Team Canada in 1998 Olympics - What would you change?

[Brodeur]

I'm sure they did shootouts in practice. It's a small sample size, but Shanahan was a respectable 36% (9 for 25) in the shootout after the lockout during the twilight of his career.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Damphousse is a must have boys.

Damphousse being able to play many position and roles make him a good pick for an extra attacker I guess. I remember him playing well during the world cup (one of the few that got to play all the games a good sign) but that could have been the Habs homer descriptors influencing my take of him.

damphousse was the perfect team canada player. skates well, very good on both sides of the puck, is equal parts sniper and playmaker, can play all three fwd positions, and was a natural LW (always on short supply).

he even played for BOTH the leafs AND the oilers. pity him being a french guy who’s best known as a hab.

 

[The Panther]

Can we all agree the shootout lineup should have been much different?

 

[VanIslander]

I would have changed the coach.

After 1998, Crawford went to Vancouver, then L.A., won a divisional title only once in those eleven years, missed the playoffs six times, were 0-in-4 bounced first round twice, winning only one playoff series in six attempts in over a decade behind the bench.

In hindsight, he looks like he was just a lucky guy to be standing behind a Colorado bench that was loaded with talent.

 

[alko]

I'm sure they did shootouts in practice. It's a small sample size, but Shanahan was a respectable 36% (9 for 25) in the shootout after the lockout during the twilight of his career.

I think, also Gretzky said that. They never know, that they could play shootouts.

 

[blood gin]

It is amazing how in 1998 there was widespread disgust with something so important being decided by a unnecessary foreign gimmick skills competition. And seven years later the NHL goes ahead and adopts the same idiocy

 

[GMR]

It is amazing how in 1998 there was widespread disgust with something so important being decided by a unnecessary foreign gimmick skills competition. And seven years later the NHL goes ahead and adopts the same idiocy

Not sure what the big deal was, honestly. The Canadian team participated in numerous Olympics before 1998. Shootouts were not exactly a foreign concept. Most famously there was the 1994 shootout with Sweden. Many of Canada's players played for the national team when they were younger. They knew shootouts could come into play in 1998. Should have been better prepared instead of whining about it after the game. They made it sound like the rules were changed on the fly.

 

[blood gin]

Not sure what the big deal was, honestly. The Canadian team participated in numerous Olympics before 1998. Shootouts were not exactly a foreign concept. Most famously there was the 1994 shootout with Sweden. Many of Canada's players played for the national team when they were younger. They knew shootouts could come into play in 1998. Should have been better prepared instead of whining about it after the game. They made it sound like the rules were changed on the fly.

That's true definitely. The rules are the rules. However I do sort of see how some of the best players in the world on Canada's side would be perturbed by having to abide by what to them seemed like an almost comical and clownish way to "decide" a game of that magnitude.

When you play in the best league in the world it's only natural to think that your rules are THE rules

 

[BillNy]

Foote absolutely needed to be on that team. If I remember correctly, he was paired with Bourque and together, they were impeccable.

Yeah, I'm usually not big on low-offense grit guys of any position, but Adam Foote wasn't exactly Dan Girardi here. There's a reason he was picked to two more Olympic teams and and the 2004 World Cup, and as much as the ice difference matters, in the latter he was excellent, and came up big with Rob Blake and Chris Pronger hurt.

I think every time someone starts a thread like this, certain players get worse and worse in everyone's imaginations. CuJo shouldn't have made the team over Ed Belfour, but he wasn't necessarily a bad selection, Canada was loaded in net. Shayne Corson shouldn't have come close, but he had like two fewer points that year than Brendan Shanahan. People quibble over selections but nobody cares if Canada happens to win. 1998 Shayne Corson is probably as good as 2010 Brenden Morrow. But Canada won in 2010. It seems bonkers that Martin St. Louis and Mike Green didn't make it in 2010, but eh, they won. Mike Richards probably shouldn't have made it, but who cares now? Bouwmeester and Hamhuis in 2014? Mike Peca over Joe Thornton in 2002? Remember when they brought Kris Draper and Kirk Maltby to the World Cup of Hockey (Maltby didn't play, in fairness)? There are all sorts of weird picks and with the exception of maybe Rob Zamuner, the worst players Canada picks generally would make any other team on Earth comfortably.

I'm making obvious the fact that I'm generally a supporter of all-out offensive teams, but this is what I think I'd have gone with in 1998, off the top of my head, again, leaving out Kariya and Robitaille because of injuries.

