WJC: Canada's #1 goaltender

[417]

"I do find it weak, it shows insecurity"
Right....... I am not a psycologist, but I am pretty sure you are wrong.

I still don't think you get my point. I want Canada to get a gold medal. By hoping Pogge, Price, or Dubnyk fails hows no outcome on Canada's chances. I hope that Ellis wins the starting job - from that I have no idea how you think that means I don't want Canada to win?

You're the one who failing to understand my point, I never said that you don't want Canada to win, I said if you're actively rooting for certain players to fail, so your teams prospect can get the spot....that I find it weak and insecure.

Like I said, if you hope for Pogge, Price and Dubnyk to fail, just so Ellis gets the starting job, that's great. IMO, if you think Ellis is all that, like it seems you do, you shouldn't have to hope for the 3 others to fail.

Really, I don't even know why you got into this with me I made a general statement towards people who cheer for one of the goalies to suck during their league games, leading up to the tournament, just so their prospect can get in. I wasn't referring to you personally...why you chose to get on this crusade

But like I said, if that's your cup of tea, good for you, different strokes for different folks I guess...but like I said, Price is my guy, I thought he'd be the starter for Team Canada from day 1, so I don't need Justin Pogge to lose by 4 goals tomorrow night so I can convince myself Price will be the starter.

Last point...you made this comment in your earlier post.

By hoping Pogge, Price, or Dubnyk fails hows no outcome on Canada's chances.

I understand where you're coming from with that comment, however, aren't you cheering for Team Canada? Why would you root for players who are going to represent their country, your country, to fail?

I understand wanting your 'guy' in their, but in these international tournaments, I just think team affiliations should take a back seat to national pride. Are you going to resent Team Canada if Price makes it ahead of Ellis and he wins the best goaltender award?

Either way, you have you're way of thinking on this issue, I have my way...so let's just agree to disagree, and go Canada go!

 

[Genghis Keon]

"I do find it weak, it shows insecurity"
Right....... I am not a psycologist, but I am pretty sure you are wrong.

I still don't think you get my point. I want Canada to get a gold medal. By hoping Pogge, Price, or Dubnyk fails hows no outcome on Canada's chances. I hope that Ellis wins the starting job - from that I have no idea how you think that means I don't want Canada to win?

I think you're missing his whole point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that you're rooting for Ellis, which implicitly means you want the others to fail (since you want Ellis as the starter, one of the other goalies will be the backup and two won't make the team, so they'll technically fail), right?

417 is talking about people hoping others fail, so that their guy can make the team. So it's like going to your own tryouts and hoping that all the other guys competing for your spot will suck, instead of hoping that you're the best guy there. If you want the other guys to suck, you want them to suck because it'll make you look better and give you a better chance of making the team. Now let's take an other guy in the tryouts; he's hoping he plays his best and makes the team because he is the best. He doesn't particularly care how anyone else does, so long as he plays well. Doesn't the first guy seem weak and petty, especially compared to the second guy? I think that's 417's whole point (417, correct me if I'm wrong). There's absolutely nothing wrong with rooting for your guy. And, technically, there's nothing wrong to hope that other guys do poorly to make your guy look better (it's natural human instinct--putting others down to feel better about ourselves), but it is still weak and shows insecurity if you do actively hope others fail to make your guy look better, even if everyone does it (even if they keep their feelings inside).

 

[417]

I think you're missing his whole point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that you're rooting for Ellis, which implicitly means you want the others to fail (since you want Ellis as the starter, one of the other goalies will be the backup and two won't make the team, so they'll technically fail), right?

417 is talking about people hoping others fail, so that their guy can make the team. So it's like going to your own tryouts and hoping that all the other guys competing for your spot will suck, instead of hoping that you're the best guy there. If you want the other guys to suck, you want them to suck because it'll make you look better and give you a better chance of making the team. Now let's take an other guy in the tryouts; he's hoping he plays his best and makes the team because he is the best. He doesn't particularly care how anyone else does, so long as he plays well. Doesn't the first guy seem weak and petty, especially compared to the second guy? I think that's 417's whole point (417, correct me if I'm wrong). There's absolutely nothing wrong with rooting for your guy. And, technically, there's nothing wrong to hope that other guys do poorly to make your guy look better (it's natural human instinct--putting others down to feel better about ourselves), but it is still weak and shows insecurity if you do actively hope others fail to make your guy look better, even if everyone does it (even if they keep their feelings inside).

