All Things (Olympic) Hockey: Part 5, Wrapping It Up

This hurts. It sucks. Losing always does.

The United States falling in the gold medal game to our rivals to the north was tough, as losing goes, too. I have been recapping games for you here, but I don’t need to do this one. The world was watching. It was all over ESPN, NBC, and even found its way on to news sites like NYTimes.com or CNN.com. One in three people with their TVs on were watching the game as it was played, calling in to question the judgment of 2/3 of America. In Canada, that number was 4/5, so I really see no point in a blow by blow. The game certainly didn’t disappoint on the ice, unfortunately, that’s exactly what the result did.

It was easy going into the game to say that it was all upside. I had told myself that the tournament had been so great that even if Canada maintained hockey dominance, I couldn’t end it upset. I told myself that I had known that the USA was a long shot, and that silver would be a great finish. I knew that the tournament had brought hockey to the forefront of the sports world. And I told myself that I had seen the greatest hockey tournament of my life, 34 enjoyable, great games of the 41 that were played, and that really, we were all winners. All those things were true, and I couldn’t have asked for a better game in the finals. All I do is watch hockey when I have fee time between October and June, and between the last two Sundays, I saw the two best hockey games I have ever seen. Unfortunately, by the time Crosby went Miller time and put the USA on ice, I was convinced that the USA not only could win, but would win.

I knew Canada was better, but we hadn’t lost yet in Vancouver. The team was resilient, and more importantly, despite what some had thought coming in, they were damn good. 120 minutes of even hockey isn’t a fluke, the USA could play with Canada. When they went down a few minutes into overtime, all the rationality of not being disappointed, thinking that everyone was a winner after the greatest tournament I have ever seen, and realizing that silver was a great result for USA Hockey was crushed by the anger brought about by seeing Corey Perry hug Chris Pronger having just won the gold that should have returned to the USA after 30 years (this hug really happened, and when it did, I really wanted to cry).

What had been elation on facebook and twitter moments before when Zach Parise had tied the game, was replaced by Crosby hate which I reject, anguish which I shared and disparaging remarks about Canada being Americas hat, which I refrained from, but fully endorsed. On the ice, it was one of the best games I have ever seen. I can’t possibly say that I feel cheated, and I’ll get to those things, but it was still a tough reminder that in sports there are two things. There are no moral victories. No matter how rational you are coming in, there is only winning and losing. One is great the other hurts.

The Olympic hockey tournament couldn’t have been better. I couldn’t be prouder of team USA. Bobby Ryan, Jack Johnson and Ryan Whitney play for a division rival. Brian Rafalski, Zach Parise and Jamie Langenbrunner play for teams I have grown up resenting. I will never be able to root against any of them, or anyone else on team USA again. There are a plethora of great things that I can take away from the Vancouver Olympics, but right now, all I am getting is that we lost. The greatest player alive ended the greatest tournament I have ever seen, and right now it sucks.

There were so many things to like about the Olympics, whether you are a diehard hockey fan, a big sports fan with a passing interest in the ice, or even a casual sports fan that tunes in only to check out the Super Bowls, March Madness’s and National Championships of the sports calendar. As someone who started to preview the Olympic hockey tournament last February, and routinely writes about the NHL, it would be impossible for me to sum it up from a perspective of something other than a diehard fan, and as someone who lives with hockey every day, one of the most fun things about the tournament was that for once, hockey was the center of the universe.

It can be frustrating being a hockey fan in America. ESPN will relegate NHL highlights to the last few minutes of SportsCenter, or go months without putting it on the front page of ESPN.com. That certainly wasn’t the case during these Olympic Games. Hockey has always been there with American media, but you wouldn’t say that it has ever quite been a mainstream topic. Once Team USA made it clear they were poised to make a run, though, America seemed willing and eager to follow them, and the sports media followed suit.

Hockey fans and non-hockey fans alike were checking scores, watching games online or on tape delay, even as NBC was trying to tell us that the Olympics were for our mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends by showing an endless array of figure skating and ice dancing, the most insufferable of all so called sports, in addition to a plethora of women’s events surrounded by ads for Tide and Vicks, or ones proclaiming that ‘To their moms, they will always be kids.’ ESPN was putting previews and scores on the front page. It was the main attraction for talk radio. NBC was even forced to give in, eventually, moving the USA-Finland game to live, and carrying the Canada-USA game both live and with limited commercials, in order to show all the action.

It isn’t just conjecture and insinuation, either. The ratings for hockey were huge. Almost as many people tuned in to MSNBC to watch the USA beat Canada as watched Obama get elected on the most prominent liberal news source. 27.2 million people watched the USA-Canada final in the United States, along with 80 percent of Canada. Not 80 percent of people watching TV, but 80 percent of the population, or 26.5 million people (this is perhaps my favorite stat, that more Americans watched than Canadians, although the 80 percent is astounding). Essentially, hockey was as big yesterday as it has been for 30 years since Carter and Brezhnev decided to forgo nuclear war and the USA beat Russia in the battle of Lake Placid, to put it lightly, to win the cold war and ensure the triumph of capitalism and freedom for the world over communism and dictatorship.

Even if the American numbers would have been just as high against Slovakia (they wouldn’t have been, although judging by the Finland numbers, they still would have been huge), the viewers were treated the best team in the tournament, America, against the best players, the Canadians. Someone said that if you don’t enjoy that, you don’t enjoy hockey. I would say that you don’t enjoy sports.

