A history of racist incidents (and false alarms) in hockey...

[Canadiens1958]

Better Team, Heart, etc.

Fail to see how the topics of heart, better team and related topics are examples of racism nor how the various comments and replies will eradicate racism in hockey or elsewhere. Then the usual 1972 Summit Series pseudo analysis surface.

Better team on paper analysis. Not worth reading, especially for international hockey since the teams that are selected going into an event are based on performances in a league or against players that for the most part will not be participating. How players from the NHL, Soviet, other European leagues play against each other within their league may be evaluated on paper. How such players and teams will play and fare in a tournament under different circumstances cannot and is pure speculation, media fantasy that attracts attention, fills space but contributes nothing beyond PC type phrases. Problems arise when the media pundits are proven very wrong by the ensuing games. Unable to admit they were wrong, the media further compounds the issue by looking for scapegoats, empty excuses,etc that further their own exposure with no contribution to understanding.

Heart. A typical worker - labourer, has just as much heart as a hockey player. The courage to go to work everyday do a repetitive task or tasks at greater risk - more serious construction worker accidents and deaths than NHL injuries/deaths, require just as much personal discipline as an athlete but the rewards are much lower. Interesting that construction helmets became mandatory on sites around the same time as hockey helmets achieved the same status.

In hockey, heart is one of the politically correct buzz words that mean different things to different people, teams, under changing circumstances. Basic interpretation reveals the level of satisfaction by the user. Within the context of a result the winners team always has more heart, the losers team has less heart.

1972 Summit Series. Great players but featured some of the worst coaching ever. Lack of preparation, poor in game adjustments, poor game to game planning,poor player selection for circumstances(match-ups, etc) you name it and it was lacking on both sides. Canada winning games 6 and 8 in the third period while blowing game 5 in the third period tends to wash. Lack of player discipline on both sides - not talking penalties but straying from team play to individual play is evident on both sides throughout.

The lack or limited success of coaches from both teams post series is ample evidence of their weakness.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Fail to see how the topics of heart, better team and related topics are examples of racism nor how the various comments and replies will eradicate racism in hockey or elsewhere.

A positive quality ("heart") is attributed to one identifiable group of people, seemingly on the basis of them simply belonging to that group. By extension, people who belong to other identifiable groups do not possess this positive quality, or conversely possess the negative quality of not having heart. You don't see how that connects to prejudice?

Other than that, I fully agree with your post.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Prejudice?

A positive quality ("heart") is attributed to one identifiable group of people, seemingly on the basis of them simply belonging to that group. By extension, people who belong to other identifiable groups do not possess this positive quality, or conversely possess the negative quality of not having heart. You don't see how that connects to prejudice?

Other than that, I fully agree with your post.

The only identifiable aspects of the groups in question is winning and losing and that is variable - your mantra.

Take the NHL. All the 1972 Team Canada players suddenly fall under the having "Heart" umbrella(including Vic Hadfield) including players who a few months previous during the 1972 play-offs or 1971-72 season were seen as lacking some heart because their team lost during the season or playoffs.

Likewise the Soviets. 1972 Winter Olympics Gold medal winners, no one questioned their heart. No one alleged the members of the Soviet team from non-winning league teams lacked heart.

Now let's look at "heart" from a macro view, a much larger sample space.

The 1972 SC Champions featured John Bucyk, Ukrainian heritage. His "heart" was never questioned, nor was the "heart" of other NHL greats of eastern European heritage questioned - short list Terry Sawchuk, Johnny Bower, Mike Bossy, Dale Hawerchuk, Elmer Lach.

Unless there is some mysterious "heart" gene that is acquired when crossing borders from Russia or Ukraine the "heart" issue becomes a post result adjective used by those short of viable explanations or simply pandering to an audience.

As for prejudice, the "heart" label is attached after the result not before. See the 1971-72 season analogy. As such it is not linked to prejudice, rather it is a snapshot of how society describes winning and losing. Remove winning and losing from the human arena and "heart" ceases to be an issue.

 

[Killion]

As for prejudice, the "heart" label is attached after the result not before. See the 1971-72 season analogy. As such it is not linked to prejudice, rather it is a snapshot of how society describes winning and losing. Remove winning and losing from the human arena and "heart" ceases to be an issue.