Yes, that's pretty much my point...but I do understand where's he's coming from also...I find myself sometimes hoping that Pierre Dagenais struggles a bit, just so guys like Perezhogin, Plekanec or Higgins can get more icetime on the Habs...but I don't cheer for Dagenais to suck, because ultimately, his success = Habs success in the end...

I just find that in international venues, national pride takes precedent over team affiliations I guess it's not like that for everyone, and that's fine too...

 

[Charge_Seven]

I think you're missing his whole point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that you're rooting for Ellis, which implicitly means you want the others to fail (since you want Ellis as the starter, one of the other goalies will be the backup and two won't make the team, so they'll technically fail), right?

417 is talking about people hoping others fail, so that their guy can make the team. So it's like going to your own tryouts and hoping that all the other guys competing for your spot will suck, instead of hoping that you're the best guy there. If you want the other guys to suck, you want them to suck because it'll make you look better and give you a better chance of making the team. Now let's take an other guy in the tryouts; he's hoping he plays his best and makes the team because he is the best. He doesn't particularly care how anyone else does, so long as he plays well. Doesn't the first guy seem weak and petty, especially compared to the second guy? I think that's 417's whole point (417, correct me if I'm wrong). There's absolutely nothing wrong with rooting for your guy. And, technically, there's nothing wrong to hope that other guys do poorly to make your guy look better (it's natural human instinct--putting others down to feel better about ourselves), but it is still weak and shows insecurity if you do actively hope others fail to make your guy look better, even if everyone does it (even if they keep their feelings inside).

I think you've got the idea the precise way it should be.

What does it matter if Carey Price is the best goalie out of 4 terrible goalies? If Pogge, and the rest allow a goal on every shot, and Price stops one shot, and get's the job for only stopping one shot, then it's really losing all around. I could care less if Pogge gets the job (the guy I want to have it) if he does so because everyone else is a lost cause.

This is a spot you have to earn to be proud of, and you earn it by doing your best, which hopefully is better than the rests best. Not because you're best is better than everyone elses worst.

 

[Towelie*]

I think you're missing his whole point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that you're rooting for Ellis, which implicitly means you want the others to fail (since you want Ellis as the starter, one of the other goalies will be the backup and two won't make the team, so they'll technically fail), right?

417 is talking about people hoping others fail, so that their guy can make the team. So it's like going to your own tryouts and hoping that all the other guys competing for your spot will suck, instead of hoping that you're the best guy there. If you want the other guys to suck, you want them to suck because it'll make you look better and give you a better chance of making the team. Now let's take an other guy in the tryouts; he's hoping he plays his best and makes the team because he is the best. He doesn't particularly care how anyone else does, so long as he plays well. Doesn't the first guy seem weak and petty, especially compared to the second guy? I think that's 417's whole point (417, correct me if I'm wrong). There's absolutely nothing wrong with rooting for your guy. And, technically, there's nothing wrong to hope that other guys do poorly to make your guy look better (it's natural human instinct--putting others down to feel better about ourselves), but it is still weak and shows insecurity if you do actively hope others fail to make your guy look better, even if everyone does it (even if they keep their feelings inside).

I think philosophically and structurally your wrong. I will use your try out example as mine as well. First you are presenting exhibit "A" as being different then exhibit "B" as completely different exhibits. You are failing to understand that success and failure are relative terms. Exhibit "A' is hoping, as you said, that everyone else fails so that he succeeds. While your present a case where exhibit "B" hopes he is the best, and thus succeeds. These cases are essentially the same.

Exhibit "B" may be psycologically hoping for him to be the best (Hoping for his success). However, psycologically, you cannot hope for your own success (Exhibit A) and also hope for you opponents success (Exhibit A) (If the situation only allows one to succeed). Its a psycological contradiction. You would be in fact psycologically hoping for your success, and failure - which is impossible. I hope you can see that it is imposible for "Exhibit B" to psycologically do as you say, which is both hope for his success (Which you define as hoping to be the best player) but at the same time be indifferent or hoping for the failure of his competitors.

Exhibit "A" and "B" are one in the same.

And, technically, there's nothing wrong to hope that other guys do poorly to make your guy look better (it's natural human instinct--putting others down to feel better about ourselves), but it is still weak and shows insecurity if you do actively hope others fail to make your guy look better, even if everyone does it (even if they keep their feelings inside).

