Discussion in 'International Tournaments' started by joe_shannon_1983*, Nov 24, 2005.
Do you want to see Lemieux and Yzerman on Team Canada?
As a swede yes.
If i were canadian no.
Same for me!
A lot of giveaways...
I personally would like to see Lemieux on the team. He still is a very good player, who would not look out of place on the team. Plus, he would be a great leader, which will be needed because you do not want to have a team full of 20-24 year olds.
As for Yzerman, I am unsure. He would be good for leadership purposes, but it may be time to turn the page on him and retire him from international hockey. Plus, leadership will be coming from other sources.
Sakic and Iginla can be the leaders - I just don't think these two guys should be on the team right now. Too much good young talent.
Well, Lemieux might still be "a very good player" but he would take up a spot for some younger players who are much better at this stage. As far as leadership, there would be a lot of players on the list who have been to the Olympics before as well as other tournaments- it is not like there would not be any others on the team who have not been great veteran leaders before- this is Team Canada- you could ice two teams if you needed to.
Also Fern, why with Yzerman do you say there are enough leaders on the team, yet with Lemieux you say he would be a good leader on the team- seems like you are talking from both ends here. There are plenty of "leaders" on the team without Yzerman and Lemieux this time.
I am not talking from boith ends at all. I was including the presence of Lemieux when I said what I did in relation to Yzerman.
The point I was trying to make is that while one of them would be nice to have for leadership, you do not need both. And since Lemieux is the far better player right now, then you take him for the leadership, and leave Yzerman off as you do not need both of them for the same role.
Who are these younger players who are "much better"?
And also, have any of them won anything in their lives? Have any of them played a playoff game in their lives?
Keep in mind that the goal is to win the 2006 Olympics, not get young guys experience so that they will be ready come 2010 or 2014.
Do any of the young guys that you speak of give Canada a better chance at winning than a PPG player who has accomplished everything in the hockey world?
While I'd never say a player is "better" then Lemieux as that's clearly not the case - I think the team already has veteran leaders in Sakic and Iginla and I'd love to see some guys who are great at putting points on the board instead. A team needs leaders but they also need the raw talent. Lemieux is a little older and a little slower these days and I question just how much he can contribute to such a fast paced Olympic game.
I'd prefer to see someone like Spezza or Staal on the team instead.
How is Lemieux "a far better player" than Yzerman right now? Lemieux is playing on the top line and for all the power plays and still averaging at best a point a game. Yzerman is on the lower lines- I think maybe even the checking lines so he has far less ice time so of course his points are a lot less. I am not saying Yzerman should be on the team- I do take exception to your opinion that Lemieux at 40 and with all the ice time he gets with barely a point a game is that much above Yzerman.
These youngs guys include Crosby, Spezza, and Staal who WOULD be better in Turin than Yzerman and Lemieux. That is not taking anything away from Y and L- just that it's time to give a spot to these younger guys. And again- there are other older guys who would be on the team to fill the veteran roles. These guys- at least 2 out of 3 of them will in all probablility be the ones left out if both Y and L do go.
I would want one of them, preferally Mario. Canada has never lost with Mario on the team, he obviously can't bring what he did in 02, but he still has magic, no matter what if you're the other team you have to be slightly worried that he's on the ice, the bench, or the dressing room. He's a champion, he knows how to win, and he knows adversary.
Yzerman shouldnt go. He has great leadership skills but they dont fill the gap in his play as of now. He is a good leader but really aint that fast anymore.
Lemieux: I personally wouldnt take him.
I chose Lemieux only. And it was borderline. Why? Well I'll get to that. But first why Yzerman shouldnt be there. He's been a great leader, and great player and a champion. But at 40 no matter who you are your legs slow you down. He's got six points this year folks, that isnt very Olympic calibre. He may be a leader but so is Sakic, Iginla and to be honest I think Richards among others is a quiet leader who lets his play do the talking and yet he's only 25. We dont need Lemieux and Yzerman but if you pick one take Lemieux.
Now for Lemieux, he's 40 as well, and to be honest had looked slow this year. He isnt the Mario of '02 or '96 or '91 or '87 anymore. But yes he can still put up some points pretty well and if he is there I wouldnt mind. Now I think a spot can open up for Spezza Crosby or Staal. To be honest at leat one of them deserves to be there. Look at their play. I mean Staal is almost leading the league in points, Spezza is a wizard and Crosby is well, Crosby.
I agreed when they didn't take Messier to Nagano or Salt Lake, and I think it is time to drop Mario and Yzerman off the roster. At this point I would take Sakic as my veteran leader. I also think the players repect for Lemieux is not what it used to be after Mario sided with the owners during the strike.
I chose NEITHER for the reasons you've already stated.
Mario has been 'a far better player' than Yzerman since 1985. To say otherwise is not to be paying attention. That is not any diminishment of Yzerman in any way but Lemieux has always been a far better player than Yzerman. Even though Yzerman is better defensively and may be better in some parts of the game Lemieux is so much better offensively that he is the better player overall by a significant margin. 1990 or 1995 Yzerman is better than 2005 Lemieux but 2005 Yzerman isn't.