all refused), and Brian Mullen (left to rejoin San Jose). The Finns had the nickname "Team Terrible" going into the tournament - 'nuff said (although they certainly pulled together as a team). The Swedes (defending world champs I think) were without Loob, Gustafsson, Erixon, Eklund (all refused) and Olausson (illness). The Soviets were without the KLM line, Fetisov (not invited - in NHL), Bykov, Khomutov (not invited - in Europe), Mogilny, Bure, Konstantinov (all in NHL training camps), Kovalev, Kasparaitis (both cut), Irbe (refused to play for Soviets anymore - Latvian), and Kamensky (best forward, suffered broken leg in warm up game vs Sweden).
Another thing to keep in mind is that apparently Eagleson had guaranteed Yzerman a spot on the team but then later said that only Gretzky was guaranteed a spot. A he says she says situation but given what we know about the characters of Eagleson and Yzerman...
