Parent
From: email@hidden (Women-in-Hockey Digest)
To: email@hidden
Subject: Women-in-Hockey Digest V1 #140
Reply-To: women-in-hockey
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
Precedence: bulk
Women-in-Hockey Digest Tuesday, February 17 1998 Volume 01 : Number 140
In this issue:
Re: SPOILER
Re: SPOILER
Hockey Heros
Re: [2] spoilers
Re: Gold Medal Game and Aftermath
Re: Gold Medal Game and Aftermath
American men
Re: Gold Medal Game and Aftermath
Re: SPOILER
Proud of USA Women
Re: Gold Medal Game and Aftermath
Re: SPOILER
Enough already
Some USA/Canada thoughts.....
=======================================================================
Unsubscribe:
Help:
or
=======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:25:14 -0400
From: Milton & Louise Holmes
Subject: Re: SPOILER
>At the risk of being shot - Perhpas it wasn't the coaching. Perhaos Team
>Canada just didn't want it as badly as Team USA. Or perhaps Team USA just
>outplayed Canada.
>
BANG! (Just kidding, I couldn't resist)
Making no excuses for the play of the Canadians and taking nothing away
from the fabulous performance of the Americans, I is pretty difficult to
focus on "wanting it" when the players are carrying around the extra
baggage heaped upon them by their coach. The American woman had most of
the same baggage that goes with such a high profile, international event,
but none of the extra added by their coach, Ben Smith. He did the team a
great service by quietly doing his job.
Milton
- -----------------------------------------------
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:28:08 -0400
From: Milton & Louise Holmes
Subject: Re: SPOILER
>
>> there isn't even an apperance of bias in the selection process. Clearly,
>> having the head evaluator who is associated with her own high performance
>> program business venture does not appear to facilitate this.
>
>Sorry, not clear at all. That model works just fine all over the place.
>Look at all the people who coach in various sports and run schools
>successfully.
>
There obviously needs to be a wider evaluation/scouting process. American
coaches were apparently sent a form asking if any player on their team
might be good enough to try out for the team.....
Hello, someone should go look for themselves!
Milton
- -----------------------------------------------
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:25:46 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Hockey Heros
In a message dated 98-02-17 15:13:20 EST, email@hidden writes:
<<
What I'm trying to say is that hockey does not, no matter where you live in
the US, have the prestige and fan following of the NFL or NBA. If you were
to broadcast the Stanley Cup final -- Game 7 at the same time as the
Superbowl, do you honestly believe that hockey would get the same "ratings"
as football??? We don't have John Elway, Brett Favre or Michael Jordan, for
that matter.
>>
We don't need them. Hockey has Mark Messier, Jarmid Jagr, Brendon Shannohon,
Mario Lemeiux (retired), and, oh yeah - The Great One - Gretzky.....
Not to mention, Granato (Cammi), Bye, and Tueting.
Jill
# 77 Brooklyn Blades
"Only you can prevent hockey stick fires."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:35:35 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: [2] spoilers
In a message dated 98-02-17 19:46:41 EST, email@hidden writes:
<<
Finally, the results were announced on drivetime radio during the morning
commute on virtually every station, including such bastions of sports
coverage
as NPR. Were the people who are now complaining planning to avoid radios,
TV's, and sports loving co-workers for a whole day?
>>
In NY, before they showed the game, CBS announced that they were going to tell
the score. This stroke of genius was brought to you by the executives/rocket
scientists at CBS. (Which, incidentaly, is an acronym for Constantly
Broadcasting Sh--.)
I just stuffed my head under my pillow, closed my eyes, held my ears, and sang
"la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la" until I thought it was safe to come out. Not very
mature, but it worked for me. ;-)
Jill
# 77 Brooklyn Blades
"Only you can prevent hockey stick fires."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:53:34 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Gold Medal Game and Aftermath
In a message dated 98-02-17 21:16:06 EST, email@hidden writes:
<< 3) I read the following at the canoe web site: "Half a dozen members of the
men's team that defeated the United States a day earlier came to watch,
including Eric Lindros, Wayne Gretzky and Rheaume's idol, Patrick Roy. The
U.S. men went to dinner instead." What's with that? I also heard that
Brendan Shanahan and Joe Sakic gave the Canadians a pep talk between the
2nd and 3rd periods (okay so it didn't do any good but at least they came
:-) What's with the American men? >>
Different theories exist on this...
1) It's the same crap that (tried to) keep us off the ice for so long. It's
the same crap that made half of Team USA pretend to be boys jsut so they could
play.