-

You contradict yourself and essentially disprove yourself. You conclude, as I do to, that it is "natural human instinct" to feel this way, or you could say, the psycological norm. Then you conclude that those feelings are weak and insecure. But how can the norm, be weak, or strong for that matter. Being weak or strong is a relative term. When you say someone is weak, you are comparing him to someone who is not, or who is strong.

Basically, you have said that normal humans would feel the same way I do, but then declare it weak and insecure? The norm cannot be weak, nor insecure. If the weak is norm, then what is weak? Super weak? The words weak and insecure are relative terms refering to a norm. Therefore the norm cannot be weak or insecure - because by default - it is the norm.

 

[Genghis Keon]

I think philosophically and structurally your wrong. I will use your try out example as mine as well. First you are presenting exhibit "A" as being different then exhibit "B" as completely different exhibits. You are failing to understand that success and failure are relative terms. Exhibit "A' is hoping, as you said, that everyone else fails so that he succeeds. While your present a case where exhibit "B" hopes he is the best, and thus succeeds. These cases are essentially the same.

Exhibit "B" may be psycologically hoping for him to be the best (Hoping for his success). However, psycologically, you cannot hope for your own success (Exhibit A) and also hope for you opponents success (Exhibit A) (If the situation only allows one to succeed). Its a psycological contradiction. You would be in fact psycologically hoping for your success, and failure - which is impossible. I hope you can see that it is imposible for "Exhibit B" to psycologically do as you say, which is both hope for his success (Which you define as hoping to be the best player) but at the same time be indifferent or hoping for the failure of his competitors.

Exhibit "A" and "B" are one in the same.

-

You contradict yourself and essentially disprove yourself. You conclude, as I do to, that it is "natural human instinct" to feel this way, or you could say, the psycological norm. Then you conclude that those feelings are weak and insecure. But how can the norm, be weak, or strong for that matter. Being weak or strong is a relative term. When you say someone is weak, you are comparing him to someone who is not, or who is strong.

Basically, you have said that normal humans would feel the same way I do, but then declare it weak and insecure? The norm cannot be weak, nor insecure. If the weak is norm, then what is weak? Super weak? The words weak and insecure are relative terms refering to a norm. Therefore the norm cannot be weak or insecure - because by default - it is the norm.

Your whole argument is based on the relativity of success and failure (in hoping that someone succeeds, you are, by definition, hoping that others fail) and the relativity of the word weak (if everyone is weak, you can't claim anyone is weak because weak compared to weak isn't actually weak), right? So, it's basically a semantical argument, right?

So let's change the terms, so that they essentially say the same thing 417 has said all along, but that takes out the semantical argument (417 can say if it conveys what he originally meant or not): It's pathetic and petty that some people on boards that he's seen actually explicitly hope for players to play poorly (in relation to their normal performance levels and their expected capabilities), so that, implicitly, the player drafted by their team looks better in comparison and thus makes the team. Do you agree/disagree?

 

[Towelie*]

Your whole argument is based on the relativity of success and failure (in hoping that someone succeeds, you are, by definition, hoping that others fail) and the relativity of the word weak (if everyone is weak, you can't claim anyone is weak because weak compared to weak isn't actually weak), right? So, it's basically a semantical argument, right?

So let's change the terms, so that they essentially say the same thing 417 has said all along, but that takes out the semantical argument (417 can say if it conveys what he originally meant or not): It's pathetic and petty that some people on boards that he's seen actually explicitly hope for players to play poorly (in relation to their normal performance levels and their expected capabilities), so that, implicitly, the player drafted by their team looks better in comparison and thus makes the team. Do you agree/disagree?

I agree its a semantics argument. I just don't think cheering for someone to fail, because it is essentially a relative term,"pathedic and petty" as you put it. Unless you think everyone is petty and pathedic? Because we have concluded its an inherent part of human nature/

 

[Genghis Keon]

I agree its a semantics argument. I just don't think cheering for someone to fail, because it is essentially a relative term,"pathedic and petty" as you put it. Unless you think everyone is petty and pathedic? Because we have concluded its an inherent part of human nature/