Does that mean that the NHL will now turn around and do numbers that beat the BCS and regular season football all the time? Of course not, but it does mean that come playoff time, or Sunday afternoons, some of the 50 million plus that checked out the games will come across the NHL and say, ‘hey, it is Ryan Miller,’ or Sidney Crosby, or Patrick Kane, and stick around, when they would have changed the channel before. That’s because people like hockey. Very few watch it, say “I’m bored,” or “that sucked,” and never want to go back to the game. Usually, the reaction of sports fans watching hockey is at worst that they don’t get it, but more often, that they want to watch more. The problem for the NHL has never been a bad product, but rather under-exposure. While a little familiarity from a popular Olympics may not turn around hockey as a TV sport, with an NBA lockout looming, it can’t be a bad thing. And who knows, it might be enough to boost the game in the USA after all, even if it is just a little.

I mentioned women’s events and figure skating—and the effect that they have on ratings—above, and wanted to clarify my thoughts on that, as well as put my take on the NBC coverage out there.

Women’s events should absolutely be in the Olympics—not the figure skating, but the women’s events like hockey, skiing and Speed Skating for instance--, but to covered and hyped to the extent that they were? Come on. I can name three women’s skiers, two snowboarders, and a speed skater. The only males I know that don’t play hockey are Shaun White, since he has been bouncing around for a few years, Bodie Miller because he used to be the best, and Apalo Ohno because…well I’m actually not sure what his appeal is, but he keeps getting jammed down our throats. I’m not being a misogynist, only pointing out that it is a fact that men’s events push more boundaries, are faster, and are generally more exciting, yet they receive significantly less coverage. The reason for this is pretty simple.

Unfortunately, the networks know that sports fans will tune in, so they go out of their way to bring in other audiences that could lead to a big number. This emphasis is misconceived as being because women and non-traditional fans watch more. Instead, it just means that they need to be pandered to more, since their viewership can be had, and will push ratings to greater heights, but it is harder to court. This leads to a paradox in which the core audience is neglected, in order for the network to attract its largest possible audience. You can’t blame NBC for it, but it is rough if you are a sports fan.

One thing I can blame NBC for, though, is the tape delays. Many people have pointed out, similar to the point above, that the primetime show does huge numbers and should be kept as it is, even if it is taped footage. I completely agree. I watched most of my stuff online, and was uninterested in the pageantry (that’s what it was---sports don’t have judges) that was emphasized at night. The problem is that there is not a single reason that I have heard or can think of, in the vast and rapidly expanding GD universe, that events occurring at noon, 2 or 3 in the afternoon shouldn’t have been live on NBC.

When many of the live events were taking place, in the afternoons, NBC’s typical programming includes repeats of soap operas, the Bonnie Hunt Show, something called a Wendy Williams show and the abortion known as the Ellen Degeneres show. I know, because I am in the gym most days at this time, and there is usually at least one TV on NBC. Every time I see Ellen dance in front of her audience like the dorky, phony loser that she is, before she sits down, and fails to be funny with guests I could not possibly care about, I hate humanity a little bit more, and that is the so-called ‘highlight’ of the slate of afternoon vapidity that they refused to cancel, or even move to one of their cable networks. Yes, I am losing my temper, but it is well freaking justified. If you try to tell me, NBC, that those are better programming decisions than showing the Olympics while they happen, and that this is a valid reason for not showing me a life freaking hockey game, I will fly to New York and take the cast of 30 Rock as hostages.

I forgot what I was talking about. God I hate dumb executives…

One more thing, speaking of dumb executives. If you are a casual sports fan who, like millions of your countrymen, tuned on the game on Sunday to check out some hockey, enjoyed it, and now want to watch a bit more, you have no idea where you can watch it. I’ll answer the question for you it is on N-B-freaking-C, the network you were watching, and it is on every Sunday, but you didn’t know that. Why not? BECAUSE NBC DIDN’T SHOW ONE GD PROMO FOR THE NHL ON NBC! NOT ONE! IN THE ENTIRE TIME THEY WERE DOING THE BIGGEST RATING THEY WILL GET IN MONTHS, FOR A FREAKING HOCKEY GAME THEY DIDN’T STOP AND THINK, ‘HEY, MAYBE WE SHOULD LET PEOPLE KNOW WE HAVE MORE OF THIS.’ NO I WILL NOT TURN OFF CAPS LOCK. THIS IS EGREGIOUS. IT DEFIES LOGIC. I LITERALLY DON’T KNOW HOW TO DESCRIBE HOW STUPID THAT IS.

People have said that the NHL may not see any sort of significant boost from this tournament, which to me is a load of crap. I have a number of friends who have cheerfully told me that Sunday was a bad day for the NBA, because they are now in on hockey. If I am wrong though, I will know exactly why.

I will now take a five mile walk to calm down…

Having ranted for about two thousand words about how great the 2010 Olympics were, I probably don’t need to tell you that I am strongly in favor of the NHL returning to the Olympics in 2014, by going to Sochi, Russia. Gary Bettman has refused thus far to commit to such a scenario, but he simply has to send guys overseas. First of all, because not one player has said that they don’t want to travel and represent their country, and some have gone as far as to insist that they will, if they are released from the league for 2 weeks or not. There is more to it than that though.