Not so sure about that C58. I've heard the term bandied about plenty, more in the arena of xenophobia, though that too could be called a form of racism & most certainly profiling. "Chicken Swedes; Finns are dirty players; Russians are only over here for the money & lack passion for the game" etc etc. Now admittedly I havent heard much of it over the last 10-20 years, but back in the 70's & into the 80's when a lot of the first generation was being drafted & brought over from Europe, I heard it from players, Coaches & Scouts, pundits. "None of the Europeans (and Ive even heard it said of Americans back in the day) have any heart", and thats just in general chatter, pre-game, in a bar, a locker room, wherever. A certain self satisfied smugness & elitism that Canadians had that many have retained to this day.

I think society in Montreal (and even rural Quebec) of the time was considerably more progressive and enlightened than elsewhere in the country having just hosted the World with Expo 67 & decades of a real & in some cases imagined subjugation at the hands of the English, but certainly in Toronto, with guys like Ballard, Beddoes et al leading the charge, all kinds of fur was flying at the Russians & Europeans. It took a selfless, full-on gutsy player in Salming to change a lot of peoples attitudes (nevermind the nonsense from the players on the ice he faced around the league, the majority at the time Canadians) yet still the profiling & labels stuck, at least in many parts of English Canada.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The only identifiable aspects of the groups in question is winning and losing and that is variable - your mantra.

Pardon? The assertion in this thread is that Canadians have heart, while Russians (and other Europeans) do not.

You're right that heart is often invoked to explain winning and losing, regardless of who's involved in the game in question. However there is another claim in this thread, specifically that Canadians have more heart than Europeans do. That's what I'm referring to.

The 1972 SC Champions featured John Bucyk, Ukrainian heritage. His "heart" was never questioned, nor was the "heart" of other NHL greats of eastern European heritage questioned - short list Terry Sawchuk, Johnny Bower, Mike Bossy, Dale Hawerchuk, Elmer Lach.

If you're going to look at heritage, I think you'll find a very high percentage of "Canadian" hockey players in history are European. That's clearly not what is meant by "European" in this thread.

Ask Big Phil if he considers Bucyk and there others to be Canadian with respect to having heart; he's the one making assertions about one nationality having more of it than others.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Certain Truisms

Not so sure about that C58. I've heard the term bandied about plenty, more in the arena of xenophobia, though that too could be called a form of racism & most certainly profiling. "Chicken Swedes; Finns are dirty players; Russians are only over here for the money & lack passion for the game" etc etc. Now admittedly I havent heard much of it over the last 10-20 years, but back in the 70's & into the 80's when a lot of the first generation was being drafted & brought over from Europe, I heard it from players, Coaches & Scouts, pundits. "None of the Europeans (and Ive even heard it said of Americans back in the day) have any heart", and thats just in general chatter, pre-game, in a bar, a locker room, wherever. A certain self satisfied smugness & elitism that Canadians had that many have retained to this day.

I think society in Montreal (and even rural Quebec) of the time was considerably more progressive and enlightened than elsewhere in the country having just hosted the World with Expo 67 & decades of a real & in some cases imagined subjugation at the hands of the English, but certainly in Toronto, with guys like Ballard, Beddoes et al leading the charge, all kinds of fur was flying at the Russians & Europeans. It took a selfless, full-on gutsy player in Salming to change a lot of peoples attitudes (nevermind the nonsense from the players on the ice he faced around the league, the majority at the time Canadians) yet still the profiling & labels stuck, at least in many parts of English Canada.

Speaking from my own background,growing - up in working class areas of Montreal, during the fifties and sixties. The English high schools that served the areas featured upwards of 60 different nationalities come United Nations Day, the community centers that offered boxing and similar sports drew participation from all available ethnic backgrounds, producing a few Olympic quality boxers. Likewise football and hockey, drew from all the ethnic backgrounds producing CFL and now NFL, NHL quality athletes. We never questioned each others heart.

We also learned something very basic as kids - each language has words for all the positive and negative qualities exhibited by mankind.
Furthermore the positive characteristics are respected in all languages / groups - courage, extreme effort, teamwork, etc. While the negatives are also treated similarly by all languages / groups - laziness, cowardice, etc.

Comments from players, coaches, scouts, pundits, owners should be viewed in the light that not all individuals have equal abilities at their craft, The less capable try to make-up for their weaknesses by appealing to that they perceive as populist sentiments. Would hear similar nonsense at times as well. Players - do not recall any true elite athletes making such comments. Elite talent understands and respects elite talent.The blowhard last player on the roster, perhaps, gone and forgotten in a week. Usually such coaches, scouts, pundits, etc do not last unless their audience is huge. Owners is another story.
Cannot be shown the door.

