Hockey's top 5 crushing defeats

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,141
So the old yarn that begins with: "It all started because the circus was in town ..." originally ended with: "... and that's how the LEAFS got screwed ..."? :huh:

No, the Leafs didn't get screwed. If anything they had the advantage playing in 4 straight home games in the playoffs. I don't think any team got screwed. The team that had the disadvantage (NYR) ended up winning. I am just pointing out that there was another time there was much different circumstances that forced the schedule to change. I have no idea why they would schedule the circus at MSG at that time though. It wasn't as if there wasn't a good possibility the Rangers could have been in the final.

I don't disagree with your post. Playing through injuries is part of why it's hard to win a Cup. Especially if you're trying to repeat.

However, the Penguins in 2017 played Ottawa and Nashville in the last two rounds. Not exactly legendary opponents. Yes, they were without Letang, but on paper Pittsburgh was a lot stronger than either of those teams. That's not comparable to the Red Wings in 2009, who faced a good Chicago team without Lidstrom or Datsyuk for most that series. They beat Chicago in 5, had a few days off, and then played back to back games against a really strong Pittsburgh team.

I also don't believe travel is a big deal. Pittsburgh to Detroit is a one hour flight.

But keep in mind, the best team the Pens played in 2017 was Washington in the 2nd round. Up 2-0 and then Crosby gets injured with that questionable hit from Ovechkin. He comes back in the series of course, but it still took them 7 games to win and Game 7 was in Washington. So the Caps led the NHL in points for the 2nd year in a row, so that's beating the best regular season team. The Pens finished 2nd, but they also beat Columbus the team with the 4th most points. Ottawa was a Cinderella team for sure and so was Nashville.............or was Nashville in the 2017 Cup final more like the team that would lead the NHL in points in 2018? Either way, I wouldn't call Pittsburgh's run in 2017 easy. Perhaps you can say it would have been interesting to see them play the Hawks in the final instead of the Predators but they Hawks were pretty convincingly swept by the Preds.

The Pens still repeated, all without their best defenseman and a guy who finished 4th in Norris voting a year earlier.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,141
Look at my argument as a whole. You’re doing the same thing The Panther did. Just focus on two days off and leave out the 3 in 4. Combined, that is extreme as the NHL has ever gone for an accelerated early Finals schedule. That is what the league changed to from the long delay they had originally planned. I have no problem with them changing it but why accelerate things a much as possible when both teams finished the last series so early and it departed from the original plan so much?

Sure, compare it with other Finals series with only 2 days off, compare the Datsyuk injury with others, say a back to back isn’t the end of the world. Combined though, the league really added to a disadvantage one team already had. The league really looked like bunch of Pens fans here even if that’s not the reason.

You start by mentioning two teams that went 7 games in the CF and then had a quick start. You are helping prove my point here. You mention the ‘93 Leafs playing so many games as well but how do those apply to the ‘09 Red Wings who actually knocked out the Hawks in 5 and limped into the next round? It doesn’t. It was an extremely strange situation for the league to suddenly flash the most accelerated start to the Finals they could possibly come up with in that scenario. They had lots of time with both series finishing early but chose to rush into the first 3 games like never before.

Nobody was asking for a long layoff either, just not an accelerated schedule when one team was clearly on the mend. What a kick to the stones it is to see your team already playing at 70 or 80% cause of injuries and then the league decides to “try something different” and condense the early Finals schedule. The Red Wings were reeling from the conference finals that had Lidstrom and Ericsson having surgery and needing to rush back to the finals and play 3 in 4, while missing Datsyuk and Draper to start the series, along with Hossa, Rafalski, and Cleary all playing with publicized injuries. So no, not just Datsyuk being affected here.

The Pens clearly loved the quick start to the series because they were fully aware of the Red Wings situation. The Red Wings clearly hated it for obvious reasons. Anyone who thinks it was fine wouldn’t be saying the same thing if it happened to their team. The NHL decided to change it to an outlier schedule that would clearly benefit one team and make things as tough as possible for the other. How can you keep pretending that is fine?