A lot will be made in the run up to the decision to go to Sochi or not, of the fact that Bettman works for the owners, and that the NHL doesn’t see a dime from the Olympic Games. The thing is, as a commissioner of a major sports league, your job goes a bit deeper than your financial responsibilities to the owners. Your responsibilities do, anyways. Sure, protecting the interests of the owners and the league can come first, but they shouldn’t be the only concern. Growing and protecting the game should certainly factor into decisions made, especially if there isn’t a significant downside, and I am sorry, but a condensed regular season with a 3 week break is not a significant downside.

Beyond that, the premise that the Olympics don’t help the NHL is shortsighted. If anything, the NHL needs to work with their partners (coughNBCcough) to ensure that it does help. You cannot convince me that having the best players in the world, on perhaps the biggest stage in the world, does not help the game of hockey. It is too good, and too exposed not to at least make people more aware of the game. People will say that the games didn’t help the NHL, but people talking about hockey helps the NHL. Period. Sure, the USA-Canada final in an NHL city is about as good as it can get from the standpoint of North American hockey, but that hardly means that significant momentum can’t be built for the sport even if the result is less perfect.

There are some detractors that have nothing to do with the NHL, usually by referencing the 1980 games, but these premises are fairly easy to reject. An argument that some people have voiced is that the Olympics were somehow more pure when the athletes were amateurs. I couldn’t disagree more. Ask the IOC how the Olympic baseball tournament has gone. Without pros, the Olympics essentially become a second rate event. That, not having professionals, is what would fly in the face of the Olympic spirit. The Olympics are all about bringing the best athletes in the world together (as well as the best curlers), in order to see which nations are dominant at these sports. In no way would restricting access to the games to those who are at the top level make this a better tournament. It would make it a lower level of play at best, arbitrary at worst. As for the 1980 argument, that was a perfect confluence of circumstances. No one can say anything about the 1984 or 1988 tournament other than ‘the Russians probably won.’ One of the first sporting events I can remember, however vaguely, is the 1992 Lillehammer Olympics. I was 3, but I remember watching with my parents. Not once, as far as I can tell, did we watch hockey. 1980 will never happen again, and to try to replicate it is shortsighted.

Generally, I like to refrain from blaming ‘the media,’ in the general sense, as one. This is hard to detect, since I do it all the time, just know that I have an urge to write about something stupid that I hear all the time, let’s just say twice a day, by way of an estimate, but usually stop myself. During the Olympics, there were a lot of things that gave me this urge. Here are a few of them.

- People kept asking themselves, in previewing team USA, if a ‘repeat of the Miracle on Ice’ could take place, and the USA could take gold. I don’t even need to explain how stupid this is, but just for fun, had the USA decided to send their world junior team, and the Russians sent their national team, and the USA took gold, that would be a repeat of the miracle on ice. But only if the Russians were playing for China. And people in America actually realized how evil the Chinese government actually is. Everyone knows this by now, but there were still plenty of morons trying to play this up, and they need to be called out.

- Later, I heard a lot of people talking about the United States’ upset of Canada. They were responding to the hordes of media saying that this victory compared to that of 1980. They were rightfully calling out all the people saying that this was just as big a win for USA Hockey. There was a problem, though. No one was saying this. They were responding to people that they had made up. Sure, plenty of people were comparing the game to the 1980 tilt, but not one was saying it compared favorably. To a man, people agreed that it wasn’t as big an upset. Still, the media felt compelled to point out that these people (who I stress, are imaginary), kept saying that this was the same, and correcting them (even thought they didn’t exist).

- A third 1980 thing got to me. We get it. It was the greatest thing in the history of hockey, nay sports, nay human history, nay the universe. Listen, I have seen Miracle 2,864 times. I own the documentary. I have found the entire game online and watched it multiple times. I even read The Boys of Winter twice. I know that the most interesting story wasn’t Eruzioni, or Ralph Cox getting cut, but Herb Brooks playing nice with his archrival at Wisconsin, Bob Johnson, because he was afraid Johnson wouldn’t let his son Mark play in the Olympics for Brooks. Just thinking about this, I want to watch Miracle again. Having said all of that, can we just agree to move on? I’m not saying completely. We should show clips when Johnson is coaching the women’s team. We should run a piece or two on it on anniversaries, and at least once an Olympics. What bothers me, is that everything that USA Hockey does gets brought back to it. I don’t want to forget about the 1980 games, but I am ready to move on.

- This one is less about incompetence and making stuff up, and more about my competitive disposition. I listen to Leafs Lunch, an hour long talk radio show out of Toronto every day. I don’t listen because I care particularly about the Toronto Maple Leafs, but rather because I enjoy good sports talk radio, and Leafs Lunch is one of the few high quality shows with a focus on the NHL. I would recommend it to anyone who likes hockey, as Darren Dreger is perhaps the best reporter in the NHL, and provides a great league wide view. Last Thursday, the day after the red Maple Leafs smoked out the Russians in dominant fashion, they opened the show in an…aggressive…manner.

Here is the link, take a listen for yourself (you have to scroll down to get to the February 25^th show).

(If you didn’t listen, the show began with Queen’s We Are the Champions, before guest host Brian Duff proceeded to declare the tournament over for the next five minutes. You really need to listen to get the full effect, though.)

Now, bear in mind, that this was not Monday’s show. Canada had not only not won the tournament yet, they hadn’t even made the championship game yet. Even if he was trying to make a point, the whole thing came off as sort of infuriating. After I listened to that, I wanted to take the ice for the United States, who had just beaten the Canadians, a team that had only played one game in which they looked unflappable.

