99 & 66: Poor Leaders

99 & 66: Poor Leaders

Post by s5200.. » Fri, 08 Apr 1994 12:31:51


While this Mario suck-attack is on I'll through this out for
debate:  Mario says that he will leave NHL advertising to
"marginal" players because of this recent beef of his.  By making
this comment he seems to be taking a shot at many of the same players
who have both protected and helped him through his career.
When Wayne Gretzky was on his big anti-fighting kick he seemed to
feel that "it" had no place in the game.  The way I look at it, this
was like saying "enforcers" have no place in the game.  I thought
that this was in VERY bad taste considering that guys like McSorley
dropped their gloves countless times in his defense, and continue to
do so.  If Wayne had his way, guys like McSorley would never be
given a chance to play.
What the commonality is between Mario and Wayne in these matters is
that they have both resorted to putting themselves above other
player with references like "marginal" and "goon."  
The problem as I see it is the over-inflation of the ego by the fans
and media who base their judgements solely on one aspect of play:
offence.
As team captains, and supposed leaders, I think they should both
come back down to earth, or at least be quiet if they think that
they are so much better than the rest of the hockey players in the
universe.

This may have been a bit of a vent but I have never liked players
who put down their team-mates in any way, especially when they are
supposed to be team captain.

                               J.P.McNeil

 
 
 

99 & 66: Poor Leaders

Post by <3R.. » Fri, 08 Apr 1994 11:05:02

McSorley wasn't the type of player Gretzky was talking about.  He meant the
 true goons who do nothing but fight I believe.  It was not aimed at people who
fight that have skill.  More accurately, I think Wayne's point has always been
 to leave the enforcing to the skilled toughguys like Graves, McSorley, Probert
in his day, Neely, etc. who can dish it out and put it in the net.  (or keep it
out), I think Wayne would rather see players like the Canucks Antoski out of
 the NHL than McSorley....

 
 
 

99 & 66: Poor Leaders

Post by s5200.. » Sat, 09 Apr 1994 08:37:17

Quote:

> McSorley wasn't the type of player Gretzky was talking about.  He meant the
>  true goons who do nothing but fight I believe.  It was not aimed at people who
> fight that have skill.  More accurately, I think Wayne's point has always been
>  to leave the enforcing to the skilled toughguys like Graves, McSorley, Probert
> in his day, Neely, etc. who can dish it out and put it in the net.  (or keep it
> out), I think Wayne would rather see players like the Canucks Antoski out of
>  the NHL than McSorley....

Players like McSorley and Probert were not "skilled" players when
they started out.  They have become skilled over time.  If Wayne
had his way players like Antoski, Domi, Berube, etc, etc, would
not get that same chance given to McSorley, Probert or any of the
tough, skilled players of today who were once pure enforcers.
Either way, it is a shame that Wayne would want any player out of
the league simply based on the role that he plays on his team.

                            J.P.McNeil

 
 
 

99 & 66: Poor Leaders

Post by Dean J. Falcion » Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:23:43

Quote:

>While this Mario suck-attack is on I'll through this out for
>debate:  Mario says that he will leave NHL advertising to
>"marginal" players because of this recent beef of his.  By making
>this comment he seems to be taking a shot at many of the same players
>who have both protected and helped him through his career.

Mario's point about marginal players was this:  Since the league apparently
wants to interpret the rules to elevate the value of marginal players to
the level of talented players (Letting Clutch-and-Grab go un-penalized), let
the league promote them instead.  If you're going to make the slow,
un-talented players able to compete by grabbing and holding, you are
de-emphasizing hockey skills.

Mario is absolutely right about this.

Quote:
>This may have been a bit of a vent but I have never liked players
>who put down their team-mates in any way, especially when they are
>supposed to be team captain.

Mario was not putting down his teammates.  Good defense *IS* important.  But
Clutch-and-grab is *NOT* good defense.  It is against the rules and should
be called as such.  Guys like Joel Otto don't need to clutch and grab to
Those are *NOT* marginal players.
They are exceptional defensive players.

The players whose "good defense" relies on getting away with clutch-and-
grab because the Refs/League let them are marginal players and who deserve
to be "put down".

Dean

 
 
 

99 & 66: Poor Leaders

Post by Patrick_.. » Tue, 12 Apr 1994 05:04:07

And don't forget Ulf Samuelson and Kaspertius... they should be shot.
 
 
 

99 & 66: Poor Leaders

Post by <TRG.. » Wed, 13 Apr 1994 19:50:27

Wow, an intelligent conversation.  What a novelty.

Who said the League needs "leaders"?  Who is the "leader" of Major League
Baseball?  The NBA?  (Certainly not Shaquille Bash-People-Over-The-Head O'Neill
I hope).  A sport doesn't need a leader.  It needs talented, colorful, people;
I think the NHL has plenty of those.  I think it's unrealistic to put any one
player on a pedestal and call him the "representative of the league", and I
doubt any player would want you to do that.

When you call Mario and Wayne "poor leaders", I think they would be unoffended.
They never signed up to be leaders, and undoubtedly don't desire the position.
In fact, the position should be vacant.

What are their qualifications for "leader"?  They're good players?  They're the
best players in the league?  They're the most intellegent?  The most
charismatic?  Why should any stock be taken in what they say?  Why isn't it
JUST ANOTHER OPINION???

Or . . . is it . . . just another opinion. . .

Ok, let's PLEASE try to keep THIS thread moderately intelligent.