The delayed schedule towards the end of the series gave the Wings some chance to recover but the damage was already done. The Pens got more confidence from playing an injured and run down team 3 in 4 early in the series, which was exactly what that team needed after getting dominated the year before, and that 3 in 4 had a cumulative affect on wearing down the beat up and older team even more.

I don’t buy the Conan excuse the league provided either. That show premiered one night, which Was June 1 (Monday). Not being able to play that one night caused this schedule? Is that really how this works? Nah.... Frankly, why the NHL did it is irrelevant. That’s not how they should run things and it certainly contributed to a “crushing defeat”.

Like I showed you last time, go back and compare that early schedule with any other in modern times and you’ll see it was unparalleled and an odd time for Bettman to pull it out due to how quickly the CF ended. Haven’t done it since either. It was a one-time gift to Crosby and the Pens and they still nearly blew it.

Why they accelerated it was because of the early finish for both series. Usually there isn't a sweep and a 5-game series on both sides. Normally at least one team goes 6 or 7. So in that case the expected start of the final was the next Saturday since it was expected that at least one series would go deep. They didn't. So that gave them the opportunity to start the final the previous Saturday and you know as well as I do that a lot of that probably had to do with viewership. You'll get more eyes on the screen on Saturday and Sunday than the weekday. Throw in the Conan thing interrupting everything and it explains why they did what they did. Besides, none of that mattered. Detroit didn't necessarily outplay the Pens, but they did win both of them. Would you have scrapped a 2-0 series lead just so the series could start on, say, Wednesday? I would guess come Sunday night no one in Detroit could have cared less after the game that there were back to back games.

Here is something pretty fascinating though. The 2008 and 2009 finals were played by the same teams. Other than the unusual back to back games, the truth is, the 2008 Cup final was played in the same fashion. May 24th to June 4th. 6 games. 2009 was played from May 30th to June 13th in 7 games. 2008 was played in 11 days in 6 games. 2009 was played in 14 days in 7 games. There is literally no difference at all. The only thing is the back to back, which Detroit won anyway. Other than that the 2009 Cup final had two times where the games were three days apart, with 2008 just having one. If Wings fans think that a singular back to back game is the reason they lost a Cup then they probably are seeing it because they want to. But it isn't reality. They were banged up, that is true, but they were just not a good enough team to be a dynasty. Think of this, the 1983 Cup final was a lot like the 2008 Cup final with experience vs. Youth. But the 1984 Cup final was a lot like the 2009 Cup final where the younger team got more experience and the older team was starting to wear down. It was accurate right? The 2010 Wings didn't do a deep run either right?

Lastly, why wouldn't the NHL have fixed the 2010 playoffs for the Pens if they did the 2009 playoffs? Why not fix it that the Pens beat the Habs in 2010? You can't tell me that another Pens/Flyers match up in the final is better ratings than the Habs. Not to mention a Pens/Hawks Cup final.
 

LeapOnOver

Mackenzie is a hack!
Jan 23, 2011
12,465
3,671
Iksan, S. Korea
www.leaponover.com
Just watching the NFL network and their usual "Top 10" lists which I love and it got me thinking, what are hockey's most crushing defeats? I'll limit it to 5 with some honourable mentions. Here is the stipulation, it has to be broadly recognized as a crushing defeat. It can't just be regional. For example, the Leafs losing to the Kings in 1993 is crushing among Leafs fans but it would never crack a top 5 or maybe even 25. Think about this as if you are a neutral fan. International hockey is included in this. It has to be a big game, an important game with championship implications. It can result in a blown lead, a choke job, a monumental upset or even just a bad gaffe. So here we go, this is my list, flame away!