The podcast is great, and I would recommend it to anyone who likes hockey, but this got me a bit fired up, because Duff completely trivialized two strong teams (Slovakia and America). Then again, he was right, although Canada didn’t exactly roll to the title like he predicted, with one goal wins over Slovakia and the United States.

- Not one person on ESPN, ESPN Radio, ESPN.com or NBC pointed out how great it was that the second leading goal scorer in the tournament was Norway’s Tore Vikingstadt. Seriously, his name is Tore Vikingstadt. That is way better than Fedor Tyutin, the current league leader in awesome names, and may even be good enough to surpass Jeff Beaukeboom as the greatest hockey name of all time. Seriously forget the trade deadline, my one hope for the Sharks is that they sign Tore Vikingstad. He did score 4 goals in four games against America, Canada, Switzerland and Slovakia, three of the top four teams in the tournament. Would I buy a Tore Vikingstad Sharks jersey? I am pretty broke, but I don’t think I would have a choice. I don’t know what the transfer rules are for the DEL, but we need to at least inquire about the Hanover Scorpions’ (Vikingstad’s current team) interest in Scott Nichol or Brad Staubitz.

(And you’re right, this had basically nothing to do with the media, I just wanted to point out how awesome Tore Vikingstad is. He is my new favorite player.)

There seem to be two factions here in America, now that Canada has gone back to their igloos, village fishermen and polar bears with a gold medal in the only sport they care about. The first is a sort of ‘good-for-you’ feeling, shared by a lot of sports fans who aren’t so much hockey fans on a day to day basis. The feeling that Canada, which most Americans have always liked, deserved to win on their home soil is certainly shared by many. On the other hand, there is a large dose of Sidney Crosby haterade. Not only do I not buy into this, I actually find it a bit upsetting.

If you happen to be a fan of the New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, you get a pass on this (I would include the New York Islanders, but as far as I can tell, they haven’t had a single fan since 1994). For these guys, it is a divisional rivalry thing. Personally, I chose to respect, fear and root against special players who are in the same division as the Sharks, but if you want to go all the way to genuine hate (sports hate, at any rate), that is fine with me. Everyone else, though, you sound ridiculous.

Sidney Crosby only does one thing. That one thing, is do everything right. All the kid wants to do is be the best player that he can be, and win hockey games. Take a look at his career.

As a rookie, the cros was a twice in a generation playmaker (add Iginla to his number and you get the other guy), but not what you would call a pure scorer. This worked alright, especially when Gino Malkin joined him in Pittsburgh, but you could tell that Crosby was never completely satisfied with his role as a setup guy. Still, he killed himself to help his team win games. It is laughable that Ovechkin is sometimes sited by dumb hockey fans as better because “he plays a physical game.” I am the farthest thing from an Ovie hater, but Crosby spends more time in the corner, battling for pucks in a given month than Ovechkin has in his career. Crosby got plenty of help from guys like Malkin and Jordan Stall, but did every single little thing (on both ends of the ice), in leading the Penguins to the cup last year.

Crosby came into the game as an elite talent, but he had found new ways to get better, and to help his team get to championship level. Once they got there, there was only one thing that changed in his desire to get better. This year, he turned it up a notch. He decided that to take the Penguins back to the finals, he would have to be a scoring threat, because, as he said, teams could shut him down as a playmaker (untrue, but don’t tell 87 if you are a Pens fan). He did just that, shooting more, creating more, and racking up a league leading 42 goals.

Less noticeable, but more importantly, Crosby has turned two of what were considered his weaknesses into downright, indisputable strengths. Not just passable skills, but on both counts, league leading statistics. When attempting to find something wrong with the kid as a young player, nitpickers often pointed to faceoffs as something that Crosby could improve upon. All he did was work, and in 2009, he is 11^th in the league in faceoff percentage. Same goes for shootouts. Crosby started out his career 1 for 9 in the tiebreaker, but now he has found a move (fake that almost is just a stickhandle to the backhand, back to the forehand to open up the goalie and a quick shot 5 hole), that works for him, and he is second in the NHL with shootout goals, with 6 in 8 attempts this season.

There are two takeaways from this. One is that goons the league over better hope that Crosby is never told that his weakness is that he doesn’t fight enough/isn’t a good enough fighter, because you better believe that if that were the case, he would lock himself in an MMA gym for the summer and come back to break every orbital bone in the league. More importantly, Crosby is, quite simply, the complete package. A supposedly good guy to boot, Sid does everything that you could want on the ice, and if he doesn’t, you can bet he will next year.

I can’t really buy into the whole ‘it would have been good to win, but I’m happy for Canada’ thing. USA Hockey is right there with the Sharks for me. World Juniors are my favorite part about the holidays. I started thinking about the Olympics a year ago. I know we could have won, and I really wanted gold for this team. The fact is, though, that it is fitting that Crosby, the best player in the world ended the tournament with the greatest players in the world.

All Things (Olympic) Hockey: Part 4, One Last Show for an Absolute Beauty

The United States couldn’t look better heading into their rematch with host squad and arch rival Canada, but despite that, surprisingly, I have a huge problem.

I know it is an odd sentiment to have, since unless you happen to be from Stockholm or Moscow, this Olympic tournament has done nothing but spoil us as hockey fans. The talent level has been mind numbing. The intensity has been like that of the NHL playoffs. With the exception of a few blowouts, there has been an excess of drama. Storylines are popping up every day. The tournament thus far has been nothing short of outstanding. It has met every expectation and then some. Sunday, we get the matchup that we all want, the only down side is that after that it all has to end. After that, as much as I love the NHL, it will be a shame to wait another four years to do it again.

