Lion of the North said:As a swede yes.
If i were canadian no.
ferns8916 said: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.
ferns8916 said: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.
ferns8916 said: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.
puck57 said: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.
puck57 said: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.
ferns8916 said:Who are these younger players who are "much better"?
ferns8916 said: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?
ferns8916 said: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.
ferns8916 said: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?
puck57 said: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.
puck57 said: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.