Parent
From: email@hidden (Women-in-Hockey Digest)
To: email@hidden
Subject: Women-in-Hockey Digest V1 #147
Reply-To: women-in-hockey
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
Precedence: bulk
Women-in-Hockey Digest Thursday, February 19 1998 Volume 01 : Number 147
In this issue:
equipment
Re: Some USA/Canada thoughts.....
Re: Random thoughts
Re:hockey future and college hockey
Re: Some USA/Canada thoughts.....
CBS coverage by the numbers
Re: Some USA/Canada thoughts.....
Re: Random thoughts
Re: Canada's Coaching
Erin Whitten
please clarify
[none]
programs
=======================================================================
Unsubscribe:
Help:
or
=======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 01:49:27 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: equipment
In a message dated 98-02-18 20:10:45 EST, Jen29H writes:
> Last thing, equipment. Since roller hockey is starting soon, I need to
> find some shin guards. And well everything I've tried on has felt wrong.
Part of it > was because I was wearing jeans (maybe next time we go shoping
it'll be
> warm enough to wear shorts). Would they feel wrong since I'm used to knee
> pads? And how are shin guards supossed to fit anyways? And as for a stick,
> Who makes a good right handed outdoor roller hockey stick for under 30
> dollars. I couldn't find one stick out of the 20 or 30 ones I saw. The only
> one I found that I liked and wasn't too short or too long was a left handed
> one. There were plenty of sticks, its just they were either too long, too
> short, too light, or left handed. Some of the sticks were the right length,
> but they were way too light. Do lighter sticks help any?
I have always been told to buy shin guards that fit down to your skate and
have good calf and knee slash protecting. Since you are playing roller hockey
outside, I think thats what you said, you also want something that will work
with your pants. I myself wear roller hockey pants and still have to tape my
shin guards, although I know plenty of people that don't. If you aren't used
to shin guards, I guess it's something you develop a comfort with. Don't
worry they aren't a nuisance. However you should feel like you can actually
skate with them on. About your stick dilemma, I think most everyone would
agree it's a personal thing. Maybe you should play around with some of your
friends sticks and get a feel for something you like or feel most comfortable
with. As for the outdoor part make sure you get an ABS laminated blade.
They are best for outdoor and will last longer. I however play with ice
hockey sticks yet I also always play indoor. The legnth of the shaft
shouldn't be a factor. If you are short enough for a junior stick then you
are lucky enough to save some cash. If not, most senior sticks need to be
sized to the person by sawing the end off to a size that you feel comfortable
with (and of course taping it up afterwards). Many people say just below the
chin when you are on skates is the right size. I prefer it slightly shorter
for more control when I am stickhandling. Just in case you didn't know or
might be interested, Cammi also has a Louisville stick, along with other
equipment, that are designed for women. I believe I saw the Louisville/Cammi
line in Ocean Catalog, although that was a while ago. Most important thing
about your equipment is that it is comfortable and durable.
Thats all I can think of...hope it helps.
Liz #14KU
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:08:09 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: Some USA/Canada thoughts.....
At 10:44 PM -0800 2/18/98, Phil & Debbie Cottrell wrote:
> I'd put my money on the USA, tomorrow, the next day and the day after that.
> The tide has turned and we need a serious rethink.
I disagree. I think if you swapped Miller and Smith, then the Canadians
would have won the gold. They're very evenly matched -- coaching
experience under pressure made the difference.
The question in Canada is not to rip this apart and start over, but
where it fell short and how to improve those areas. Coaching is an
issue. Perhaps, in retrospect, Miller should have had a second with
more mens experience at a high level of competition. But sometimes, you
don't know you have a weakness until it gets exposed, and I think
that's what happened here.
What's important on *both* teams is, now that the Olympics are done,
who's going to stay with the program, who's leaving, and how they get
replaced. I expect a number of players on both sides will retire and
get on with their lives. Depending on who that is, lots can change on
BOTH teams. We won't know that for a while.
And that's why it's important to build *programs*, not teams.
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:04:31 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: Random thoughts
At 2:33 PM -0800 2/18/98, Chuck Collins wrote:
> I have a different take on this. I'm unhappy with the message that
> the female players are good enough to play the game, but when it's
> time to select the person who leads them and trains them, it's a man.