Putting aside that upsetting thought, the message from Vancouver is clear. Mr. Betteman, you have been doing the best job of your career the past two years, I will begrudgingly admit. Since the lockout, aside from sticking with Versus, a situation that was largely unavoidable after ESPN cut ties in 2005, hockey fans have had less to criticize you about then at any other time in your career. That isn’t to say that past mistakes have been forgotten, but there have been fewer recently.

There is something you have been refusing to give a clear answer on though, even though it should be obvious. Ovechkin, camera shoving and media ignoring aside, is right. This needs to happen again in four years, Gary. NHLers need to go to Sochi, and if you prevent that, it needs to be your final straw.

Of course that tournament isn’t quite over, and the most memorable part is still to come. There will be plenty of time to say what I want about going back to the Olympics (and I have plenty more to say), I only mention that because yesterday’s slate drove that point home in spades. Both games were, in their own way, absolutely beautiful displays of hockey.

The first, the United States immediate dismantling of Finland was not by any means dramatic. As weird as it sounds, the game actually wasn’t even as close as its 6-1 final score. America came out absolutely flying. Too me, the defining moment of the game was that of a loose puck slipping down the ice, and the Finnish defensemen Sami Lepisto and Jani Niskala turning to give chase out of their attacking zone. The two defensemen had a good 10-15 feet on Phil Kessel when he took off. By the far blueline, Kessel had caught and passed both of them, who curved awkwardly for Mikka Kiprusoff’s pass. Kipper misjudged Lepisto’s turn, though, giving it to Ryan Malone and opening the floodgates for the United States.

Kessel giving chase, being faster, wanting it more, and making it easy for his teammate by forcing Finland into error were a fitting analogy for the first period of the game. The United States was phenomenal, essentially wrapping the game up by the 9: 52 mark, when Patrick Kane’s backhand made it 4-0 just after a Finland timeout. Mikka Kipprusoff literally pulled himself, headed to the locker room, and with almost 50 minutes to play, the game was decided.

Since 47 dull, almost meaningless minutes followed the six goal onslaught that started the semi-final game, it is easy to question what exactly made it hockey at its best. While a blowout is hardly what you look for when you go in to a game wanting to see a good one, hockey at its best is exactly what the United States gave the world in that first period. Every pass was crisp. Every play was made. Seams were found. Pinches were perfectly timed. Opportunities were finished. It is easy to write off the win by saying Kipprusoff gave it away, and in a way he did. Obviously, that first goal let all the air out of the Finland team, and in a way they didn’t have a chance after that. But the next five goals, they earned. I have watched it at least five times, and really, it could have been even worse. It was just a formidable display by every member of the American team.

The second game was your more traditional classic. Obviously, I took a lot of flak from friends, for being a moron, out of my mind, naive and just plain wrong when I said I thought that Slovakia was a better team than Russia, and was going to beat the Canadians. Do I wish I picked Canada? Kind of. Being right is great, but I am happy that I went out on a limb, and I feel pretty vindicated anyways. Slovakia was vastly underrated in this tournament, I knew it, and in that way, I was right. I would say that is at least as good as picking the winner in one game with a heavy favorite (and yes, I am rationalizing the fact that the one time I went with my gut over convention, I turned out to be wrong).

Really, though, the label of Cinderella, which they were given in spades, was unfair. Slovakia was loaded. I would trade anyone on the Sharks for the Marians, Gaborik and Hossa. That isn’t to say that they do more for a team than Marleau and Thornton, but no one is more fun to watch. Slovakia, as I wrote was a good team on both ends, and they didn’t do anything that shouldn’t be expected of them moving forward (especially because Jaroslav Janus, star of the 2008-2009 WJCs, an up and coming netminder, will likely be a well known name by 2014).

It took them 2 periods to get started, but once they did, Slovakia put the fear of God in Canada. Unfortunately, as good as they proved to be, they proved to be equally hot and cold, and in this one, the cold was good for 3, the hot for just 2. With that in mind, I don’t want to take too much away from Canada. Some will be eager to say that they looked shaky in coming a missed open net by Pavel Dimitra away from overtime, but I would go the other way and say that they took care of business against a tough, tough opponent, something you couldn’t apparently say for the Finland squad, which was done 10 minutes in.

That leaves us with the rematch that everyone has wanted to see. I would have loved Slovakia and the USA go 1-2. The fact is, though, this is the best thing for the game. Anyone with a pulse, a TV, and a passing interest will tune in for this one. I would break it down, but there is no point. These are the two best teams in the world, they will do battle, and a bounce or two will determine who gets to sing off key at the end of the game. The prediction is simple. It is also worthless. Canada has the best players, the USA appears to have the best team. No one, including myself, can know to any degree of certainty what will go down. On top of that, I am about as objective as…well, l don’t know, something that is really not objective at all. Anyways, just for fun, let’s go with USA 2 - Canada 2 after regulation, America pulling it out in overtime for a 3-2 win.

Take that to the bank, or don’t. It is a guess anyways.