Just to elaborate my position, I think it's human nature to, I don't know, relish in the misfortunes of others (Alexander Pope has a great line about that in "An Essay on Criticism"), but, other than when we're feeling insecure about ourselves, I don't think many people actively hope others fail, or make fools of themselves, or whatever. Like if you see a guy walking down the street and he slips on a patch of ice and falls flat on his back, most people are going to laugh at him. If it looks really bad or if you realize he's hurt you won't laugh or will stop laughing, but if he just hurt his pride, I think most people would laugh (generally speaking, I think younger people laugh at more than older people because they are generally more robust, so the same person falling looks different to eyes of a 20 year old and a 50 year old). I think most psychologists would say that we laugh because we're happy it's not us and it covers up the anxiety we feel when we subconsciously put ourselves into the fallers place (it gives us a conscious feeling of superiority to cover our unconscious anxiety and feelings of inferiority). Like, I don't think there's anything inherently funny about someone falling down in and of itself. I might be wrong, but I also don't think many people just see random people on the street and hope they fall because that way that person looks like a clumsy fool, which would give anyone watching a sense of superiority (really an unconscious reaction against anxiety and inferiority).

I think the only time people actively or consciously hope for others to fail or make fools of themselves is when our feelings of inferiority are most present in our conscious minds, like in tests or tryouts or competing over a girl or the like, when it comes down to a few people and if you don't have a higher mark or you don't make the team or don't get the girl, you feel like failure. In those cases, when you're really the most vulnerable, I think a lot of people hope the other guy fails the test (so, at worst, you don't feel like a complete idiot for failing too), or screws up the tryout, or you hope that something happens to the guy or the guy does something so the girl thinks he's an idiot, so you get the girl.

So, to apply this to the case of the goalies, I think it's natural to root for your guy, and if the other goalies do happen to struggle, you are naturally going to be happy about it (at least until they make Team Canada, in which case they'll have your full support), but I don't think that it's natural to actively hope the other guys struggle, unless you have a sense of inferiority through your guy (your team, your players, often become a part of you, at least in a sense--at least that's what I think). If you're feeling inferior through your guy, then I think it's natural to hope the others fail, so your guy succeeds, which in turn gives you a sense of superiority through the player you're cheering for.

I don't know if you share this view, and I'm no psychologist, so I don't even know if it's a credible psychological view or just a bunch of unsubstantiated hot air, but that's the way I see things at least. So "pathetic" and "petty" might be too strong, but I definitely think there would be inferiority issues involved if someone actively hopes for someone else's misfortunes or struggles, and, depending on your outlook, it might be seen as pathetic or petty.

 

[Mess]

The most interesting battles this week should be at goaltender. Over the years, WHL goaltenders have had a tough time making the team and then landing the starting job, which have traditionally gone to a netminder from Quebec. But three of the four invitees this year are from the WHL.

Julien Ellis of the Shawinigan Cataractes and Justin Pogge of the Calgary Hitmen are coming to selection camp with the best numbers so far this season, but Dubnyk and Carey Price of the Tri-City Americans are also talented goalies.

"The goaltender has to win you hockey games," Sutter said. "You can't let in bad goals. A bad goal in this tournament can kill you and deflate you not just for that game, but for the series."

http://www.tsn.ca/world_jrs/news_story.asp?id=146672

TSN has a Audio / Video report on the goalies

Net GAIN
TSN's Farhan Lalji profiles Canada's netminders at World Junior camp.
http://www.tsn.ca/world_jrs/

 

[vintagecanuck]

Julien Ellis

Either the back up is horrible or Ellis is that damn good. From what I hear in order for Shawinigan to win, Ellis must steal the game. And he has a winning record! I beleive that if Ellis is named the #1 goalie for team canada we will finally have someone between the pipes with that game stealing abililty. I think the only thing that could hold him off the team is coach Sutters prefference for western players.

Shawinigan Netminders:
Name gp-w-l gaa sp shots/game
Ellis 24-14-9 2.96 .909 32.5
MacFarlane 12-3-6 4.62 .854 31.7

 

[Mess]

Todays goalie results in camp

Red beats White in Canada scrimmage

Hockey Canada
Canadian Press
12/13/2005 10:50:52 PM

VANCOUVER (CP) - Benoit Pouliot did what he has to do to play for the Canadian junior men's hockey team with a pair of goals in Tuesday's intra-squad game in a 4-0 win for the Red team over the White.

Red goalie Justin Pogge of the Calgary Hitmen made 13 saves for the shutout while White netminder Devan Dubnyk of the Kamloops Blazers had a rougher outing, allowing four goals on 17 shots.

http://www.tsn.ca/world_jrs/news_story.asp?ID=146896&hubName=world_jrs

 

[Rise from the Ashes]

i think the 2 goalies will be Pogge and Price, Price being starter because he faces more shots and is known for his cool deminure. Pogge seems to be very consistent.

