Esa Tikkanen or Claude Lemieux- Who was more of a pest?

[Fourier]

since this discussion is not about the history of hockey for me, that is, i remember their entire careers...

claude had way better skating and puck handling skills: kamensky-forsberg-lemieux in colorado was pure beauty to watch on many, many nights... an underappreciated all-time great line

tik and mess rocked edmonton with whomever else was thrown on their line, but it was more of a one-two punch, chemistry in knowing when to needle a guy and when to hang back, reading each other

they both cranked up their offensive game in the postseason: gave it all they got with a competitive fire second to none

i give the nod to claude for all those dang playoff GWGs on different teams, but not by much

Tikkanen is surely best known as the LW on the Gretzky-Kurri line, even though this was short-lived.. Messier played with Anderson for almost his whole time as an Oiler.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Tikkanen is surely best known as the LW on the Gretzky-Kurri line, even though this was short-lived.. Messier played with Anderson for almost his whole time as an Oiler.

to me, tikkanen's peak was post-gretzky. he was awesome from '89-91.

i don't remember messier ever playing much with tikkanen either. post-gretzky, messier usually played with simpson on his left wing (and anderson on his right). tikkanen usually played LW though sometimes also center on the other scoring line. in my opinion, tikkanen was edmonton's best player in 1991, when he was on a line with klima. tik did get first unit PP time with messier though.

i think that's what makes tikkanen better than lemieux. tikkanen could be the best player on a team and that team could go deep. lemieux was always best served as an excellent secondary scorer. even in '95, when he won the conn smythe, richer was the main scoring threat and richer played above lemieux on ES and the PP.

tikkanen was also better defensively by some distance. as for pure agitation, tikkanen was annoying as hell and he was a guy you hated to play against. but lemieux was a guy you plain hated, and that has the possibility of throwing a team off their game in a completely other way (see 1996). but then it can also galvanize a team, like detroit in 1997.

 

[Hardyvan123]

i agree. i don't think the level of cheapshotting has gone down at all. but we were talking about the role of the shadow in a thread recently, and i think the role of the pest-specialist as a guy like tikkanen and kasper on gretzky or lemieux on neely, who spends all game following the other team's offensive star around and trying to get him off his game by hooking, holding, sticking, and yapping, seems to be becoming a thing of the past.

or who knows? maybe coaches and GMs will look at how Dave Bolland is the only forward in the past few years to be able to shut down the last two scoring champions, and every team will have a Bolland next season.

Everyone would love to have a Bolland on their team.

The role of the pest or shadow isn't needed as much because, especially since the 80's with Tik, teams play more systematic defense in general and the role of one specific guy shutting down another guy has diminished a bit IMO, although team still use matchups and Dman pairings quite a bit as part of the systematic defensive systems.

 

[MS]

Lemieux was a more 'hated' player because he was a cheapshot artist and a general jerk.

But Tikkanen was a far, far more frustrating player to play against. Was the best defensive forward in the sport, could check guys into the ground, and was an absolutely infuriating player for star forwards to go up against. The fact he didn't win a Selke is ridiculous, and the Rick Meagher win over Tikkanen 1991 is one of the biggest jokes ever.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparisons

Claude Lemieux. While in Montreal compared to his team mates, Lemieux was one of the weaker forwards when playing defense, so he had to rely on some of his other tactics. Beyond Montreal he wasn't any better until he was coached by Jacques Lemaire in New Jersey where he couldn't help but get better if he wanted ice time. The improved defensive play continued beyond New Jersey but the improvement curve did not.

Esa Tikkanen. Entering the NHL he had a better defensive foundation and skills than Lemieux.In Edmonton these were displayed within an offensive system, sometimes getting lost in the offensive shuffle. Beyond Edmonton he had his moments. Fit the mold of a Keenan player but there were shortcomings as well which generated a lot of movement from team to team.

The semantics and comparisons of the dirty, cheap shot, etc issues are of no interest. Both lacked on ice discipline and did things that were far from necessary putting team mates at risk of retribution while upsetting their coaches by effectively negating planning and strategies with their lack of discipline. So when patience ran out they were moved.

Aside to the Meagher / Tikkanen question. High end defensive Tikkanen without the baggage is an obvious choice. But you cannot separate the player from the baggage, so a more disciplined Meagher, while not an eye-catcher, would be more reliable shift after shift.

 

[Fourier]

to me, tikkanen's peak was post-gretzky. he was awesome from '89-91.

i don't remember messier ever playing much with tikkanen either. post-gretzky, messier usually played with simpson on his left wing (and anderson on his right). tikkanen usually played LW though sometimes also center on the other scoring line. in my opinion, tikkanen was edmonton's best player in 1991, when he was on a line with klima. tik did get first unit PP time with messier though.

i think that's what makes tikkanen better than lemieux. tikkanen could be the best player on a team and that team could go deep. lemieux was always best served as an excellent secondary scorer. even in '95, when he won the conn smythe, richer was the main scoring threat and richer played above lemieux on ES and the PP.

tikkanen was also better defensively by some distance. as for pure agitation, tikkanen was annoying as hell and he was a guy you hated to play against. but lemieux was a guy you plain hated, and that has the possibility of throwing a team off their game in a completely other way (see 1996). but then it can also galvanize a team, like detroit in 1997.

My response was directed more to the claim that Tikkanen and Messier were regular linemates.

