Risky Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I'll freely admit that I didn't start following hockey until 1994, so I have no recollection of the great years of Edmonton or Pittsburgh or "great offensive hockey of yesteryear" as it is so often touted here, but I was curious, so I tuned into about 6 hours of classic All-Star hockey on ESPN this weekend. What I saw was surprising. I don't want to make sweeping generalizations about some of our nostalgic anti-defense hockey fans here, but I think there is a case of "remember the good, forget the bad" going on here. In short, the defense and goaltending in these games was pathetic and nonexistant. Granted, these were All-Star games, but when a player is able to score an "amazing" goal on an unscreened wrist shot from the top of the circle right past the goalies' shoulder, there isn't anything too shocking about that, short of the fact that the goalie didn't make the save. The offensive opportunities surrendered deep in the zones could never happen in today's game -- not because of clutching and grabbing, but rather because today, we play DEFENSE. Everyone was just looking for the next offensive rush in these games. They didn't look particularly amazing or acrobatic (I saw many more impressive one-on-one maneuvers in yesterday's 2004 game), they just weren't defended against and they were playing sub-standard goalies by today's criteria. Mario Lemieux was awesome. As was Gretzkey. But we have guys that look like them in today's game -- Markus Naslund and Rick Nash. The ultimate irony was the scores of these games - 7-2; 6-4; etc. They scored just as many goals as in 2004! I just didn't see anything that impressive or worthy of missing in today's game. It's different. The players are more skilled (especially the goalies). Get over it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIDevsFan1 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I saw some of the old-time all-star games also. What struck me was the size of the players vs. today---esp. the goalies. It just seemed like there was a lot more room to move and shoot at back then. I'm sure the pads were smaller than also. It looked like the modern-day equivalent of playing on a European surface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteyvegas Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 With no face gear and few helmets, the game wasn't as WILD as it is today. No high sticks and no reckless abandoned hits. The game was more safety conscience than it is today. Also, the players stayed with a team a long time. If someone goes in high on another player, he had to face the whole team the whole season. Today's game isn't better, it's different. Just like every other sport. I watched the same thing and though what a disappointment the 2004 game was. See, just different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesterDevil Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I also noticed the extreme lack of defense. It was pathetic, I couldn't even watch them. Those games seemed so one dimensional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Risky & jester -- you see the same things I do when watching old games. The talent level & size of the players is the biggest difference. again, the game is different - not better or worse. Most D were pylons & their passes were pathetic. But the goalie pads were so muc smaller. Want more scoring (i'm still not sure that will make it more exciting) then reduce the catching glove/pads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The problem is the goalie gear, either make the nets 6 inches wider and 4 inches taller or cut back on the goalie gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 So true, yesterday's hockey was offense with no defense. No defense would drive me nuts. I think today's game has balance and most definitely better skilled defensemen and goalies. It is like everything nostalgic. Everyone remembers the past as good old days, they always forget the bad. I don't know how much smaller goalie equipment should be, how many guys shot 95-100 mph (or 102) in the "old" days? Everyone should just be quiet and drop the puck! Hockey is still a great game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldon Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I watched a few minutes of the Hartford all-star game. The size of the goalie equipment for Bob Froese & I think Andy Moog; show that is a good place to start. Protect your goalie, but come on, reducing today's equipment could mean a moderate difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The problem is the goalie gear, either make the nets 6 inches wider and 4 inches taller or cut back on the goalie gear. Jason, they should never increase the height of the goal, that will only cause the puck to be higher resulting in more head/facial injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Well in the 70's I remember it... well defensemen weren't all pylons exactly but i think i always sort of just figured you couldn't do the zone defense thing - it had to be man to man! I mean it wasn't hard for the Islanders to just zoom in, all in position - I'm not sure if it's just creative memory... but the forwards weren't as involved in defense. I mean I didn't think they were supposed to be so much - I thought the Islanders were sort of especially skilled because in my mind everyone played the same way -- the forwards played d as much as the defense were offensive. Well but then i think about Potvin... AHHHH! I know -- what i recall is D (at least in my kid's mind) was more about clearing the way for your offense to move up -- I mean maybe d was all about forechecking back then? The mid-80's I just thought sucked. So much so that I can't tell you why - it just wasn't my kind of game anymore. Even as the Isles were winning their 4th Cup --- it just started getting dull to me. while everyone else was mesmerized by Gretz... he's great -- but whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The mid-80's I just thought sucked. So much so that I can't tell you why - it just wasn't my kind of game anymore. Even as the Isles were winning their 4th Cup --- it just started getting dull to me. while everyone else was mesmerized by Gretz... he's great -- but whatever. Nobody wants to see the game at its extremes, the 80's was too much offense, teams scoring 400+ goals a year is way too much, just like now teams scoring 190 goals a year and making the playoffs is a joke. The NHL found some nice balance between 1989-1996 though, and that's what it has to strive for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddDog Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I personally don't dislike the current brand of hockey played nowadays. I do think alot of the reason why it's harder to score than ever before is partly due to the superiority of the goalies and the fact that players are bigger and probably better conditioned than they were in the past. Half