Anyone read Michael Ulmer's article?

[Big Phil]

His article is at www.slam.ca if no one has checked it out yet. He labels all of the weaknesses in each country. Canada has none. He said the US team is a day older than dirt. lol

He claims that this tourny isnt even going to be close. Not so sure about that. I believe Canada will take it. A Canada/Sweden final should be a good game.
Any thoughts on the article?

Click to read more...

 

[Reilly311]

hhmmmm....a canadian writer, writing about team canada, claiming it will be a cake walk. Sounds like good journalism to me.

 

[hockeyfan125]

stupid article.

 

[tml_4ever]

Is it just me or does this article seem a bit on the "biased" side?

...Canada has retooled while the rest of the hockey world has treaded water...

umm.... really? then why did an AMERICAN team win the Cup?

...that should easily be the most dominant at the tournament...

I don't think there's such thing as "should be the most dominant" in sports

...the two geezers in Chelios and Hull...

They might be old but they have the experience and could open a good ol can of woop-ass when they want to

 

[arrbez]

Is it just me or does this article seem a bit on the "biased" side?



umm.... really? then why did an AMERICAN team win the Cup?

in the context of international hockey, i dont think the location of the NHL champions has anything to do with the strength of the country they play in. the lightning were clearly led by a russian, a czech, and a bunch of canadians. oh, and hulk hogan.

unless you're talking about the first world cup (too long ago to be a good measuring stick) or the juniors (irrelevant as of yet)...

yeah, the article has taken a fairly accurate idea (that canada has no glaring weakness compared to other countries) and spun it to stupid new heights.

"thank the germans and slovakians for coming out"
talk about underestimating your opponent.

in the end, the article is pretty unprofessional. but hey, you can't expect much more than that from the Sun (sensationalism + advertising posing as a legit newspaper)

 

[tylerr]

Is it just me or does this article seem a bit on the "biased" side?



umm.... really? then why did an AMERICAN team win the Cup?

that was good for a chuckle!

 

[The Legend]

The article does have some foundations that do contain truth. Like the fact that Canada has retooled with young guns(Thornton, Marleau, Doan, Heatley) while the rest of the countries still have the same guys as the last time.

Where it does go wrong in it's assumption that Canada will win. Obviously, even in 7 game series, people get hot, bounces, calls, go one team's way, and an upset can occur. Same for a short tourney where most of the guys don't have much chemistry.


However, that said, like Ulmer says, looking at it on paper, which is what he does, Canada SHOULD win it, that's not to say they WILL win it.

 

[kjri]

His article is at www.slam.ca if no one has checked it out yet. He labels all of the weaknesses in each country. Canada has none. He said the US team is a day older than dirt. lol

He claims that this tourny isnt even going to be close. Not so sure about that. I believe Canada will take it. A Canada/Sweden final should be a good game.
Any thoughts on the article?

Some canuck "journalists" write the same stuff every year before a major tournament. That happened also in 96 and 98 (olympics). When they lose, expect them to praise opponent's goalie, how incredible he was.

Of course they have often right, Canada is every year, more or less , the team to beat.

 

[BAuldie]

Is it just me or does this article seem a bit on the "biased" side?



umm.... really? then why did an AMERICAN team win the Cup?



I don't think there's such thing as "should be the most dominant" in sports



They might be old but they have the experience and could open a good ol can of woop-ass when they want to

You mean the american team that had the most Canadians in the playoffs on it? Including 3 solid members of Team Canada? Yea...

 

[Big Phil]

umm.... really? then why did an AMERICAN team win the Cup?

First off if anyone wonders why Americans kow nothing about Hockey this guy proves it right here. Not saying all Yanks are that brainless but as Canadians we just shake our heads. I mean was Canada the best Baseball country when the Blue Jays won back to back World Series? No. It was a team that happened to be located in Canada that was filled by Americans.

International play is where it needs to be judged. Or if playoffs mean a lot to oyu then look at the Conn Smythe Trophy winners. Since its inaguration in 1965 an Americna and a Swede have won it, other than that its been the Great White North. Hockey was no more Canada's game than when the Oilers were winning Cupos, or the Islanders for that matter.

 

[ehc73]

You mean the american team that had the most Canadians in the playoffs on it? Including 3 solid members of Team Canada? Yea...

I thought he meant World Cup.

 

[Reilly311]

First off if anyone wonders why Americans know nothing about Hockey this guy proves it right here.

Well, "that guy" lives in Canada. :lol

 

[longtime listener]

First off if anyone wonders why Americans kow nothing about Hockey this guy proves it right here.

And if anyone wonders how Canadians can be so smug when not logically connecting the dots, here you go. I'm joking Canadians. I'm only here to pick on Big Phil.

A) I think the reference was clearly to the last World Cup, not the Stanely Cup. Granted a tournament that happened 8 years ago is irrelevant... but about as irrelevant as you mentioning the Conn Smythe or the history of International Hockey.

B) Speaking of the Conn Smythe had any more Americans won it in '96 then now? Didn't think so.

C) Canada is clearly the team to beat. Most people recognize this. But this doesn't mean anything. It's a short tournament, national pride is at stake and anything can happen. To dismiss the rest of the world nowadays with hockey such a prominent international sport is just silly. Ulmer set out to ruffle some feathers and stir up Canadian pride, that's it.