Gretzky, Lindros, Yzerman, Sakic, Nieuwendyk, Recchi, Francis, Brind'Amour, Fleury, Oates, Gilmour, Messier, Turgeon
Niedermayer, Bourque, MacInnis, Blake, Pronger, Foote, Sydor
Brodeur, Roy, Belfour

Not sure if that's how it'd come out if I really researched it. A lot of guys on here were primarily play makers, and you're not doing a ton of good having two pass-first guys on the same line, but I'd be comfortable with this. The lineup is basically 21 HOF caliber guys plus Foote and Sydor (couldn't force me to put Scott Stevens on, and YMMV on Brind'Amour/Turgeon/Fleury as "HOF caliber").

 

[Troubadour]

Yeah, I'm usually not big on low-offense grit guys of any position, but Adam Foote wasn't exactly Dan Girardi here. There's a reason he was picked to two more Olympic teams and and the 2004 World Cup, and as much as the ice difference matters, in the latter he was excellent, and came up big with Rob Blake and Chris Pronger hurt.

I think every time someone starts a thread like this, certain players get worse and worse in everyone's imaginations.

The bolded is what I totally agree with. I also believe Crawford is getting too much crap for the team selection. I don't think his line of thinking was all that flawed. On many levels, he was right. I mean, the USA were arguably loaded with more star power than Canada. And while they outplayed the Czechs heavily, they still lost, they lost earlier and they lost more convincingly. On top of that, they lost to Canada in the round-robin stage. So Crawford was right. It's just that the Czechs were too good at the moment.

What I completely failed to notice for the longest time was how cleverly the Czech team got put together. At first glance, it looks like "half-the-guys from the NHL, half-the-guys from Europe" type of thing. Okay, you think, they realized the big ice factor. Good for them. But upon a closer look, it went deeper. Every line already had what there just wasn't enough time to develop -- chemistry.

Jagr and Straka knew each other from Pittsburgh, and it shows:



Prochazka and Patera played on the same line for the AIK Stockholm.

And while the Reichel-Lang-Rucinsky line appears randomly thrown together, it takes a single look in this thread to learn all three were childhood buddies who had grown up playing together. There is nobody you know better than the people you knew when they were eleven or twelve. So you could probably set them apart at eighteen, throw them back together at twenty-eight and they were gonna do things like this:



That's a Russian Five stuff right there.

Even Dopita and Beranek played on the same team. And Jagr double-shifted on their line:



The way I see it, while Hasek stole the shoot-out, without Roy, there was no shoot-out. And without Linden, there was no overtime. Canada was good, but... No star power was beating chemistry in such a short tournament on the big ice. And should someone like the team USA outplay the Czechs in regulation, there was always Hasek to stone them cold.

Put Roy on the team USA and they probably beat the Czechs. But that only tells you how good they were. Extremely fruitful crop of players who know each other well / coach who knows how to utilize them / great goalie. Another word for that? A perfect storm. They were bound to win.

 

[VanIslander]

... Mike Peca over Joe Thornton in 2002? ...

LOL. Easily.

Just look at them at the time of the 2002 Olympic team selection.

Peca had just finished his second Selke season (5th finalist nomination) in which he scored a career-high 60 points and was a renowned penalty killer and leader. And he was a valuable contributor to the gold medal win, with three points and two blocked shots in the semi-final and solid checking every game with Fleury on his 4th line wing. The duo were impressive/noticeable time and again pressing the play.

Thornton was 22 years old and finishing a 68-point season, with rumors of his lack of defensive commitment and underperformance - remember this was PRIOR TO his all-star seasons, his three 100+ point seasons. JT only makes the team if his offensive half of the game was potent, and it wasn't.. not at that point in his career.

(Note: Thornton made the 2010 Olympic team but not the 2014 one; Marleau made both and was an impact player in both gold medals, 3rd in ice time the first time and Canada's leader in assists the second time on Toews' two-way 2nd line because... Patty is valuable without the puck, is defensively responsible, whereas the best slow-footed Joe does without the puck is get angry and start a fight.)

 

[BillNy]

LOL. Easily.

Just look at them at the time of the 2002 Olympic team selection.

Peca had just finished his second Selke season (5th finalist nomination) in which he scored a career-high 60 points and was a renowned penalty killer and leader. And he was a valuable contributor to the gold medal win, with three points and two blocked shots in the semi-final and solid checking every game with Fleury on his 4th line wing. The duo were impressive/noticeable time and again pressing the play.