#1 Penguins losing to the Islanders in 1993 - This one just hurts, and even seeing the replay on the Volek overtime goal makes me wince, to this day. There was so much on the line this year that would have made a Penguins Cup win so sweet. Mario getting cancer but still winning the scoring title, the 17 wins in a row which is still a record, the best record in the NHL, the prospect of a three-peat. It would have been interesting to see just how the Penguins and even how much more we would have viewed Mario had they won. That whole series was just an example of how to NOT close a series. The Pens had their chances to put them away but didn't. Even in Game 7 that had a 45-20 difference in shots on goal for the Pens you could almost see things slipping away. Then the bad goals in that game. Barrasso wasn't sharp and there was a goal at the blueline to make it 3-1 Isles. But the Pens tied it late and you figured this was a lot like the 1982 Isles, winning two Cups in a row and making a strong comeback in a clinching game in order to win it in overtime. But no, it didn't work out that way. Mario had that point blank chance in overtime right in front of Healy and 9 times out of 10 the goalie blinks and flops around like a fish out of water once they realize it is Mario but this was one time where Mario actually may have had a little too much patience and didn't shoot it quick enough. Then the overtime goal on a bad line change for the Pens. To this day I don't know whose fault it was. It looks like Francis got off and someone needed to get on in his place. The Islander goal was scored more or less with 4 Pens on the ice. That's Martin Straka who was understandably out of place once he got on the ice trying to get to Volek. Ahh, too bad. But yeah, this is the NHL's #1 upset of all-time I think and is right there as the most crushing defeat.

I was at game 6 of this series that the Islanders won to force game 7. I got tickets at the last minute and stood up against the back wall at the coliseum. The one moment that stands out the most is when Uwe Krupp scored the empty netter. The normal unemotional stoic Krupp picked up a Stuffed Animal Penguin in a noose that was thrown on the ice. He twirled and few times and launched it into the crowd. It was one of the single greatest memories I've had as an Isles fan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Phil

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,002
4,966
Parts Unknown
Why they accelerated it was because of the early finish for both series. Usually there isn't a sweep and a 5-game series on both sides. Normally at least one team goes 6 or 7. So in that case the expected start of the final was the next Saturday since it was expected that at least one series would go deep. They didn't. So that gave them the opportunity to start the final the previous Saturday and you know as well as I do that a lot of that probably had to do with viewership. You'll get more eyes on the screen on Saturday and Sunday than the weekday. Throw in the Conan thing interrupting everything and it explains why they did what they did. Besides, none of that mattered. Detroit didn't necessarily outplay the Pens, but they did win both of them. Would you have scrapped a 2-0 series lead just so the series could start on, say, Wednesday? I would guess come Sunday night no one in Detroit could have cared less after the game that there were back to back games.

Here is something pretty fascinating though. The 2008 and 2009 finals were played by the same teams. Other than the unusual back to back games, the truth is, the 2008 Cup final was played in the same fashion. May 24th to June 4th. 6 games. 2009 was played from May 30th to June 13th in 7 games. 2008 was played in 11 days in 6 games. 2009 was played in 14 days in 7 games. There is literally no difference at all. The only thing is the back to back, which Detroit won anyway. Other than that the 2009 Cup final had two times where the games were three days apart, with 2008 just having one. If Wings fans think that a singular back to back game is the reason they lost a Cup then they probably are seeing it because they want to. But it isn't reality. They were banged up, that is true, but they were just not a good enough team to be a dynasty. Think of this, the 1983 Cup final was a lot like the 2008 Cup final with experience vs. Youth. But the 1984 Cup final was a lot like the 2009 Cup final where the younger team got more experience and the older team was starting to wear down. It was accurate right? The 2010 Wings didn't do a deep run either right?

Lastly, why wouldn't the NHL have fixed the 2010 playoffs for the Pens if they did the 2009 playoffs? Why not fix it that the Pens beat the Habs in 2010? You can't tell me that another Pens/Flyers match up in the final is better ratings than the Habs. Not to mention a Pens/Hawks Cup final.
It's not the singular reason. Just one main reason that gets brought up. Yes, they won games 1 and 2, but they looked average in both games. Osgood carried them to those victories. They only looked good in game 5. Just ran out of gas the rest of the way. Winning two games is nice, but it's a 7 game series. They didn't have it in the tank for the long run. I think playing back to back hurt them more than Pittsburgh. If I run a marathon and have to play a tennis match afterwards, I might do OK in the beginning, but I'm not winning a long match.