2) Apparantly the US men are too good to watch the women play. The US Men are
highly paid professional athletes, and cannot be bothered watching the women
play. If these men had half the heart (or brains) that the USA women have,
they would be lucky to finish with a silver.
3) If the men's Team USA had been comprosed of amateurs (collegiate players,
etc.) like the USA Teams of the past, perhaps these guys would have been there
to cheer us on.
3) Or, perhaps, their swelled heads were just to big to fit through the doors
of Big Hat...
It makes me sick to my stomach.
Jill
"Only you can prevent hockey stick fires."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:24:14 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Gold Medal Game and Aftermath
Actually the men did go to the womens games. Jeremy Roenick was online last
night (one of the AOL live event things) and he said that the entire team
attended one of the games, I think it was the first us/canada game but I'm not
sure. He said it was pretty cool to watch. So they do have some support. But
you're right, they should've been at the gold medal game, I bet that the women
would go to their game if they were going for a medal. Who needs them anyway,
we won perfectly fine without them, its their loss.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:26:31 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: American men
Of course, it's entirely possible that the men will be knocked out of the
medal round in about ninety minutes. Richter's good, and there's a ton of raw
talent on Team USA, but they aren't playing like a team, and anyone who will
bet against Dominik Hasek in a short series is taking a big risk.
I would personally find it quite interesting to see the reaction of all the
pundits who predicted that the American men would win the gold back in
November if the Czechs win tonight. Not to mention all the media types who
were all set to hype Roenick and Hull and Tkachuk and Hebert and Richter. I
guess they'll just have to settle for Bye and Brown-Miller and Granato and
Mleczko....:)
Lisa Evans
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:46:45 -0400
From: Aaron Albert
Subject: Re: Gold Medal Game and Aftermath
>In a message dated 98-02-17 21:16:06 EST, email@hidden writes:
>
><< 3) I read the following at the canoe web site: "Half a dozen members of the
> men's team that defeated the United States a day earlier came to watch,
> including Eric Lindros, Wayne Gretzky and Rheaume's idol, Patrick Roy. The
> U.S. men went to dinner instead." What's with that? I also heard that
> Brendan Shanahan and Joe Sakic gave the Canadians a pep talk between the
> 2nd and 3rd periods (okay so it didn't do any good but at least they came
> :-) What's with the American men? >>
>
>Different theories exist on this...
>
>1) It's the same crap that (tried to) keep us off the ice for so long. It's
>the same crap that made half of Team USA pretend to be boys jsut so they could
>play.
>
>2) Apparantly the US men are too good to watch the women play. The US Men are
>highly paid professional athletes, and cannot be bothered watching the women
>play. If these men had half the heart (or brains) that the USA women have,
>they would be lucky to finish with a silver.
>
>3) If the men's Team USA had been comprosed of amateurs (collegiate players,
>etc.) like the USA Teams of the past, perhaps these guys would have been there
>to cheer us on.
>
>3) Or, perhaps, their swelled heads were just to big to fit through the doors
>of Big Hat...
>
>It makes me sick to my stomach.
>
>Jill
Gimme a break! Just because they didn't come to the game you think the
American players are evil?! So what that they didn't! Yes, it would have
been nice if they had been there, but why should they be expected to go?
(expected to the point that if they don't show up that some people are as
hard on them as you just were.) It makes you sick to your stomach? Is it
really that big of a deal? If some of the Canadian men had not have shown
up would anybody be criticizing either side? No, nobody would have noticed.
I'm sorry to sound somewhat harsh here but I think you blew this way out of
proportion.
Be well.
- -Aaron
email@hidden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:41:35 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: SPOILER
At 6:28 PM -0800 2/17/98, Milton & Louise Holmes wrote:
> Hello, someone should go look for themselves!
On-location scouting is rather expensive. Who's got the money? Or time?
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:06:07 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Proud of USA Women
Congratulations to the members of the USA Women's Hockey Team. I am proud of
my "hockey sisters". The Canadian women have nothing to be ashamed of. They
were good sports and played well. Kudos to coach Ben Smith for not getting
involved in the media hype of mudslinging and making "promises" he couldn't
guarantee.
Boo hiss to CBS for the lackluster coverage. How they could not provide FULL
coverage of the game (let alone live coverage), is beyond my comprehension. I
had literally dozens of people asking me when the game was going to be seen on
US television. I must imagine that my area of the world (central PA) was no
less interested in the game than any other part of the US. CBS you dropped
the ball on this one.
My greatest hope is that this Olympics will provide the impetus for any
female, of any age, who wants to get involved with hockey. I can hear the
human interest interviews for the 2010 Olympics: "When I was growing up, I
wanted to be just like Karyn Bye (or insert any name here)".................