So back to that problem. Tomorrow (actually, today by now), I am going to see the most anticipated hockey game that I can remember. My schedule is cleared. I fully intend to sequester myself in my room with a Team USA style Polo zip-up and a Ryan Miller inspired Sabers t-shirt. Text messages, phone calls, and facebook messages will fly from my dorm, breaking down team USA with my countrymen, and talking trash with my Canadian friends. Facebook and Twitter will light up with patriotism and (hopefully) celebration. Hockey, for once, will be the center of the universe. I will thoroughly enjoy the entire affair. But then it will disappear for four years, and even longer from North America. It might be what makes it so good, but it is still a shame, so I better enjoy this one. That shouldn’t be a problem.

All Things (Olympic Hockey): Part 3, No Regrets

A couple of years ago, I wrote a 2008 MLB preview where I projected the standings for the three AL divisions. The Tampa Bay Rays had long been the laughing stock of the AL East, and had gone a dismal 66-96 in 2007. A lot of people thought that the Rays would always be the Rays, but I wasn’t sure. I really liked some of their younger players. They seemed to have been stockpiling talent, and seemed prime for a breakout. Something told me that 2008 was the year it could come together. Still, they were the Rays. Here’s what I wrote:

“In all seriousness, this team has built up an arsenal of prospects over the years. I think that this will be the year that they finally make the jump to contender. There is way too much talent on this roster for them not to become a winning team in the next few years. Although giving up Delmon Young may have been difficult (or maybe not considering his unpopularity and discipline issues), but adding Matt Garza to Jamie Shields and Scott Kazmir gives the Rays something they have never had before, a solid pitching staff. In any other division, the Rays have the talent to contend for the division title. More importantly, as Barry Bonds has shown us by pointing to the sky after HRs, God cares deeply about baseball. The Rays dropped the “Devil” from their names and renounced their satanic allegiance. Look for the omnipotent creator of the universe to reward the Rays with solid middle relief and consistent two out hitting.”

Apart from the tongue in cheek bit, I really believed that about the Rays, and I wrote it in February, before they came out and won the AL East with 97 wins. Great, right? I had called that they would become a contender. The problem was that I also wrote this: “3. Tampa Bay Rays.”

In my heart of hearts, I really did think that the Rays had a better roster than the Yankees, and I should have picked them ahead of them, to win the wild card. The problem was, I had been told time and again how good the Yankees were, and I knew the Rays had never been good, so I went conservative. I said I thought the Rays were good, but didn’t go all the way with it. I was right, but I could have been really right, and as soon as the Rays got off to a hot start, and established themselves as a contender, I was kicking myself for not being more bullish on them.

Fast-forward to yesterday, and I have the exact same feeling. Sure, I picked Canada, and sure, I spent a few paragraphs breaking down why the Russians were weak at defensemen, and how this was neutralizing their talent up front, but I didn't say that I ultimately wasn’t sure how good the Russian team was. I didn’t say that I thought that the Slovakia upset (over Russia, not the one last night) wasn’t an upset at all. Most importantly, I didn’t say what I should have, that the Russians had 5 stars, 3 good players, and after that they weren’t a great team. They weren’t even a good one.

What I ended up saying was pretty flimsy. I pointed out that the Russians were the number 1 team in the official IIHF Rankings, I didn’t mention their lack of forward depth, or boneheaded decision to go with the KHL core, and I said that I “thought (their D) would hurt them against Canada.” Sure, I picked them to go down, so I was right, but I could have been more right. Once again I knew it right away. A couple of minutes after the 4:30 start, I had started to send out txt messages questioning if the Russians were as good as we thought. My answer? No.

I went over the defensemen problem at length, and I'm glad that I wrote that before the game, but for the most part, I wish I had a mulligan breaking down the Canada-Russia game in preview. So I’m taking a mulligan. Because it is my blog. And I can. Sure, it is easy to say these things now that Russia is headed home, just know that a, I was tempted to before the game, and b, I started writing the following paragraph at about 4:45 on Wednesday.

We have been building up this Russia Canada match up for a few days now. Rightfully so. They are the number one and two ranked teams in the world. The star power is overwhelming with guys like Ovechkin, Crosby, Kovalchuk and Heatley and Nash taking the same ice. The problem is, that by proxy, this has built up the Russian team. We have assumed that they can beat Canada, that they are at least one of the favorites for gold, but there is a problem. I’m not sure that they are that good, and the problem doesn't end with the back end, like I talked about yesterday, either.

The Russian top 5 is beyond reproach. Pavel Datsyuk, Ilya Kovalchuk, Alexander Ovechkin, Evgeni Malkin and Alexander Semin compare to the first five on any team…anywhere. After that, they have four guys who are…fine. Afinogenov is good but inconsistent, Radulov is good but playing at a lower level in Russia (yeah, a lower level, more on that later), and Gonchar is good but old, and hasn't been healthy that much lately, and Markov is good, but really not that good. After that? They look way more like the Belarusian or Swiss team than the Canadians.

Just look at the rosters, and it seems, well, apparent, if not obvious. Among those on the third Canadian line were Ryan Getzlaf, Eric Staal, Johnathan Teows, and Jarome Iginla. NHL stars. For America, either the Joe Pavelski, Ryan Malone and Phil Kessel or Bobby Ryan, Patrick Kane and David Backes line made up the third unit. Either way, they had three borderline all-stars, at worst, on that line. For Sweden, Franzen, Hornqvist and Samuelsson or Modin make up the 6-9 forwards (by my estimation, I didn’t find their actual lines, but I had them behind the Sedins, Nicklas Backstrom, Henrik Zetterberg, Daniel Alfredsson, and Peter Forsberg) and are first liners in the NHL. For Russia, after putting Afinogenov with the big five, you are left with Radulov (fine), a washed up Sergei Federov, and a long forgotten Viktor Koslov as the third line, or else that AHL (sorry, Freudian Slip), I mean KHL line that they have been rolling out.