I've never cared much about Malkin not being suspended after game 5. I know the league doesn't suspend superstar players in the Finals frequently. It was a stupid rule anyway. The too many men penalty that wasn't called ticks me off. That happened when Detroit was up 1-0 in game 3. I've never seen a team play that long with six skaters, without the ref noticing. It was egregious. Should have had a powerplay. Wings fans will bring that up as often as the back to back games.

The turning point of the series came in game 4 when Staal scored a shorthanded goal. I believe Detroit was up by one goal at that time and on a 5 on 3 (I could be wrong and maybe it was a 5 on 4). Staal undresses Rafalski and ties the game. That was a big swing in momentum. I'll also give the Penguins credit for their shotblocking in games 6 and 7. They were relentless. They were a very good team as evidenced by them making the Finals in 2008. There are things that went their way in the series. Other breaks they made themselves with good hockey plays.

Also, many Wings fans (myself included) feel that Detroit blew the series. Until 2009, no home team had lost a game 7 in the Finals for a very long time. I thought before and after the game (and even today) that there's no excuse for them to have lost that game. Someway, somehow, you have to win that game 7 at home. Incidentally, it would happen again two years later in Vancouver and happened last year in Boston. So maybe that's becoming a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quoipourquoi

JMCx4

Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Sep 3, 2017
13,401
8,284
St. Louis, MO
... I am just pointing out that there was another time there was much different circumstances that forced the schedule to change. I have no idea why they would schedule the circus at MSG at that time though. It wasn't as if there wasn't a good possibility the Rangers could have been in the final. ...
What I've read in the past about the schedule conflicts was that original MSG made more money from the circus than from hockey (the most money coming from boxing matches). And not unlike what you see in multipurpose arenas out in the Western U.S. with annual rodeo events, the Old Gardens in the first part of the 20th Century always hosted the circus in April. This Gerald Eskenazi article from the NY Times goes into more detail about the annual circus tradition @ MSG.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,125
Hockeytown, MI
I think it also doesn’t help that prior to 2009, there was always a reason why Detroit didn’t win. Bill Ranford’s fault. Manny Legace’s fault. Paul Coffey’s fault. Andreas Lilja’s fault. Curtis Joseph’s fault. Someone the fans could make “the other” so that blame was never on the team as a whole for why they didn’t win every Stanley Cup.

So really, it’s Mitch Albom’s fault. Probably didn’t help that the team itself went from complaining about the schedule to complaining about the speed with which everyone shook hands as if Chris Chelios hadn’t been on their roster for 10 years.

That’s why I don’t think anyone with large amounts of success is going to be on the wrong end of a crushing defeat. No one in Buffalo or Vancouver is getting their violins ready because Detroit has to play a back-to-back.
 

Kranix

Deranged Homer
Jun 27, 2012
18,119
16,151
I was going to say Flames losing to LA in 1990 round 1. It started their downward spiral from top team into pure garbage and they didn't win another series until 04.
It's more just a pathetic and annoying whimper of a loss than crushing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scott clam

Oheao

Registered User
Apr 17, 2014
662
348
London
I think it also doesn’t help that prior to 2009, there was always a reason why Detroit didn’t win. Bill Ranford’s fault. Manny Legace’s fault. Paul Coffey’s fault. Andreas Lilja’s fault. Curtis Joseph’s fault. Someone the fans could make “the other” so that blame was never on the team as a whole for why they didn’t win every Stanley Cup.

So really, it’s Mitch Albom’s fault. Probably didn’t help that the team itself went from complaining about the schedule to complaining about the speed with which everyone shook hands as if Chris Chelios hadn’t been on their roster for 10 years.