 

[AgentNaslund*]

I strongly feel Price is the best of the bunch, but I also feel Pogge will get the job. Both are capable, and both are good selections.

Elis-Plante is good, but is no Price or Pogge.

If I made the team, it'd be Price at #1, and Pogge at #2.

why do you say that Jay? Ellis is the best goalie in the QMJHL. To say hes no Price or Pogge.... pls explain. thx. Does it have anything to do with draft position?

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

why do you say that Jay? Ellis is the best goalie in the QMJHL. To say hes no Price or Pogge.... pls explain. thx. Does it have anything to do with draft position?

Best canadian goaltender in the QMJHL, Pavelec gets the nod for best goaltender.

 

[oil slick]

Todays goalie results in camp

Red beats White in Canada scrimmage

Hockey Canada
Canadian Press
12/13/2005 10:50:52 PM

VANCOUVER (CP) - Benoit Pouliot did what he has to do to play for the Canadian junior men's hockey team with a pair of goals in Tuesday's intra-squad game in a 4-0 win for the Red team over the White.

Red goalie Justin Pogge of the Calgary Hitmen made 13 saves for the shutout while White netminder Devan Dubnyk of the Kamloops Blazers had a rougher outing, allowing four goals on 17 shots.

http://www.tsn.ca/world_jrs/news_story.asp?ID=146896&hubName=world_jrs

I think Dubnyk is out of the race.

 

[VanW27]

After watching sportscentre Bob McKenzie seems to think Pogge is the favorite for a position and says Price and Dubnyk will have to be great to take the spot from him.

 

[richardn]

After watching sportscentre Bob McKenzie seems to think Pogge is the favorite for a position and says Price and Dubnyk will have to be great to take the spot from him.

Actually didn't he say favorite to be the starter so far.

 

[Rise from the Ashes]

Yeah i know, but im sure pogge would have been starter last year because of his reputation in games where he faces little shots, BUT with this team i think they need a starter who faces a lot of shots like Price or Ellis.

 

[zeke]

Anwser this question Mess (Since you seem to be an avid Pogge follower). How can you explain Pogges INSTANT statistical inflation once traded to the Hitmen? Did he wake up over night a better goalie?.

from what I remember, it wasn't INSTANT at all.

Pogge gradually played stronger and stronger after the trade, eventually stepping it up to a dominant level by the playoffs.

Not sure why you seem to think it was "INSTANT".

 

[Towelie*]

from what I remember, it wasn't INSTANT at all.

Pogge gradually played stronger and stronger after the trade, eventually stepping it up to a dominant level by the playoffs.

Not sure why you seem to think it was "INSTANT".

I can only go by statistics, but they directly were inflated when he changed teams mid-season.

 

[Mess]

Goaltending a key position for Canada

Canadian Press
12/14/2005 6:58:53 PM
VANCOUVER (CP) - Canada's starting goaltender at the 2006 world junior hockey championship will face more rubber than Jeff Glass did in 2005.

The team that won gold at the 2005 tournament gave up an average of 18 shots a game because the Canadian defence rarely let the opposition penetrate the blue-line, and when it did, it didn't get far.

That's unusual for any country at the world junior hockey championship as fortunes almost always turn on goaltending.

This edition of the Canadian junior team will be younger and will have little experience at the world under-20 level, so life will revert to normal.

Full Story : http://www.tsn.ca/world_jrs/news_story.asp?ID=146985&hubName=world_jrs

 

[Mess]

I can only go by statistics, but they directly were inflated when he changed teams mid-season.

But none of the matters because making this team will be based on what each goalie has done this year and how they perform at the WJC camp ..

What have you done for me lately is all the rage ..

 

[zeke]

Stats can only ever look "instant".

The stats would look the same whether he gradually improved with his new team or whether he improved immediately.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I can only go by statistics, but they directly were inflated when he changed teams mid-season.

Maybe you should consider not relying so heavily on statistics. They really don't say much of anything, you have to watch players to get any sense of what they are about.

 

[Freaky Habs Fan]

Well guys, I think it's pretty safe to say that Price and Pogge will be going to the WJC.

Pogge - no goal
Price - one goal
Dubnyk - four goals
Ellis - eight goals

Ellis is done, you can't bring someone who allowed 8 goals on 28 shots...and from the sound of it, Dubnyk isn't playing really well...

So let's see who between Price and Pogge will be the # 1