Those hanging onto a job in life or in sports tend to make comments out of desparation. How much that reflects a group or society is open to debate?

Certainly the "Banana" throwing incident has received no support, no imitators but international condamnation has been strong. Likewise the various comments you reference in bars or elsewhere are usually met with embarassed silence and a desire to distance one self from the speaker.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Heart?

Pardon? The assertion in this thread is that Canadians have heart, while Russians (and other Europeans) do not.

You're right that heart is often invoked to explain winning and losing, regardless of who's involved in the game in question. However there is another claim in this thread, specifically that Canadians have more heart than Europeans do. That's what I'm referring to.


If you're going to look at heritage, I think you'll find a very high percentage of "Canadian" hockey players in history are European. That's clearly not what is meant by "European" in this thread.

Ask Big Phil if he considers Bucyk and there others to be Canadian with respect to having heart; he's the one making assertions about one nationality having more of it than others.

The thread title is not about "Heart". "Heart" was raised as a tangent topic within the context of winning and losing a specific series. Do not see any general assertions about the Canadian population or populations of other nations. The issue is limited to two teams of hockey players.

Well aware of the heritage of the vast majority of Canadians, specifically hockey players. Always have been which, is why the various ridiculous comments that tried to find a link between heritage and athletic ability have left me dismayed. Might as well turn to phrenology for answers.

As for what is meant by European in this thread, you are reaching. If you want to recognize the silliness for what it is, then my characterization which basically comes down to the "pot calling the kettle black" is very accurate. View it aas basic "meritocracy" and the various red button distinctions disappear.

Kindly ask Big Phil yourself. I am not a messenger for your issues with his posts.

 

[Killion]

So again, this is an example of why I don't think its wrong to suggest Canadians have that extra gear in the heart and passion department

Ask Big Phil if he considers Bucyk and there others to be Canadian with respect to having heart; he's the one making assertions about one nationality having more of it than others.

I think the term "heart" may be a bit of an over-used misnomer, in some respects derogatory, disrespectful, code for lacking cajones'; soft. In terms of winning percentages in the Canada Cups etc, certainly Canadas' come out on top, and I prefer to look at that & call it what it is; superior Coaching, hopefully Scouting (though not always) & individual talent with a never say die desire to win at any and all costs.

This is part of Canadas' history & its legacy on the ice as it is on the Battlefields of Europe. From the Somme to the Beaches of Normandy. A fearsome reputation. Taking on all comers', outnumbered, outflanked & outgunned; winning. Its bred in the bone & inculcated into us as youngsters by an incredible array of superb volunteer coaches at the amateur levels; demanded of one in elite AAA & Junior ranks. Your only as good as your next shift, save. Id say desire rather than heart would be a more appropriate term. Canadians just seem to want to win it more, outworking in many instances man on man superior talent, digging real real deep & clutching into over-drive.

 

[Canadiens1958]

History and Recognition

I think the term "heart" may be a bit of an over-used misnomer, in some respects derogatory, disrespectful, code for lacking cajones'; soft. In terms of winning percentages in the Canada Cups etc, certainly Canadas' come out on top, and I prefer to look at that & call it what it is; superior Coaching, hopefully Scouting (though not always) & individual talent with a never say die desire to win at any and all costs.

This is part of Canadas' history & its legacy on the ice as it is on the Battlefields of Europe. From the Somme to the Beaches of Normandy. A fearsome reputation. Taking on all comers', outnumbered, outflanked & outgunned; winning. Its bred in the bone & inculcated into us as youngsters by an incredible array of superb volunteer coaches at the amateur levels; demanded of one in elite AAA & Junior ranks. Your only as good as your next shift, save. Id say desire rather than heart would be a more appropriate term. Canadians just seem to want to win it more, outworking in many instances man on man superior talent, digging real real deep & clutching into over-drive.

Appreciate your post but there has to be a recognition that under different circumstances, other nationalities have shown the same characteristics in the face of war and the enemy, Soviets during WWII being just one example as I do not wish to embark on a world history tour.

The other part of the issue is the audience factor. Audiences have empathy with traits that fit their background. Canadian audiences will recognize the positive traits of courage and its synonyms within the framework of their experience, Americans within theirs, Russains, Swedes, Finns, etc will recognize it within their framework.