That’s why I don’t think anyone with large amounts of success is going to be on the wrong end of a crushing defeat. No one in Buffalo or Vancouver is getting their violins ready because Detroit has to play a back-to-back.
Would Chris Chelios have been engraved in 2009 had they won? I always wondered that because he was on the team but didn't meet the pre-requisite, I don't know if they would have petitioned for him or not.
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,002
4,966
Parts Unknown
Would Chris Chelios have been engraved in 2009 had they won? I always wondered that because he was on the team but didn't meet the pre-requisite, I don't know if they would have petitioned for him or not.
Out of respect management probably would put him on the Cup.

That was the year where Babcock benched him for the Winter Classic in Chicago. Chelios also lost his spot in the lineup to Lilja the season before. I sometimes forget he was even on those two teams, sadly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quoipourquoi

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,125
Hockeytown, MI
Out of respect management probably would put him on the Cup.

That was the year where Babcock benched him for the Winter Classic in Chicago. Chelios also lost his spot in the lineup to Lilja the season before. I sometimes forget he was even on those two teams, sadly.

Just when you think you’ve remembered all of the reasons to dislike Mike Babcock...
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,002
4,966
Parts Unknown
Just when you think you’ve remembered all of the reasons to dislike Mike Babcock...
I remember watching that game and wondering why an almost 50 year old legend who's from Chicago, and used to play there, wasn't playing more in that game. I wasn't surprised several months ago to read an interview from Chelios bashing Babcock and his wounded pride.
 

c9777666

Registered User
Aug 31, 2016
19,892
5,875
I would personally nominate PIT/FLA 96 moreso than CHI/LA 2014 because that turned out to be PIT's last shot at a Cup with that Lemieux/Jagr/Francis core. And the crossroads feel of that series.
 

sonic92

Registered User
Mar 5, 2020
453
536
Peace River, AB
I was going to say Flames losing to LA in 1990 round 1. It started their downward spiral from top team into pure garbage and they didn't win another series until 04.
It's more just a pathetic and annoying whimper of a loss than crushing.

Another one for the Flames would be the 2006 loss Anaheim. They still had that '04 buzz around them and had a potential Battle of Alberta staring them in the face. Instead they lay an egg and get shut out by Bryzgalov which put them in a perpetual cycle of mediocrity that they haven't gotten out of.
 

rfournier103

Black & Gold ‘till I’m Dead & Cold.
Sponsor
Dec 17, 2011
8,192
16,588
Massachusetts
The infamous “Too Many Men on the Ice Game” has to be number one.

It is by far the worst Bruins loss of all time, and only Game 6 of the ‘86 World Series and Super Bowl XLII are worse losses in Boston sports history.
 

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,382
3,357
38° N 77° W
As a Wings fan I never took 09 to be that crushing a defeat. I felt like the signs were obvious, the 3-1 lead built on smoke and mirrors. Of course, you hope you can get away with one last triumph, but it felt a bit like fighting vs time itself. I deep down expected to lose game 7.

For me the loss vs the Ducks in 07 was far more crushing. At that time you don't know there's a Cup in 08, and I already felt like that team was good enough to win the Cup. That series felt really unfortunate to lose in spite of only going 6 games. The Ducks were excellent, but the Wings could and maybe should have beaten them. I still think if Lidstrom's shot is a goal rather than hitting the post the Wings win the series and the Cup. It's an emotional truth, not one you can prove. But the Sens did not seem to pose a serious threat in the Finals and that turned out to be true for the Ducks.
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,002
4,966
Parts Unknown
As a Wings fan I never took 09 to be that crushing a defeat. I felt like the signs were obvious, the 3-1 lead built on smoke and mirrors. Of course, you hope you can get away with one last triumph, but it felt a bit like fighting vs time itself. I deep down expected to lose game 7.