The result is simple. Guys like Alexander Frolov and Alexei Kovalev got passed up for the 2010 team because the Russian brass wanted to prove the strength of the KHL. They did the opposite. They ignored the fact that the KHL is a league where guys like Robert Esche, an ancient Alexei Yashin, and former NHL role player Josef Vasacek have been top tier players. They wanted to prove their league, so they took six of their twelve forwards from the KHL.

The result is simple. They aren’t as good as they could have been, and they just don’t match up with the powers. Really, they are closer to a team like Slovakia. Seriously, is Gaborik, Hossa, Handzus, Demitra, Satan, Palffy (showing his years much less than Federov), Zednik, Kopecky and Marcel Hossa much worse than Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Malkin, Datsyuk, Semin, Afinogenov, Federov, Radulov and Kozlov? I don’t think so. It’s worse, but not that much worse, and when you take the blue lines into account, they begin to look even. They tried to prove the KHL is coming up to par with the NHL, but what they ended up proving is that it has a long way to go.

So that is what I wish I had said about the Russians. I’m not saying I would want to see them. The fact that they have five guys who can score so potently makes them capable of beating anyone. I just don’t know if we can be as surprised as we were by their 2-2 Olympics record.

Moving to yesterdays slate, we got three high quality games, and one where the level of talent was so high, it made up for the lack of a cleanly played game. The day started off with the Swiss against the Americans, and really, it was one of those games that if you watched, you know how enjoyable it was, but if you didn’t, it is hard to explain.

The relentless American attack being held off again and again by Hiller’s standing on his head, countered by the occasional Swiss attack was great theater, even if Americans would have preferred an easier time of it. All in all though, the USA played well, and Ryan Miller showed no signs of letting up after becoming a national phenomenon against Canada.

After that, even though the Canadians were clearly a class above the Russians, knowing who the Russians had on the front line and that the loosening of play favored their ubertalented forwards, the game, despite not even being as close as the 7-3 score, didn’t lack for drama. Both the Finish and the Czechs brought it, but amongst an incredible slate of four games, the 2-0 win for Finland was comparatively forgettable (although had it not been surrounded by beauties, it likely would have been much more memorable).

The best game of the night though, was the nightcap. I don’t have a solution, short of adding a third rink to the venue, but it is a shame that this one started at midnight eastern, just like it was a shame that Finland-Sweden, Slovakia-Russia and the Czech Republic-Slovakia were played when most people in the most populated region of North America was in bed (small wonder the Slovakians have flown under the radar). Like I said, though, with just two rinks, there are already games from noon until 11:30, many days non-stop, so it is tough to avoid. This really was a thrilling affair though.

If you live east of, say, Chicago, or are over the age of 30 and were in bed by the time this wrapped up (for the record, I was falling asleep, despite being riveted, in the third period), let me fill you in. After a scoreless period, the Slovaks came out firing, and grabbed two in under a minute from Marian Gaborik and Andrej Sekera (a defenseman for the Sabers), taking a 2-0 lead a third of the way into the second period. Sweden answered a couple of minutes later when Hornqvist put a backhand past Halak, and a Zetterberg centering pass went off a Slovakian shin pad to tie it at two.

This is where the difference, in my opinion, between the Russians and the Slovakians came into play. With the defending champs carrying the momentum, Slovakia had the talent along the blueline to calm the game down, hold off the Swedish attack, and basically do exactly what Russia could not against Canada, when one goal quickly turned to two and three for the Leafers. The result was a lot of back and forth play, until Pavol Dimitra blasted one past Lundqvist, converting a Slovakia powerplay in the waning minutes of the second to give his Slovakia squad a 3-2 lead.

In the third, Lundqvist made a nice stop on a 2 on 1 with Gaborik and Hossa (probability of scoring on that has to be about 90%), but Tomas Kopeky trailed the play, and knocked home the rebound to make it 4-2. Sweden immediately answered to make it 4-3, but Sloakia ultimately held off the attack, to knock off the defending champs, and give themselves a chance to take down Sweden, Russia and Canada in the same tournament.

So now that we have our match ups, it would be remiss not to look to the last four games of the tournament. This brings me to a regret not unlike the one that I voiced earlier about the Rays, or about the Russians. Those came down to a lack of fortitude, this one to an excess of laziness.

When I did the Olympic previews after I got through teams 12-6, I got bored, and then lost interest, then momentum, then forgot about it, then never picked it up and did 1-5. If I had, I would have had Sweden at 5, Russia at 4, Slovakia at 3, the United States at 2 and Canada at 1. It is useless to say it now, but I could have had the three medalists as my top 3, in some order. Alas. The lesson as always, I’m an idiot (line copy write 2001 Bill Simmons Enterprises).

Anyways, it is time to swallow my anger at myself, and make up for it by nailing the final two rounds. For the most part, I couldn’t be happier with the way my picks have gone regarding the tournament. I nailed the USA over Canada upset (even if I was 100% prepared to be wrong), then picking the first two rounds I got every game except for the Swiss/Belarus game (dumb, in retrospect), the Czech/Finland game (I would take the Czechs again) and the Sweden/Slovakia game (“I would love to go with Slovakia here, and I think that they have a legitimate chance to take down the 2006 champs, but in what is essentially a tossup, I’ll give Sweden with the extra rest"…crap, I’m seeing a pattern), and while 6 for 9 could be better, I feel pretty good about the way I have been doing so far.