I think we need to get away from this "male coach good, female coach
not good". That's a bad basis for discussion.
There are good and bad male coaches, and good and bad female coaches.
That's because, with very few exceptions, both male and female coaches
are human, and both sexes cross the spectrum of personalities and
capabilities. It's not a male/female thing.
What the Olympics came down to was that the *experienced* coach was
better than the *novice* coach. Miller wasn't a bad coach -- far from
it. But Smith was a BETTER coach. I'd like people to get away from some
of these black/white determinations. Life is shades of greys, not large
blocks of either is or is-not.
So Ben Smith had significant experience in high-pressure tournament
environments. That, ultimately, was the advantage he had that Miller
didn't. Where'd he get it? Over in the men's side of hockey. Is that
avenue open to women? Generally not.
So how do we turn a coach like Miller *into* a coach like Smith? By
handing them the baton and putting them in pressure situations.
Sometimes they fumble it, but there's simply no other way.
Unless you never risk giving them a baton at all. That's the only way
you guarantee never fumbling it -- by refusing to try.
Everyone starts out as a rookie, whether it's a player, a coach, or a
list mom. Every one of us. Even if we have strong mentors and a
well-developed program behind us, sooner or later the training wheels
have to be taken off, or else ultimately, we're riding a racing bike
with training wheels, and you don't win medals with that. AT some point
or another, someone did that for Ben Smith. Here, in this olympics, we
did with with Miller.
The only way you learn how to deal with pressure environments like the
Olympics is to live through them. That's true as a player as well as a
coach. All the "three nations" cups in the world are like those
training wheels -- good starts and nice confidence builders, but
nothing like the Olympics. Ben Smith had the men's world juniors to cut
his teeth on.
Women's hockey is new -- and Miller didn't have the environments Smith
had, nor the mentoring, nor the organization. Women's hockey just
doesn't have it, yet. But if women's hockey wants to DEVELOP that kind
of program and depth, it has to start somewhere. And Miller was the
start. The alternative is to never develop it yourself, but always
bring in outsiders once you hit a given level of competition. That's
what happens a lot in women's basketball, where women coaches at top
schools are still pretty rare.
Methinks women's hockey should aim for something better for itself than
being the place women go to play, run by men who aren't good enough to
coach in the men's programs. And that's not a slap at Ben Smith, before
anyone jumps me. He's proven himself on that side, too. We NEED people
like him, but we also need to help develop people like Miller so they
can become as good as Ben Smith.
Because we won't always be able to depend on folks like Smith being
willing to come over and help. If we don't develop our own
infrastructure, we'll always been considered the poor cousin to the
mens side. Is that what we want?
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 02:31:06 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re:hockey future and college hockey
>I'd really like to go somewhere with hockey, after 10 years of being asked
>what do you want to be when you grow up, I've finally found something that I
>could stand.
yeh, i totally know what you mean...cuz i live in California and there's
barely any girls' ice hockey or bare any ice hockey at aLL...I want to make
hockey paRt of my career and if not, at least bring it to coLLege...it's
reaLLy depressing since i love to pLay hockey and i have to pLay with boys.
They can have the biggest attitudes and it's horrible sometimes. Sometimes the
fact that it's boys pLaying discouRages me fRom pLaying period...(because of
wut they say or their "oh so tough" attitudes) Fortunately, pLaying hockey
with boys makes me work harder. but stiLL i reaLLy want to pLay in my future.
I wish that there were more camps and leagues in california and especially ice
hockey high schooLs.
i was aLso wondering how i couLd get into a coLLege pLaying hockey. Is there
any other way to be scouted other than major tournaments? i think of hockey as
a huge paRt of my life because i've already done so much just to make time to
pLay. Does anyone know of any reaLLy good hockey camps that might be in
california this summer?
rEne
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:48:32 -0800
From: "Phil & Debbie Cottrell"
Subject: Re: Some USA/Canada thoughts.....
Chuq:
>> I'd put my money on the USA, tomorrow, the next day and the day after
that.
>I disagree. I think if you swapped Miller and Smith, then the Canadians
>would have won the gold. They're very evenly matched -- coaching
>experience under pressure made the difference.