 
 
 

99 & 66: Poor Leaders

Post by Mro » Fri, 15 Apr 1994 02:54:21

Quote:

>Who said the League needs "leaders"?  Who is the "leader" of Major League
>Baseball?  The NBA?

Well, the NBA used to have Magic, and Bird and Jordan.
Baseball is not as easy, since each position is so unique, and players
become hot and cold relatively easily. Clemens and Ryan might have been
considered leaders.

Quote:
>A sport doesn't need a leader.  It needs talented, colorful, people;
>I think the NHL has plenty of those.  I think it's unrealistic to put any one
>player on a pedestal and call him the "representative of the league", and I
>doubt any player would want you to do that.

Well, its unrealsistic to put one player, but you can still label a few
leaders who show tremendous character, leadership and skill. I think
players would hesitate to be dubbed the Leader of the league, only because
many players show a considerable degree of modesty (NOT Mario), but
would'nt object apart from the reason that they don't think they deserve
the honour.

Quote:
>When you call Mario and Wayne "poor leaders", I think they would be unoffended.

Actually, that means they would be glad you called them poor leaders, and
that is not the case. I think they would be offended if you called them
bad leaders and would feel honoured if you called them the opposite.

Quote:
>They never signed up to be leaders, and undoubtedly don't desire the position.

No, but how can you say that "undoubtedly" they don't desire the position?

Quote:
>In fact, the position should be vacant.

I agree, its to tough to grant a player (players) with such an honour.

Quote:
>What are their qualifications for "leader"?  They're good players?  They're the
>best players in the league?  They're the most intellegent?  The most
>charismatic?  Why should any stock be taken in what they say?  Why isn't it
>JUST ANOTHER OPINION???

Well, they attract audiences, commercial sales, they inspire youth's
dreams, etc.. need I go on?

--
      _/\_                        MROZ                         _/\_  
    -\|  |/-                                                 -\|  |/-
    `______'               Toronto Maple Leafs               `______'
     ' || `             1994 Stanley Cup Champions            ' || `

 
 
 

99 & 66: Poor Leaders

Post by s5200.. » Sat, 16 Apr 1994 05:58:23

Quote:


>>Who said the League needs "leaders"?  Who is the "leader" of Major League
>>Baseball?  The NBA?

> Well, the NBA used to have Magic, and Bird and Jordan.
> Baseball is not as easy, since each position is so unique, and players
> become hot and cold relatively easily. Clemens and Ryan might have been
> considered leaders.

>>A sport doesn't need a leader.  It needs talented, colorful, people;
>>I think the NHL has plenty of those.  I think it's unrealistic to put any one
>>player on a pedestal and call him the "representative of the league", and I
>>doubt any player would want you to do that.

> Well, its unrealsistic to put one player, but you can still label a few
> leaders who show tremendous character, leadership and skill. I think
> players would hesitate to be dubbed the Leader of the league, only because
> many players show a considerable degree of modesty (NOT Mario), but
> would'nt object apart from the reason that they don't think they deserve
> the honour.

>>When you call Mario and Wayne "poor leaders", I think they would be unoffended.

> Actually, that means they would be glad you called them poor leaders, and
> that is not the case. I think they would be offended if you called them
> bad leaders and would feel honoured if you called them the opposite.

>>They never signed up to be leaders, and undoubtedly don't desire the position.

> No, but how can you say that "undoubtedly" they don't desire the position?

>>In fact, the position should be vacant.

> I agree, its to tough to grant a player (players) with such an honour.

>>What are their qualifications for "leader"?  They're good players?  They're the
>>best players in the league?  They're the most intellegent?  The most
>>charismatic?  Why should any stock be taken in what they say?  Why isn't it
>>JUST ANOTHER OPINION???

> Well, they attract audiences, commercial sales, they inspire youth's
> dreams, etc.. need I go on?

> --
>       _/\_                        MROZ                         _/\_  
>     -\|  |/-                                                 -\|  |/-
>     `______'               Toronto Maple Leafs               `______'
>      ' || `             1994 Stanley Cup Champions            ' || `

While this is a highly intelligent conversation regarding
Wayne and Mario's leadership in the NHL, my original beef was their
lack of leadership on their respective teams.  My point was that
references such as "marginal player" and "fighting should not be a
part of hockey" show poor leadership when they both play with
marginal players and enforcers.  They are team leaders because of
their offensive play and those little 'C' things on their jersey.
I do agree that they should not be considered league leaders or
representatives.
                             J.P. McNeil
 
 
 

99 & 66: Poor Leaders

Post by Alex Macdona » Sat, 16 Apr 1994 16:07:49


Quote:

>Mario's point about marginal players was this:  Since the league apparently
>wants to interpret the rules to elevate the value of marginal players to
>the level of talented players (Letting Clutch-and-Grab go un-penalized), let
>the league promote them instead.  If you're going to make the slow,
>un-talented players able to compete by grabbing and holding, you are
>de-emphasizing hockey skills.

Newsflash Dean, there are no slow, untalented players in the NHL. There
are players who are not as quick and have less talent than Mario. In fact
most of the guys in the league fall into this category. Does this mean
they should be penalized until they are all as good as Mario and can
skate unmolested from one end to the other without so much as being
sneezed at? I can see it now, the entire NHL loaded up with Lemieux's
and Jagr's. YAWN!

Rarely do you hear such self-serving drivel spoken by an athelete. Ricky
Henderson comes to mind. Mario is not bigger than the game, he will soon
perish (retire) and the game will go on.