Thornton was 22 years old and finishing a 68-point season, with rumors of his lack of defensive commitment and underperformance - remember this was PRIOR TO his all-star seasons, his three 100+ point seasons. JT only makes the team if his offensive half of the game was potent, and it wasn't.. not at that point in his career.

(Note: Thornton made the 2010 Olympic team but not the 2014 one; Marleau made both and was an impact player in both gold medals, 3rd in ice time the first time and Canada's leader in assists the second time on Toews' two-way 2nd line because... Patty is valuable without the puck, is defensively responsible, whereas the best slow-footed Joe does without the puck is get angry and start a fight.)

I was a big fan of Mike Peca. I think uhh three points in the semi-final is kind whatever? That was the game against Belarus, they won 7-1. Thornton had 68 points in 2001-02, but he only played 66 games. The year before he had 71 points in 72 games. He was sixth in the NHL in points per game in 2002. I don't think Peca's 60 points, which are a decent outlier, were ulta-representative of his offensive capabilities, and I don't think defensive ability makes up that big a difference in offense. Besides, Thornton wasn't actually bad or lazy defensively. The Bruins blamed him for everything, then traded him for nothing, and everyone lost their jobs. Go figure.

I'd also remind you that the team Canada brass eventually realized their mistake and it was widely understood at the time that they were pretty fine with any of the beaten up players (people forget: half that team were nursing injuries going in, particularly Owen Nolan) pulling out, because then they'd add Joe Thornton.

All this said, I think by 2002 you could argue for them both over say, Joe Nieuwendyk, who was also on the team. Nieuwendyk was still a very good player but he wasn't really a star at that point (though he still had an incredible run in the 2003 playoffs before throwing out his back). And you're definitely right about Peca/Fleury together though. Two of the best PKers I've ever seen.

 

[BillNy]

Not sure what the big deal was, honestly. The Canadian team participated in numerous Olympics before 1998. Shootouts were not exactly a foreign concept. Most famously there was the 1994 shootout with Sweden. Many of Canada's players played for the national team when they were younger. They knew shootouts could come into play in 1998. Should have been better prepared instead of whining about it after the game. They made it sound like the rules were changed on the fly.

I don't think that was ever the problem. The shootout sucks because it's basically a coinflip. Over the long haul, everyone has a .500 record in them. Anyone who said we weren't as well practiced at it is insane. Their skaters only scored one goal, and our goalie only let one in. Besides, it's hard to imagine anyone who plays professional hockey having uhh not practices penalty shots? It's not all that functionally different from the Russian curl/butterfly drill.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Not sure what the big deal was, honestly. The Canadian team participated in numerous Olympics before 1998. Shootouts were not exactly a foreign concept. Most famously there was the 1994 shootout with Sweden. Many of Canada's players played for the national team when they were younger. They knew shootouts could come into play in 1998. Should have been better prepared instead of whining about it after the game. They made it sound like the rules were changed on the fly.

The shootout wasn’t exactly a staple of Olympic hockey, having been added just in 1988. Even the single-game elimination format was only added in 1992. When Germany lost the first shootout in elimination round play in 1992 (when the puck squeaked past Sean Burke before flopping down flat on the goal line, the German coach said that they may just as well have flipped a coin.

 

[JackSlater]

The bolded is what I totally agree with. I also believe Crawford is getting too much crap for the team selection. I don't think his line of thinking was all that flawed. On many levels, he was right. I mean, the USA were arguably loaded with more star power than Canada. And while they outplayed the Czechs heavily, they still lost, they lost earlier and they lost more convincingly. On top of that, they lost to Canada in the round-robin stage. So Crawford was right. It's just that the Czechs were too good at the moment.

Clarke picked the team, and his picks ultimately do deserve some criticism. Zamuner was just a bad pick that is rightly lambasted, a few others are questionable. Most of the picks were correct though as the team picked itself for the most part. Results can change opinions with regard to how good picks were, but a few Carke selections, Zamuner in particular, were criticized from the start. Designing a team to beat USA (not a team more loaded with star power) was a stupid idea but thankfully Canada hasn't gone down that path since. Other than Primeau I'm not sure who else was picked for that purpose though. Maybe Corson, quite possible Foote.

LOL. Easily.

Just look at them at the time of the 2002 Olympic team selection.

Peca had just finished his second Selke season (5th finalist nomination) in which he scored a career-high 60 points and was a renowned penalty killer and leader. And he was a valuable contributor to the gold medal win, with three points and two blocked shots in the semi-final and solid checking every game with Fleury on his 4th line wing. The duo were impressive/noticeable time and again pressing the play.