 

[Killion]

...other nationalities have shown the same characteristics in the face of war and the enemy, Soviets during WWII being just one example as I do not wish to embark on a world history tour.

Oh absolutely, the Russians, Finns, Norwegians, all nations have shown the exact same characteristics, under far far worse conditions than Canada ever has or multi-generational Canadians could even begin to imagine... but ya, lets reel er' in here.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The thread title is not about "Heart". "Heart" was raised as a tangent topic within the context of winning and losing a specific series. Do not see any general assertions about the Canadian population or populations of other nations.

Then you're not reading the thread. Most of the thread is not about that, but the posts specifically under discussion right now are about that. The very nature of discussion boards is that not every post is going to be precisely on topic, according to the thread title. Discussions typically move past the OP. No one with nearly 5000 posts should need to have this explained to him.

Kindly ask Big Phil yourself. I am not a messenger for your issues with his posts.

If you don't want to get in the middle, then stop putting yourself there. And if you can't recognize rhetorical questions, then I can't help you.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Id say desire rather than heart would be a more appropriate term. Canadians just seem to want to win it more, outworking in many instances man on man superior talent, digging real real deep & clutching into over-drive.

This is the same claim as Big Phil made, with very slightly different wording, and carries the same problems. Wanting to win it more is what many people mean by heart. And wanting to win it more is seen as a morally superior characteristic.

Appreciate your post but there has to be a recognition that under different circumstances, other nationalities have shown the same characteristics in the face of war and the enemy, Soviets during WWII being just one example as I do not wish to embark on a world history tour.

The other part of the issue is the audience factor. Audiences have empathy with traits that fit their background. Canadian audiences will recognize the positive traits of courage and its synonyms within the framework of their experience, Americans within theirs, Russains, Swedes, Finns, etc will recognize it within their framework.

Indeed. Canadians don't "want it more." If you have to put "seem" in front of your argument, then chances are it's not got evidence behind it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Seems

This is the same claim as Big Phil made, with very slightly different wording, and carries the same problems. Wanting to win it more is what many people mean by heart. And wanting to win it more is seen as a morally superior characteristic.


Indeed. Canadians don't "want it more." If you have to put "seem" in front of your argument, then chances are it's not got evidence behind it.

I did not use the word seem in the post or quote you attribute to the above.

Another poster used seems as a qualifier a few posts up.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I did not use the word seem in the post or quote you attribute to the above.

Another poster used seems as a qualifier a few posts up.

Yes. Yes he did. I was agreeing with you. Read the post.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ambiguously

Yes. Yes he did. I was agreeing with you. Read the post.

Ambiguity is far from agreement. Referring to posters directly by handle avoids ambiguity. As such readers do not know which posters are under the "you" umbrella.

Also that was not the point of the post. At best, within the context you chose, my point would be that the history of various nations or cultures is that each defines courage and conjoined attributes differently based on experiences. Still courage remains courage, an attribute that cannot be measured by a scale or metric. All acts of courage are equal. Top 10s etc do not exist.

As such the qualifier "more" has no purpose or meaning in the discussion.

Just as hate is hate.No scales, ratings or metrics required.

 

[Killion]

This is the same claim as Big Phil made, with very slightly different wording, and carries the same problems. Wanting to win it more is what many people mean by heart. And wanting to win it more is seen as a morally superior characteristic.

Bolded sentence premise to final sentence conclusion = Wrong. Thats a leap Iain;

"Today, Team Canada won because they wanted it more"
"Today, Team Canada won because they had more heart"

Context. Semantics. "Today"... Maybe the Czechs' were out there just floating around, suffering from jetlag, minds & bodies stuck on Prague time for a game in Vancouver, but maybe not the day after tomorrow when the Czechs' find their legs.

In a hard fought series and or game, there are always Hero's, a 3rd liner who comes out of nowhere to score a hat trick; a storybook finish from an over-the-hill type like McDonald in Calgary. Its OK to exclaim "Lanny played that final game with his heart on his sleeve", but its not OK to say "Calgary beat the Habs' because they had more heart". That would demean a great Montreal team and its players.

Any Intl Comp / Canada Cup etc where the players give it their all for Flag & Family has Winners & Losers. If Team Canada plays like they dont want it or care, then guess what?. "Hearts not in the game". Team Canada beats the Red Army in Game 8 in Russia on a gutsy play "by Henderson who played with his heart on his sleeve". They "wanted it more" than the Soviets as witness their histrionics on & off the ice throughout the series, peaking with the Clarke slash on Kharlomov. They didnt win because they "had more heart than the Soviets", they won because they were willing to stop (or stoop, depending on your perspective ) at almost nothing to do it.