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:25:29 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: Gold Medal Game and Aftermath
At 7:53 PM -0800 2/17/98, email@hidden wrote:
> The
> U.S. men went to dinner instead." What's with that?
It's a lie. This was basically started by Don Cherry, who was puffing
up his Canadian teams on the air, and did the "and I look around and I
don't see any Americans here" -- at which point Ron MacLean corrected
him and named about five names. Cherry was pissed, too, because it was
clear he was just doing his normal pro-Canada thang and didn't like
being corrected (don't give me the facts, I'm pushing Canada here! --
typical Cherry, which is why he's fun to watch. Just don't take him
seriously).
The Americans were supporting their women's team at least as well as
Canada was supporting theirs.
> It makes me sick to my stomach.
Hopefully the truth makes you feel better.
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:45:33 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: SPOILER
<< There obviously needs to be a wider evaluation/scouting process. American
coaches were apparently sent a form asking if any player on their team might
be good enough to try out for the team.....
Hello, someone should go look for themselves! >>
With what money? I bet the University of Nebraska football team has a larger
budget for recruiting alone than the entire Hockey USA program has for women
...
~ Bevan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:01:17 -0600
From: Manuel Angulo
Subject: Enough already
Can't everyone just be happy that women's hockey was an olympic sport this
year? Trying to place blame on why a team lost accomplishes nothing. The
bottom line is, no one really knows what went on with either team on the
ice or in the locker rooms except the people that were there. Another
thing, hockey is a TEAM sport, not an individual sport. One or two people
don't make or break a team. No one can deny that talent is important,
however, what is just as important is heart, desire and determination.
Winning isn't about the scores on the board (although that's how medals are
awarded), it is knowing that gave your personal best no matter what the
outcome. It is my belief that all the women played the best they could and
in my book, that makes them all winners!
Candi Angulo
#21
Houston Harpies
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:34:44 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Some USA/Canada thoughts.....
A few thoughts on the Olympics, now that the medals have been awarded.
First, the disclaimers: I admit to rooting for BOTH teams all along.
I'm in the U.S., but I've been impressed with the Canadians as well. A
friend of a friend has been involved with the Canadian program as well,
and is close to Shannon Miller -- but that's as closely as I intertwine
to anyone directly involved (unlike some folks on this list....). I
also haven't seen the *entire* final game, but a good number of pieces
of it.
Now, having tried to put my biases and limitations out where everyone
can enjoy beating on them (hey, at least you know where I'm coming
from, no hidden agendas here, folks), my cut on these two teams.
I was, frankly, impressed with both teams -- they're both VERY GOOD
teams, and both played very well. Overall results were quite even;
check the stats and you see these teams are very close, match up quite
well. A few breaks and a couple of goals the other direction, and this
is is 8-6 for Canada over the series and you can swap places on the
podium.
I think we should be proud of every player on both teams -- they're all
winners.
I felt as far as skaters, Canada was a bit better as far as talent and
depth, but they just didn't have the speed to capitalize on a finesse
game. The U.S. was close in talent, but bigger and stronger and willing
to play a physical game, and were fast enough to push back on Canada's
finesse.
Goaltending was also close, but I give the edge here to the U.S. Rheume
was the better goalie for Canada, but both goalies for the States
played well.
All in all, on a pure talent basis, you play these teams 10 times, and
the U.S. wins 5.5, the Canadians win 4.5. It was that close to me, and
much of that difference was in goal.
With the teams that close, ultimately it comes down to coaching.
And here, the Americans won pretty decisively. Unlike some, I'm not
going to flay Miller or call for her public flogging, she was
outcoached by Ben Smith, and I think at times she showed her naivete to
the realities and pressure that an Olympic tourney have.
First, I thought by the time the last two games were played, the US
team was clearly playing its best and peaking, while I thought the
Canadian team had peaked earlier and was fading a bit. Canada clearly
looked tired and a bit sluggish. It's the coach's responsibility to
pace their team, and I think the Canadian women gave it all getting
here, and didn't quite have enough left.
Second, I think Canada made a strategic mistake, by at some point
deciding to try to play the U.S. style of game -- this gets back to the
strength vs. finesse issue, and Canada ended up trying to play U.S. the
American's way, while giving up 15 pounds and a couple of inches. That
may well be why they ended up tired, since the States could just
overpower them and had more stamina over the long haul.