For me the loss vs the Ducks in 07 was far more crushing. At that time you don't know there's a Cup in 08, and I already felt like that team was good enough to win the Cup. That series felt really unfortunate to lose in spite of only going 6 games. The Ducks were excellent, but the Wings could and maybe should have beaten them. I still think if Lidstrom's shot is a goal rather than hitting the post the Wings win the series and the Cup. It's an emotional truth, not one you can prove. But the Sens did not seem to pose a serious threat in the Finals and that turned out to be true for the Ducks.
The Wings were never up 3-1 in that series. You're thinking of 2008. Though maybe you aren't. I heard Pierre McGuire say the same about the 2009 Finals during a broadcast this season. Maybe in hindsight everyone remembers that Detroit was up 3-1.
 

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,382
3,357
38° N 77° W
The Wings were never up 3-1 in that series. You're thinking of 2008. Though maybe you aren't. I heard Pierre McGuire say the same about the 2009 Finals during a broadcast this season. Maybe in hindsight everyone remembers that Detroit was up 3-1.

It was 2-0, you are right, and then 3-2.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
This is my argument in a nutshet regarding the schedule change for the '09 Finals with evidence of what I've stated.

Here are the number of days the NHL has been allowing between after Conference Finals ended to game 3 of Finals:

2003 - 8 days (CFs ended with 4 and 7 games series)
2004 - 7 days (CFs ended with 6 and 7 games)
2005 - Lockout
2006 - 9 days
2007 - 11 days
2008 - 9 days

2009 - 6 days (CFs went 4 and 5 games)
2010 - 9 days
2011 - 10 days
2012 - 9 days
2013 - 9 days (the other CFs that went 4 and 5 games)
2014 - 8 days (CFs went 6 and 7 games)
2015 - 9 days
2016 - 9 days
2017 - 9 days
2018 - 10 days
2019 - 11 days

Clearly the early portion of the series was rushed like no other recent Finals the the CFs didn't even drag on as they often cite that to rush the Finals so it doesn't go too deep into the summer. Based on what they usually do there should have probably been 3 additional days off in this span. That's a huge difference at that point in the hockey year.

Rushing the early part of the schedule is a big deal, especially when it’s exasperating other issues for one team. You fellow fans are telling me that’s fine? If it was your team you would also ask “why this year and like this?” if your team was dropping like flies the last series, including a Hart candidate and the top defenseman in the game, and then the league decided to go from a long delay to this. Any fan base that is paying attention to things is going to complain about that and it would leave a mark if the series played out like it did.

Please don't reply with something incredulous because we should all know better as hockey fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OgeeOgelthorpe

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
I think it also doesn’t help that prior to 2009, there was always a reason why Detroit didn’t win. Bill Ranford’s fault. Manny Legace’s fault. Paul Coffey’s fault. Andreas Lilja’s fault. Curtis Joseph’s fault. Someone the fans could make “the other” so that blame was never on the team as a whole for why they didn’t win every Stanley Cup.

So really, it’s Mitch Albom’s fault. Probably didn’t help that the team itself went from complaining about the schedule to complaining about the speed with which everyone shook hands as if Chris Chelios hadn’t been on their roster for 10 years.

That’s why I don’t think anyone with large amounts of success is going to be on the wrong end of a crushing defeat. No one in Buffalo or Vancouver is getting their violins ready because Detroit has to play a back-to-back.

Wow, you have a lot of disdain and you're using a broad brush here.

You ask why would any fan base would complain about their goaltending after a series where they had a 0.884 sv% with Legace and they lost despite outshooting the opposition 238-155? Or one where Ranford was so bad Bowman went back to an injured Osgood who couldn’t move well enough to play the position? Team sv% of 0.886 despite outshooting the Avs 224-184 in that one.

As a big hockey fan in Detroit, even though you seemed to cheer against the Red Wings and not for them, you should know this. Maybe you got tired of it brought up, and it’s not like the team ever played to perfection and it was always completely on the goaltending, but both have merit for fans to groan about after a series loss.