Olde tyme Canadian Hockey.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Winning

Bolded sentence premise to final sentence conclusion = Wrong. Thats a leap Iain;

"Today, Team Canada won because they wanted it more"
"Today, Team Canada won because they had more heart"

Context. Semantics. "Today"... Maybe the Czechs' were out there just floating around, suffering from jetlag, minds & bodies stuck on Prague time for a game in Vancouver, but maybe not the day after tomorrow when the Czechs' find their legs.

In a hard fought series and or game, there are always Hero's, a 3rd liner who comes out of nowhere to score a hat trick; a storybook finish from an over-the-hill type like McDonald in Calgary. Its OK to exclaim "Lanny played that final game with his heart on his sleeve", but its not OK to say "Calgary beat the Habs' because they had more heart". That would demean a great Montreal team and its players.

Any Intl Comp / Canada Cup etc where the players give it their all for Flag & Family has Winners & Losers. If Team Canada plays like they dont want it or care, then guess what?. "Hearts not in the game". Team Canada beats the Red Army in Game 8 in Russia on a gutsy play "by Henderson who played with his heart on his sleeve". They "wanted it more" than the Soviets as witness their histrionics on & off the ice throughout the series, peaking with the Clarke slash on Kharlomov. They didnt win because they "had more heart than the Soviets", they won because they were willing to stop (or stoop, depending on your perspective ) at almost nothing to do it.

Olde tyme Canadian Hockey.

Agree with your points. Basic issue is how the relationship between heart and the desire to win is portrayed by the media or various pundits. The various comments are well known in the hockey world.

Take Inge Hammarstrom as an example. During his stay in Toronto he was often villified for his "lack of heart" but these comments were without substance and displayed a singular lack of hockey knowledge with a distinct agenda thrown in.

Hammarstrom was a LW for the Leafs with no North American hockey background. So he played the corners as he was taught in Sweden on the larger ice surfaces, He did not have the technique, strategies, theory or know the angles for proper NHL corner play. The Leafs did not have the time nor the coaching staff to teach him the various elements of NHL corner play. While Red Kelly was the ideal coach for Borje Salming due to positional and style similarities, his background was limited when it came to helping Inge Hammarstrom transition to the NHL game.

Instead of explaining the difficulties of transition between the Swedish and NHL game for a winger the media or pundits took the easy way out.

 

[Killion]

Instead of explaining the difficulties of transition between the Swedish and NHL game for a winger the media or pundits took the easy way out.

Hammarstroms' an excellent example. In Toronto, he was labelled "soft" because he wasnt following the dictates of the North American game, Ballard infamously being quoted that "Hammarstrom could go into the corners with a dozen eggs shoved down his pants and wouldnt break any". Widely reported in the Toronto press at that time, many then made the leap to assume, incorrectly & erroneously, that if Hammarstrom didnt have any guts, then probably Salming didnt have any either, along with every other player of Swedish extraction. Ricocheted throughout the league. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth, as you correctly pointed out in your post.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Context. Semantics. "Today"... Maybe the Czechs' were out there just floating around, suffering from jetlag, minds & bodies stuck on Prague time for a game in Vancouver, but maybe not the day after tomorrow when the Czechs' find their legs.

Whoops, you added context that wasn't in your earlier post. You had simply stated that Canadians seem to want it more, without qualification. So if the context is important, make sure it's there.

 

[Killion]

So if the context is important, make sure it's there.

Oh, very well Mr. Fyffe.
Could you at least gimme a C on the paper?.
I just cant repeat Grade 2 for a 3rd time.

My parents'll kill me...

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Oh, very well Mr. Fyffe.
Could you at least gimme a C on the paper?.
I just cant repeat Grade 2 for a 3rd time.

My parents'll kill me...

I didn't see you put your hand up...

 

[Killion]

I didn't see you put your hand up...

 

[Big Phil]

Where does that leave guys like Joe Thornton though? There are plenty of others like him out there that get ignored when they struggle.

I have never heard anyone suggest Thornton's playoff woes get "ignored" by people. If anything there is a stream of criticism year after year against him.

You're selective in your examples.