Thornton was 22 years old and finishing a 68-point season, with rumors of his lack of defensive commitment and underperformance - remember this was PRIOR TO his all-star seasons, his three 100+ point seasons. JT only makes the team if his offensive half of the game was potent, and it wasn't.. not at that point in his career.

(Note: Thornton made the 2010 Olympic team but not the 2014 one; Marleau made both and was an impact player in both gold medals, 3rd in ice time the first time and Canada's leader in assists the second time on Toews' two-way 2nd line because... Patty is valuable without the puck, is defensively responsible, whereas the best slow-footed Joe does without the puck is get angry and start a fight.)

I agree that Peca was a good pick in 2002 given the role they were looking for - someone who could play different forward spots and contribute in multiple ways. Thornton was the alternate forward in case someone couldn't go though, so he was close to being on the team. Redden was the defenceman in that spot.

 

[Troubadour]

Clarke picked the team, and his picks ultimately do deserve some criticism. Zamuner was just a bad pick that is rightly lambasted, a few others are questionable. Most of the picks were correct though as the team picked itself for the most part. Results can change opinions with regard to how good picks were, but a few Carke selections, Zamuner in particular, were criticized from the start. Designing a team to beat USA (not a team more loaded with star power) was a stupid idea but thankfully Canada hasn't gone down that path since. Other than Primeau I'm not sure who else was picked for that purpose though. Maybe Corson, quite possible Foote.

If I remember correctly, both Primeau and Zamuner played for Canada at the 1997 WCH, thus they were probably considered tested an experienced at playing for the national team and especially on the big ice. Not as horrible of a choice as many people make it seem.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The bolded is what I totally agree with. I also believe Crawford is getting too much crap for the team selection. I don't think his line of thinking was all that flawed. On many levels, he was right. I mean, the USA were arguably loaded with more star power than Canada. And while they outplayed the Czechs heavily, they still lost, they lost earlier and they lost more convincingly. On top of that, they lost to Canada in the round-robin stage. So Crawford was right. It's just that the Czechs were too good at the moment.

What I completely failed to notice for the longest time was how cleverly the Czech team got put together. At first glance, it looks like "half-the-guys from the NHL, half-the-guys from Europe" type of thing. Okay, you think, they realized the big ice factor. Good for them. But upon a closer look, it went deeper. Every line already had what there just wasn't enough time to develop -- chemistry.

Jagr and Straka knew each other from Pittsburgh, and it shows:



Prochazka and Patera played on the same line for the AIK Stockholm.

And while the Reichel-Lang-Rucinsky line appears randomly thrown together, it takes a single look in this thread to learn all three were childhood buddies who had grown up playing together. There is nobody you know better than the people you knew when they were eleven or twelve. So you could probably set them apart at eighteen, throw them back together at twenty-eight and they were gonna do things like this:



That's a Russian Five stuff right there.

Even Dopita and Beranek played on the same team. And Jagr double-shifted on their line:



The way I see it, while Hasek stole the shoot-out, without Roy, there was no shoot-out. And without Linden, there was no overtime. Canada was good, but... No star power was beating chemistry in such a short tournament on the big ice. And should someone like the team USA outplay the Czechs in regulation, there was always Hasek to stone them cold.

Put Roy on the team USA and they probably beat the Czechs. But that only tells you how good they were. Extremely fruitful crop of players who know each other well / coach who knows how to utilize them / great goalie. Another word for that? A perfect storm. They were bound to win.

have you seen this documentary on the 98 czech team?

The Nagano Tapes | Five Rings Films | Olympic Channel

 

[BillNy]

If I remember correctly, both Primeau and Zamuner played for Canada at the 1997 WCH, thus they were probably considered tested an experienced at playing for the national team and especially on the big ice. Not as horrible of a choice as many people make it seem.

It gets said a lot that Hockey Canada looks well upon players who go to the IIHFs for them, and that might explain why Ryan Smyth and Shane Doan felt like locks to play in Torino? Don't remember if Doan had started going to the IIHFs a lot by then (and neither of them were completely absurd picks anyway, I would've taken Smyth, and considered Doan). My issue here is, does that make Zamuner's case better than other guys on that team, like say, Owen Nolan, or Chris Gratton? They were also big bodies, Nolan much less of the defensive presence, but I think with his build, he could do it if that was his assigned role (let's not forget Joe Thornton was used as a checking line center at the 2004 World Cup with Draper and Doan, scorers can do that if that's their job). I mean, Travis Green was the leading scorer on that tournament, also pretty strong defensively (though, I'm a Leaf fan, and we didn't see him in that role for Toronto for another few years, he was still playing with Ziggy Palffy at the time). Travis Green was probably a better player. It would have been nuts to take Travis Green, too.