I was never a Coffey hater or anything but it seeems like Bowman was right to trade him. You couldn’t have a high risk / high reward type on that blue line when they lacked an elite goalie. It's easy for fans to reinforce their own bias after Coffey got exposed so badly in the '97 finals as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OgeeOgelthorpe

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,125
Hockeytown, MI
...and I think we’re back to why neutral fans would not consider the 2009 Detroit Red Wings to be a crushing defeat. The narrative that whenever Detroit loses, it is “despite” reason XYZ. That in 2009, it extended beyond Detroit media and the fans to the team itself who couldn’t even lose graciously and had to complain about handshakes and Jay Leno and a blown call and a non-suspension would make it difficult for a neutral fan to see them in a sympathetic light.

Losing in 1997 - or even in 1998 given what happened to Vladimir Konstantinov and Sergei Mnatsakanov - would have been crushing, because there were reasons neutral fans would want them to win.

But in 2009? When their Finals are more notable for them complaining about being screwed over and disrespected than anything they did on the ice? When many neutral fans were happily dunking on Marian Hossa for chasing the Stanley Cup in the wrong city?
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,125
Hockeytown, MI
I mean...

The organization at the time was a role model for the whole league. They played the game the right way with skill, team play, and discipline.

...if that’s what Kris Draper and Mike Babcock were thinking in 2009, that’s the sort of mindset antagonists in fictional stories have when they don’t realize they’re the antagonists.
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,002
4,966
Parts Unknown
...and I think we’re back to why neutral fans would not consider the 2009 Detroit Red Wings to be a crushing defeat. The narrative that whenever Detroit loses, it is “despite” reason XYZ. That in 2009, it extended beyond Detroit media and the fans to the team itself who couldn’t even lose graciously and had to complain about handshakes and Jay Leno and a blown call and a non-suspension would make it difficult for a neutral fan to see them in a sympathetic light.

Losing in 1997 - or even in 1998 given what happened to Vladimir Konstantinov and Sergei Mnatsakanov - would have been crushing, because there were reasons neutral fans would want them to win.

But in 2009? When their Finals are more notable for them complaining about being screwed over and disrespected than anything they did on the ice? When many neutral fans were happily dunking on Marian Hossa for chasing the Stanley Cup in the wrong city?
I doubt neutral fans wanted to see Crosby win the Cup. The hockey media was already shoving him down everyone's throats before that. At the same time, I'm sure neutral fans didn't want Detroit to win another Cup either.

What other years are you referring to where Wings fans are blaming things besides the team for losing? Do you have any other examples? Or just 2009? Blaming Osgood, Coffey, Lilja, is just part of what hockey fans do when their team loses in the playoffs. Especially if they're favored to win. Fans blame players or coaches all the time. I'm not sure what your agenda is.
 
Last edited:

Rebels57

Former Flyers fan
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
76,306
122,459
This thread was made for the Flyers

1975-1976 Finals - Bernie Parent gets injured and they lose to the Canadiens dynasty in the Finals
1979-1980 Finals - Lose to Isles dynasty because of Leon Stickle and the missed Offsides
1984-1985 Finals - Lose to the Gretzky led Oilers dynasty
1985-1986 - Pelle Lindbergh dies in car accident, but team has great season still then loses in major upset in 1st round
1986-1987 Finals - Takes the Gretzky led Oilers dynasty to 7 Games with a rookie goalie Hextall and without their top goal scorer Tim Kerr.
1996-1997 Finals - Destroy every team in the East in 3 straight 5 game series', then get swept by Detroit.
1999-2000 - Have a 3-1 series lead over NJ in the ECF - Lindros comes back and team loses Game 6 and Game 7, punctuated by the Stevens hit.
2003-2004 - Another Game 7 ECF loss, 3-2 this time, to the eventual Cup champ Lightning. Did not have top 2 defensemen.
2009-2010 Finals - Make playoffs on last game of the season and then loses Cup on the terrible Kane OT goal in Game 6

:cry:
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->