Where was this Canadian heart early in the series?
Playing with heart entails playing every shift like it's your last. It means preparing yourself to be the best no matter the opponent. It means not having to intentionally injure an opponent. It means playing above and beyond your talent level.

Perhaps Canada was forced to come from behind against a lesser team because of a lacklustre effort throughout a good portion of the series.
Perhaps it was the slightly less talented Soviets who played, start to finish, with more heart than the Canadians.

That's kind of like saying where were the 2002 Red Wings early in the series against the Canucks. It is one thing to win Game 1 or even Game 2. It's another thing to win Game 6 or 7. That's when all the chips are down. Not that the earlier games aren't important, but we have seen time and time again the players who are succesful early on in the playoffs only to falter as the going gets tougher. It is far more important to me, to play a great game in Game 7 than in Game 1.

"Doing something right." This is an argument from ignorance, pure and simple. I don't know how they won, therefore they won because they had more heart [or whatever pet theory is preferred].

That certainly is part of the reason. If you don't believe me you can watch the games. I mean, Rod Gilbert got in a fight in Game 8. Rod Gilbert of all people! There are countless times when we suggest another team "wanted" it more. The 1972 Canadians appeared to be more "hungry" to win. That's how I perceive it.

Also, maybe if the Canadians don't make the best Russian player ineffective by using a cheap shot, the result would have been 6-1-1 for the Soviets? Maybe, maybe not.

I'd say that Canada's advantage in some areas (physicality, defensive play) was pretty big, but also, something else - besides heart - was needed for the victory too.



When has this been "proven" exactly? I agree that the reffing was terrible, but where's the proof? After all, Canadians always insist that there was nothing wrong with Don Koharski in 1987...

You'd think that if they were bribed, Kompalla or Baader would have allowed the goal scored by Kharlamov in the 2nd period, or would have thrown Bobby Clarke out of the game after what he did, instead of 2 minutes for the slash and 10 minute misconduct.

The Swedish ref who was supposed to be in Game 8, Stalberg, was told to stay at his hotel room. Kompalla took his spot. This is very well documented material, nothing new.

As for Don Koharski, the Russians requested him and he made some questionable calls both ways for sure. We've torn apart the play where Bourque had been tripped up which resulted in a goal countless times.

Canada did have the advantage in other areas. Defense was one of them like you said, but how about determination? That is a fancy word for heart. By watching those games you can't see that more from them? It isn't as if the Russians didn't want to win, but one team or another by their actions always proves to be the one who decides to want it more. This is sports, plain and simple, and the accusations against a Canadian team's heart are much few and far between than other teams.

 

[Hanji]

I have never heard anyone suggest Thornton's playoff woes get "ignored" by people. If anything there is a stream of criticism year after year against him.



That's kind of like saying where were the 2002 Red Wings early in the series against the Canucks. It is one thing to win Game 1 or even Game 2. It's another thing to win Game 6 or 7. That's when all the chips are down. Not that the earlier games aren't important, but we have seen time and time again the players who are succesful early on in the playoffs only to falter as the going gets tougher. It is far more important to me, to play a great game in Game 7 than in Game 1.



That certainly is part of the reason. If you don't believe me you can watch the games. I mean, Rod Gilbert got in a fight in Game 8. Rod Gilbert of all people! There are countless times when we suggest another team "wanted" it more. The 1972 Canadians appeared to be more "hungry" to win. That's how I perceive it.



The Swedish ref who was supposed to be in Game 8, Stalberg, was told to stay at his hotel room. Kompalla took his spot. This is very well documented material, nothing new.

As for Don Koharski, the Russians requested him and he made some questionable calls both ways for sure. We've torn apart the play where Bourque had been tripped up which resulted in a goal countless times.

Canada did have the advantage in other areas. Defense was one of them like you said, but how about determination? That is a fancy word for heart. By watching those games you can't see that more from them? It isn't as if the Russians didn't want to win, but one team or another by their actions always proves to be the one who decides to want it more. This is sports, plain and simple, and the accusations against a Canadian team's heart are much few and far between than other teams.

Again, none of your examples proves a team has more heart; only that teams who were expected to win did, yet only by the smallest of margins. Your examples are essentially "look, can't you see it!"

If a team is (1) more talented than their opponents; and (2) 'wants it more' than their opponents; should they not be winning more than by the skin of their teeth?

Perhaps a lesser talented team with the ability to take the favorites to the utmost limit is the team with the most heart.

 

[Peter9]

Hear, hear.

Yes, BobbySmithFan, a great post.