Obviously, I am going to go with the Americans over the Finish for two reasons. First of all, I refuse to pick against my teams. I picked the Cowboys to cover 16 times this year in pig skin pick ‘em, refused to go with the prudent Canada choice (which ended up working to my advantage), and spared no confidence going with the Sharks in five last April against the Ducks. I am a case study of why you should never bet significant money on your team. I would rather be wrong than go against the team I am rooting for.

That is reason enough for me to pick the Americans, but I also happen to think that I am right here. I stand by my ranking of Finland 6 before the tournament, and 7^th going into elimination play. Their forwards are punchless, they are fine but not overly impressive on the blueline, and Kipprusoff is great, but doesn’t represent and advantage over any of the other elite nations' goaltending.

As for the tournament, Finland lucked into the bye on the strength of meaningless wins over Belarus and Germany, perhaps the two worst teams in the tournament (based on how they played, not talent going in), and despite getting manhandled by Sweden in their only preliminary test. Still, the Fins got the tiebreaker, which allowed them to squeak by a Czech team that had been taken to overtime by Latvia and their 2 NHLers less than 24 hours before. Forgive me for thinking that they have had an unimpressive tournament, but I just don’t see them hanging with the Americans who have looked like the best team so far, even if they aren’t on paper. I like the United States to return to the championship game, beating Finland 3-1.

Then we come to the game that a nation will be watching. They probably won’t be watching as closely as they should, since Slovakia is hardly a nation that strikes fear into the hearts of the IIHF aristocracy, of which Canada is a founding member. Slovakia, though, leads the world in sneaking up on teams, as Peter King would say, since he leads the world in making up statistical categories that aren’t really statistical categories, and saying that people or teams are #1 in them. The fact is, I see a lot of ways that Slovakia can win this game.

They are 4 deep with quality defensemen, boasting a top 4 of Chara, Jurcina, Visnovsky and Mezaros, with Sekara making a solid 5. That is 5 solid, top two NHL defensemen, with three who are number 1s on their team. This is not a passable unit, but rather a real strength. It may not compare with the all-star team Canada has on their back line, but it is probably second or third best in the tournament. Up front, Slovakia reminds me a bit of Russia. Tons of top end firepower with a bit of a drop after the elite scorers. At this point, you’re probably thinking that I just took a thousand or so words to tear down the Russians, and am now trying to give the Slovaks credit for looking like them. In a word, yes. In three words, yes, I am.

The reason for that is simple. My point was simply that the Russian team wasn’t as good as they were given credit for, that being really freaking good. I didn't say that they were a bad team. I said if you took away 5 of their top guys, they were bad, as in they would be bad if every team had to play without their 5 best guys (that doesn’t make it an irrelevant point, by the way, because the reason they lost was an inability to match depth). On the other hand, even if they are only as good as I think Russia is, that is a tremendous upgrade from where Slovakia is generally considered to be, which is usually the 7^th best team.

Finally, my point was that Russia wasn’t a juggernaut. Never did I say, and never would I say that they couldn’t beat anyone on a given night. A team with that much offensive talent has at worst a fighters chance on a given night. I happen to think that Nabokov was less at fault than he is getting blamed for, but still, if he plays on his head, could that be a different game with Ovie, Kovy and Datsyuk gunning for Luongo? Of course.

I feel the same way about Slovakia. They need to play great defensively. I don’t say that Halak needs to stand on his head, because that is, frankly, unlikely to happen. The Slovakians can play a gritty game, though, and have great defense, as I said earlier. This means that they have other ways of slowing down a powerful Canadian attack. Chara is the best shut down defenseman in the league (this isn’t even debatable), so even though Halak isn’t likely to steal a game, a 2-1 win is a possibility.

Even as good as Canada is, I don’t see Slovakia getting 100% shut down. Palffy, not Jagr, Foresburg or Federov is the ex-NHL star who has most resembled his old self, and the Marians (Gaborik and Hossa) are two of the scariest scorers in the world. The secondary list of Satan, Zednik, Dimitra and Hanzus isn’t overwhelming, but they are all guys capable of chipping in.

Still, turning to Canada, there are so many reasons that they should win this game. Their top end talent might be as good as Slovakias. Their defense (at worst) matches Slovakia’s. Luongo is an advantage over Halak. They have been a juggernaut the past two days. They are team freaking Canada. They really are the smart choice, and it would be almost too hard not to pick them.

If you have read this column (and something tells me you have) though, you probably see where I am going. Three or four times, I have had a gut feeling. I have broken it down, and explained that gut feeling, but been unable to go with it, and I regretted it. I could say that this could go either way, that it will be a close game, and that ultimately Canada is the better team. Because they are. But I have been burned by that, and I need to learn my own lesson.

It would be easy to do what feels like the obvious pick, against my instinct, but what is the fun in that? If I am right, so was everyone else, and if I’m wrong, I kick myself for not having the fortitude to go with what I wanted. I was going to pick the medal games, but I have rambled on long enough, so I will do that on Saturday. Besides, this seems like a dramatic enough place to end.

The prediction for Friday: Slovakia 5, Canada 3.