I don't actually think we're disagreeing. What I mean is that Team
Canada -Under The Current System- is flawed and that USA would continue to
take it to us. Not every game, but in a series we'd be out to lunch.
Yes, a different coach, like about a year ago, would not only have chosen
the team differently, but would have instilled a different ethos. This
Miller bunker mentality had our women white-knuckling it all the way along.
A cult of personality, either you were with her all the way, or your butt
was out the door ("My way or the highway! What's it going to be, Mr. Pink?"-
Reservoir Dogs). I'm pausing for a laugh now (something that's been a little
lacking on the list for a while) because the imagery reminds me of an old
Saturday Night Live sketch about the rise and fall of NBC TV president Fred
Silverman...They called it "The Last Days of Silverman's Bunker". Maybe a
CBC comedy show could work with that idea and Shannon Miller. And NO, I'm
not making comparisons between Shannon and Adolf! (On legal advice)-Just
think of the satiric possibilities...who could we cast as propaganda
minister Joseph Goebbels? "There is no need to panic, we guarantee victory
on all fronts!!" "American tanks are approaching, Fraulein Miller, what is
to be done? Is your Luger close at hand?".
Besides, Shannon would look great in jackboots.
It's late (how could you tell?).
Phil, Victoria, BC
------------------------------
Date: 18 Feb 98 23:50:51 PST (Wed)
From: Chuck Collins
Subject: CBS coverage by the numbers
Just for grins, I kept track of how much of the game CBS actually showed:
1st period: 13:50 - 7:59
3:21 - 0:00
Total: 9:11
2nd period: 20:00 - 15:39
6:30 - 0:00
Total: 10:51
3rd period: 20:00 - 12:44
12:00 - 9:20
8:44 - 6:20
4:17 - 0:00
Total: 16:40
Actually, it was hard to keep track in the third period because they didn't
show the clock very often. But they cut over half of the first period,
almost half of the second, and a fifth of the third period.
I particularly liked seeing a weatherman reporting on NATIONAL weather. I
expect it to be a trend in future hockey coverage.
- - Chuck Collins
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:54:03 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: Some USA/Canada thoughts.....
At 11:48 PM -0800 2/18/98, Phil & Debbie Cottrell wrote:
> I don't actually think we're disagreeing.
No, based on what the rest of your message said, we're definitely disagreeing.
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: 19 Feb 98 00:09:21 PST (Thu)
From: Chuck Collins
Subject: Re: Random thoughts
Chuq wrote:
> At 2:33 PM -0800 2/18/98, Chuck Collins wrote:
>
> > I have a different take on this. I'm unhappy with the message that
> > the female players are good enough to play the game, but when it's
> > time to select the person who leads them and trains them, it's a man.
>
> I think we need to get away from this "male coach good, female coach
> not good". That's a bad basis for discussion.
That's not what I said. Mischaracterizing another person's posting is
a bad basis for discussion. A closer mischaracterization might have been
"female coach good, male coach not good", but that's not what I said either.
My point was that the "hockey is a man's game" attitude is furthered even
in the women's and girls' game by the predominance of male coaches. The
world championships, there were 2 female coaches, 6 male coaches. At the
Brampton tournament last year, it was more like 90% male coaches. The
US fired Karen Kay, hired Ben Smith.
I was just trying to respond to the original poster's premise that the best
coach for a team is the one who has the most skills. My reply is that, yes,
at the National level that's probably true. At the developmental levels,
I'd like to see preference given to women coaches, both for the message
that gives to the players, and to further develop the talent pool.
My desire is to see my daughter skate for the best coach available. If that
coach is a woman, that makes it that much better. And maybe I'd trade off
some coaching skills in favor of the female coach.
- - Chuck Collins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 03:12:10 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Canada's Coaching
<< I knew the answer long before the changes happened, and so did any one else
who knows hockey and does not have private motives . >>
{yawns and stretches} I know, I know. Anyone who disagrees with the party
line is self-evidently deluded, is ignorant about hockey, and must have
unsavory motives to boot. Heaven forfend that any of us could disagree based
on honest, informed evaluation of the facts available, and let's not even
discuss the ridiculous notion that we're capable of applying logic to the
argument.