I actually agree that he played his best individual hockey after Gretzky left but that is in part because his role changed substantially. He became less the pest and more a focal point for the the team.

As you say, Tikkanen was much more versatile than most people give him credit for. He really was a Selke calibre forward, but when called for had significant offensive skills.

As an Oiler STH during the 80's I still feel that Tikkanen made his name as the LW on the Gretzky-Kurri-line. Had the team not been blown apart, that trio would have stayed together for quite sometime. Tikkanen fit like a glove.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i'm sorry everyone but i have to say it. alex burrows is having a claude lemieux playoffs. maybe not a claude lemieux in '95 playoffs, but definitely a claude lemieux playoffs.

then again, a couple more big goals and...

 

[Merya]

Lemieux. More clutch and his acts were more dangerous. He was hated, Tikkanen was a clown.

Clown with 5 SC rings no less.

ps. Why is it that whenever a Euro and a Canadian are compared, so many try to convince that the Canadian is the better?

 

[MS]

Aside to the Meagher / Tikkanen question. High end defensive Tikkanen without the baggage is an obvious choice. But you cannot separate the player from the baggage, so a more disciplined Meagher, while not an eye-catcher, would be more reliable shift after shift.

Meagher that year shouldn't have been top-10 in Selke voting. He was a 4th line center and PK specialist who was out of the NHL 2 months into the following season. He was already in decline and had been a much better player 2-3 years previous.

He ended up riding the coattales of Brett Hull - that St. Louis team had been irrelevent for years and suddenly were getting a lot of media attention, and the hard work that Meagher was doing on the PK got the notice it wouldn't otherwise have.

But there's no way in hell he was a better defensive player that year than Tikkanen, Carbonneau, or Joel Otto. Not even close. He was getting half the icetime that a guy like Tikkanen was that year.

One of the worst award selections ever.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No Doubt

Meagher that year shouldn't have been top-10 in Selke voting. He was a 4th line center and PK specialist who was out of the NHL 2 months into the following season. He was already in decline and had been a much better player 2-3 years previous.

He ended up riding the coattales of Brett Hull - that St. Louis team had been irrelevent for years and suddenly were getting a lot of media attention, and the hard work that Meagher was doing on the PK got the notice it wouldn't otherwise have.

But there's no way in hell he was a better defensive player that year than Tikkanen, Carbonneau, or Joel Otto. Not even close. He was getting half the icetime that a guy like Tikkanen was that year.

One of the worst award selections ever.

No doubt but you have to look at the voters. The Blues and Brett Hull played against all of the players and teams listed. Hull had a great year against everybody so the voters see first hand examples of the competition having an off night. Meagher plugs away helping kill. a few penalties. Time to vote they remember the flawless Meagher night and the flawed night by the opposing player. Neither fair or representative definitely human.

 

[Big Phil]

Tikkanen for me. For starters, if you are going to pick one guy who can help your team win on a more consistent basis then you pick Tik. Lemieux had a streakiness to him that didn't always serve him well. He'd win the Conn Smythe in 1995 and then he'd do a foolish play like run Draper into the boards the next year. He'd play great in 1986 but the next trip to the final he didn't do nearly as much and was accused of biting that spring.

Game in game out I want Tik. He was better defensively, took less foolish penalties and his playoff numbers are at least as good as Lemieux's, probably better when looking in context

 

[PlagerBros*]

What cheap shots did Lemieux have beyond the Draper hit? (Though I have always contended that if that hit happened on any part of the ice where there was glass it would have been no big deal)

I also find it amusing how people talk about Lemieux turtleing in the first fight with McCarty when he never had a chance to fight. As a matter of fact I think McCarty went way beyond anything dirty Lemieux ever did in that first fight. First he sucker punched Lemieux, then he jumped on his back and started throwing punches and then tried to smash his head into the boards.

On topic, I would say Tik, simply because his mouth was going all 60 minutes and it was that annoying Tikkanese.

 

[CHGoalie27]

The difference between them is that Tikkanen was an agitator while Lemieux were a dangerous (in the context of other players health) player. I give it to Tikkanen as he could agitate without trying to break necks or crush faces.

The truth!

Tikkanen should be enshrined.

You know when you refer to someone as 'the best'?
Like "Man, that guy was the best."

Esa Tikkanen was the best. He was just the best.

Also, Claude Lemieux wouldn't have the pair to kiss another man's face in front of over 10,000 hockey fans.

TIKKANEN FOR THE WIN.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Lemieux was a more 'hated' player because he was a cheapshot artist and a general jerk.

But Tikkanen was a far, far more frustrating player to play against. Was the best defensive forward in the sport, could check guys into the ground, and was an absolutely infuriating player for star forwards to go up against. The fact he didn't win a Selke is ridiculous, and the Rick Meagher win over Tikkanen 1991 is one of the biggest jokes ever.

and also this.

 

[Devils Dominion]

Interesting questions for sure. Both were very effective pests that helped their teams win.
Both could score big goals when it counted.
Claude was a better overall player hands down, but Esa may have gotten his opponents off their game more often.

I always wonder why Lou Lamoriello traded for Esa in 1995-1996 then promptly dealt him aways to Vancouver about 3 weeks later.
A reason was never given at the time, too bad because he found his way back to the Rangers in 1997 and helped bounce us out of the playoffs.