the goalies in the 80s would resemble sieves in today's NHL... I think there's just more pure skill not to mention larger goalies as well. Also, if you have larger, strong players they will do a better job of neutralizing scoring chances (e.g., compare modern era defenseman to 1980s defenseman and I'm pretty sure he's both taller and heavier!). I really HATE pathetic defense and that's why I can't comprehend why so many bitch about the fact that goal scoring is down. There's really nothing worse to me than a game with all offense, and pylons on ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The problem is the goalie gear, either make the nets 6 inches wider and 4 inches taller or cut back on the goalie gear. Jason, they should never increase the height of the goal, that will only cause the puck to be higher resulting in more head/facial injuries. You have to do something, shoulder gear is so high now adays like in Giggy's case you can't go top shelf when the guy is on his KNEES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The problem is the goalie gear, either make the nets 6 inches wider and 4 inches taller or cut back on the goalie gear. Jason, they should never increase the height of the goal, that will only cause the puck to be higher resulting in more head/facial injuries. You have to do something, shoulder gear is so high now adays like in Giggy's case you can't go top shelf when the guy is on his KNEES. It's not just the shoulder gear, although they need to cut back on it. There is a basic problem. Goalies are taller. You almost never used to see a goalie over 6 feet tall. Now you've got these guys who are 6 foot 4. Actually, one of the reasons that Roy was so amazingly successful was that he had a very long torso. So even though he was on his knees in the butterfly, he could cover the top of the net very well because his torso was disproportionately long for his body size. Of course, it also didn't hurt that his knee ligaments were so flexible he could put his legs together in back-to-back "L's" when he snapped the 5-hole shut...some people shouldn't be allowed to live Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Nice sig Sue, but maybe after giving up 4 goals to the Canucks Marty should go to the bigger pads. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Nice sig Sue, but maybe after giving up 4 goals to the Canucks Marty should go to the bigger pads. B) Nah, the pads weren't the problem. Marty & the boys took the night off. He could have been wearing Giggy-pads & it wouldn't have helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Nah, the pads weren't the problem. Marty & the boys took the night off. He could have been wearing Giggy-pads & it wouldn't have helped. I was kidding Sue. I didn't get a chance to see the game so I can't really comment on how Brodeur looked (although I took the opportunity to do so anyway ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shotgun24 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I also watched all three of those games, I believe it was Saturday night, or Sunday morning rather... I didn't enjoy watching the hockey they played in those games... It just wasn't entertaining to me, I find today's hockey to be more enjoyable, as well as much more talented. A lot of people are upset at the lack of goals being scored these days, but really it seems like certain players stand out more now, than they did then. Back then it was all about forwards, now it seems like the spotlight has shifted to Goalies, as well as Defenseman. Obviously there are many forwards, Rick Nash, Ilya Kovalchuk, that are also in the spotlight, but for the Devils, you have Patrik Elias, the only 'real' offensive star to the Devils name. The Defense of the Devils, was built by Lou Lamoriello's own strategy, (copied by many teams in the NHL that lack the money to pay certain players) because he knew that the team couldn't afford the compensation these forwards like Jaromir Jagr, were receiving from wealthier teams. Obviously Lou knew what he was doing, as he has lead the NJ Devils to three Stanley Cup Championships. I find myself to be dissapointed with some articles written about the Devils... Most likely written by the fans or employees of teams that have power forwards like Ottawa and Toronto. Those teams, both great offensively, really don't have a chance at beating teams like the Devils, Red Wings, or Avalanche. Mainly because their teams are solid... ---------- Cup Contenders: [What the current playoff spot holders have / lack.] Eastern Conference: 1.Philadelphia: Lack a goaltender, good offense, okay defense. 2.Toronto: Have a good goaltender, but a lacking defense... 3.Tampa Bay: Great forwards, and goaltender... No defense... (Cup Contender) 4.Boston: Good defense, rookie goalie, okay offense. 5.New Jersey: Lacks offense, great goaltender, great defense. (Cup Contender) 6.Ottawa: Great Offense, okay goalie, lacking real defense. (Cup Contender) 7.Montreal: Great goalie, good shooters, no defense. 8.NY Islanders: Lack a good goalie, defense falls through, okay offense. Western Conference: 1.Colorado: Great offense, good defense, goalie is okay. (Cup Contender) 2.Detroit: Great offense, good goalie (hasek), okay defense. (Cup Contender) 3.San Jose: Great goalie, good offense, okay defense. 4.Vancouver: Great offense, good defense, bad goalie (cloutier) 5.Dallas: Good offense, good goalie, okay defense. (Cup Contender) 6.St. Louis: Good defense, okay offense, okay goalie. 7.Calgary: Good offense, good goalie (kiprusoff), okay defense. 8.Nashville: Okay offense, good goalie, not so great defense. Go Devils 2003-2004! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I personally don't dislike the current brand of hockey played nowadays. I do think alot of the reason why it's harder to score than ever before is partly due to the superiority of the goalies and the fact that players are bigger and probably better conditioned than they were in the past. Half the goalies in the 80s would resemble sieves in today's NHL... I think there's just more pure skill not to mention larger goalies as well. Also, if you have larger, strong players they will do a better job of neutralizing scoring chances (e.g., compare modern era defenseman to 1980s defenseman and I'm pretty sure he's both taller and heavier!).I really HATE pathetic defense and that's why I can't comprehend why so many bitch about the fact that goal scoring is down. There's really nothing worse to me than a game with all offense, and pylons on ice. You're right about why the scoring is down. Messier touched on the goalies being better in another thread. And the size factor takes up more space and crams the neutral zone. So, there's not much room for creativity. I enjoyed watching the old All-Star games for a few reasons. 1.Quick transitions. 2.Great setups. 3.Sticks down. 4.Tag-up rule. The games had very good flow and pace. Not as many whistles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.