Shall we move on to a thrilling debate on the effect of sexual preference in
the dressing room? I'm sure we can whip up some scuttlebutt to the effect
that Canada lost the gold only because they a) had too many lesbians, b) had
too few lesbians, c) didn't attempt to put Patrice Levebvre in a wig, or d)
failed to sacrifice Shannon Miller to some evil deity at center ice prior to
the opening faceoff.
I'd use writing this past 3 AM as an excuse, but suspect I'd be equally bored
by the mindset any other time of the day.
~ Bevan
------------------------------
Date: 19 Feb 98 00:32:31 PST (Thu)
From: Chuck Collins
Subject: Erin Whitten
Has anyone heard anything from Erin Whitten?
I felt badly when she didn't make the team. It probably would not have hurt
the team talent-wise for her to stay on as the backup. But her high profile
probably would have provided big distractions, and outside pressure from
the media on Smith to play her in the Gold Medal game.
I really admire the class she showed when the decision was made. And in
retrospect, it was probably the single best personnel decision of the
Olympics. If you've ever seen a goalie pick up a team, what Teuting did in
the Gold Medal game was classic.
It almost seems that she earned an honorary gold medal by not making waves,
when her status as one of the pioneers and ambassadors of the sport gave
her every right to be upset.
- - Chuck Collins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 04:03:03 -0800
From: Bec Kemp
Subject: please clarify
At 11:04 PM 2/18/98 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
I need some clarification. Are these messages coming from Chuq the
listeserver subscriber or Chuq the List Mom? It is unclear to me if you
are sharing your opinion as the subscriber or telling us to get off of the
topic as the List Mom?
Thanks!
Bec
Bec Kemp
email@hidden
AOL Instant Messenger: beckemp
wherever you go, there you are!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 04:19:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Michele D Ryan
Subject: [none]
> > It's surely possible that the Canadians
> > misheard Whyte's remarks.
>
> It's a lot more possible that this was dealt with privately and NEITHER
> team wants this to be what's remembered coming out of this olympics...
[snip]
>You can be unhappy all you want, but both Shannon Miller and Goyette
>have come on CBC TV for live interviews, and both have confirmed there
>was a problem. And CBC TV had the impromptu meeting on the ice between
>Miller and Cammi Granato as it happened, as well as a camera on Guyotte
>as it happened, her reaction to the statement and her skating off
>almost smashing her stick on the boards.
>If the U.S. TV isn't covering it, that doesn't mean it's not there. It
>means, as usual, taht U.S. TV is bogus.
Judging by what members of both teams have said since the incident, my
guess is that the remark was misinterpreted. Just because the Canadians
were reporting it immediately afterwards doesn't mean that they got the
story right.
The article at the CNN/SI website seemed fairly balanced--the US player
admitted she was trash talking, but absolutely denied making fun of
Goyette's father's illness and death. And Goyette apparently is now
saying that she may not have heard the comment exactly.
I can certainly see how a trash-talking comment could be misinterpreted
in a situation like that.
I'd just like to add that I've been very impressed by the way the US team
& coach have acted towards the Canadian team since the final game. In a
group interview with Bryant Gumble, one of the first things Smith said
was that he had tremendous respect for the Canadian team. His comments
and those of the players seemed very sincere. It didn't seem like the
typical "we really admired their effort" comments. I think they were
acknowledging what a closely fought battle this was.
- --Michele
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:33:39 -0500
From: k braun
Subject: programs
It's important to build "progams"not teams!!
Absolutely! How does it serve to develop Canadian hockey to have 5
national team members return to the Aero's in the COWHL There already
is not a league wide competitive balance. 2 or 3 strong teams and lots
of blowouts. Some of the teams in fact use bantam age players while
others are mainly university and national or ex-national team
players.The basis of this league is a strong nucleus for building to the
future, but it has to change!
Suggestions for discussion.
-A draft of age-appropriate players{as in juniour A}
-a lottery of national team members
-local/area rights to players
-lets play in the wonderful historic buildings in Guelph,
Kitchener.Niagara Falls.
-How about a Don Cherry owned team linked with the -Ice Dogs-
-a Walter Gretzky team for Brantford/Hamilton
Just thoughts for the future because its time to move on.
Kurt
------------------------------
End of Women-in-Hockey Digest V1 #147
*************************************