But by the time the Olympics started, both Canada and the U.S. had
shown the refs they were willing/interested in playing a physical game,
and the refs obliged (compare how the physical play was called in
Finland/China or Canada/Japan or US/Japan to any of the US/Canada games
- -- a lot was let go between the two top teams....). In retrospect, I
think this was a mistake, because the US could win the physical
battles. Instead, Canada should have focussed on playing their game,
from early on in the exhibitions, and worked on convincing the refs to
keep the physical manhandling down. That would have limited the US
advantage. Unfortunately, they didn't, and the US got to dictate style
and tempo most of the time. This is a strategy Miller should have set a
couple of months ago, but in the grind of the repeated playing, ended
up giving the strategic advantage to the Americans and never got it
back. And they just didn't have the team to play that much of the
American style and win when it counted, and by the time of the
Olympics, they really had no way to force the Americans to play to the
Canadians.
And finally, there's the pressure issue. Smith, with his background
with the mens juniors and Div 1, had a better understanding of the
pressures involved in a life/death tourney like the Olympics. He did a
better job of preparing his players, and they were better equipped to
deal with the media crush and the overall environment. Miller tried,
but it was pretty clear to me *she* was having some problems dealing
all of it, and while she tried to protect her players (and has taken
some criticism for it on this list), I think ultimately, Smith kept his
cool and kept his team focussed, and Miller got a bit overwhelmed and
lost her focus at times, and that came across in the team as well.
Which basically proves the belief that you have to go through
situations like this to understand how to succeed in these situations
(look at, for instance, the NHL -- how many times does a group of
players *win* the Stanley Cup their first time in the final round?
Rarely -- usually, it's the repeat visit, after they go through it and
understand where the next step on the ladder is).
So Smith dictated the style of games, and Canada let them. And in the
places where I caught Smith playing mind games (all of them minor, but
there), he won't the little battles. This isn't a case of Smith being a
*better* coach, but a *more experienced* coach, especially at elite
levels. I'll bet Miller has lots of things she wishes she'd done
differently, if she could re-do them, and hopefully down the road, will
have the chance to prove it.
They're both good coaches. Smith's experience in high-profile,
high-pressure situations was a key advantage here. I don't see that
Miller mishandled her players, just simply didn't *know* the needs of
this kind of tourney. If you've been in something like this, you know
- -- it's different, in ways you just can't describe easily. Lots of
extra distractions, from media and fans to that deadly realization that
there might be no tomorrow. And the American's just plain old handled
this better.
What could Canada have done? Well, if they could find a women coach as
good as Miller but with significant high-profile experience, great. I
doubt you'll find one. Or brought in a male coach like Smith. Or added
some male experience as an assistant coach. I, honestly, think Miller
was a GREAT choice for coach, and if it fell a bit short, so be it. You
have to start somewhere, and if you want women's teams coached by women
(as I think OUGHT to be done), you have to start somewhere. It wouldn't
be the first time the trailblazer got nailed to a tree or lost in the
jungle, and that's Miller's biggest sin here: She was first.
For *this* tourney, it gave the Americans an advantage. For the
long-term good of women's hockey in Canada (i.e. to have significance
beyond the next round of Wheaties boxes), I think bringing Miller in
was the proper choice. It puts the seeds in place for women to run
their own programs, and that's a goal to be supported. Ben Smith's team
won, but does having Ben Smith as coach improve the coaching depth of
women in their own sport?
I don't think so. The win is good for women's hockey in the States, but
not for women controlling and defining women's hockey in the states.
The Gold is a short term goal, but there are longer term issues to
consider as well. Miller fell a little short today, but I think helps
Canada jumpstart to the future. Whether or not she's a part of it
herself.
My final report card:
Team US: A
Team Canada: B+
Team Finland: B-
Team China: C
(the rest have a ways to go)
Ben Smith: A-
Shannon Miller: B
Canada's program needs improvement -- Silver isn't good enough for that
team, but the gulf simply isn't that wide. Don't tear it down and
rebuild, stand back, pull the emotions out of it, and tweak. It doesn't
need replacing or fixing, it needs refining.
And realize that experience tends to win out in key situations, and
Smith had the edge over Miller -- and when they hit those key
situations, it showed. The veteran won out over the rookie. But that's
how rookies become veterans. Sooner or later, the U.S. will have to go
the route that Canada's already started down, and by then, Canada will
be back ahead of the pack.
It was, from someone with feet on both sides of the fence, one hell of
a tournament, and some pretty damn nice hockey. I think they're *all*
winners, and frankly, I find most of the griping nothing but sour
grapes. The Canadians aren't losers-- they're silver medalists. But
from the comments of some folks, you'd think they'd lost to Japan, not
the States.
chuq
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
End of Women-in-Hockey Digest V1 #140
*************************************