I referenced half of this ITT, but there are two phenomenons we see in debating old teams. Half of guys want to talk about how insane everyone was in retrospect, and certain guys get insanely denigrated. Like I said, taking Shayne Corson in 1998 wasn't a lot different from taking Brenden Morrow in 2010. Corson was a good player. Trevor Linden, Keith Primeau, Adam Foote, and the Olympic pick I've been most critical of in my lifetime, Kris Draper - they were all good players. We all quickly forget that Mike Modano once played for the Red Wings and the second a superstar retires our permanent memory of them is at their very best, but the really strong role players who make Olympic teams, we get stuck on and now basically nobody remembers that Shayne Corson was ever something besides a third liner/healthy scratch on the Leafs who didn't get along with Pat Quinn. People forget that Claude Lemieux, while a hitter, was a legitimately strong scoring player for years, and was only a purely bottom-six checker in his dying days. A few years after they get picked, they decline, and people start to say "wow, remember this guy made Team Canada? Crazy that now that they're 36 years old they aren't all that good!" and that's how we remember them forever. People weirdly sleep on the fact that Claude Lemieux is one of the all-time great playoff performers, and was still a well above average player the rest of the season.

But then the other thing we do, because some of us realize how inane it is to pretend that these guys were awful is we make excuses for the picks and act like they were actually brilliant and good. Some were actually good picks. I think Chris Kunitz has actually been severely underrated as a play driver his whole career. Some were like "I might've taken someone else, but I'm okay with this guy going," which is where I'd put Michael Peca, Shane Doan, Dan Hamhuis, etc. Then there are some where it's like "okay, this guy is fine and all, but I have trouble justifying this pick knowing we could've taken a team of Hall of Famers," which is where I've got Keith Primeau, Kris Draper, Shayne Corson, Brenden Morrow, Jay Bouwmeester (2006), Trevor Linden, Bryan McCabe (though he was an injury replacement), and maybe Todd Bertuzzi, though I'm still not sure whether he should be in this or the last group. Then there are guys that just make me think "how on Earth did this guy even get real consideration?" which is where I have Rob Zamuner, Jay Bouwmeester (2014), Eric Brewer, and Mike Smith. Smith didn't matter, third goalie, but still. Eric Brewer made it largely because they thought he was becoming something, but he was honestly anything more than big, really. Wasn't a fan of his. But hey, they've taken shots on young defensemen a few times, and there are always doubts. Doughty became a superstar. Brewer didn't, but they still won, so whatever.

I make the last point just because like, sometimes Hockey Canada made mistakes. While some picks were actually good, some debatable, and even some of the mistakes aren't really huge or obvious mistakes, some still happen. Canada disappointed everyone and didn't win a medal. Ran against the best goalie in history at his absolute best, and clearly gave up in the Bronze medal game, but they still lost. It's nuts to act like the process was perfect, since the fall of the Soviet Union, Canada has always been a mile better than everyone else. There's a mid-point between "actually, this guy who got 50 points/year and was well regarded as a high-end defensive player totally sucks" and "we were definitely right to take the fourth highest scorer on a last place Tampa Bay Lightning team to the Olympics."

 

[MS]

1998 was basically the all-time low ebb for Canadian hockey. You look at the roster now and think 'man, what are those crappy guys doing there?!?' and then go and look what else was available and it's like 'uhhhhhh ... yeah'.

Basically you had Lindros, Kariya, and Sakic in their primes and a bunch of relics who peaked in the 80s or early 90s. And then Kariya gets hurt. The Canadian talent pool born between 1970 and 1978 was an absolute disaster.

Messier was washed-up at this point and should never have been there.

With hindsight, maybe a guy like Ray Whitney should have been selected for his speed/talent, but that would have been an absolutely shocking selection at the time. And yeah, Zamuner was a garbage choice, especially given that they could have taken Mike Peca to fill that role.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Messier wasn't there, remember? It was controversial because shortly after ousting Linden in Vancouver, Linden was named to the team over him.

 

[MS]

Messier wasn't there, remember? It was controversial because shortly after ousting Linden in Vancouver, Linden was named to the team over him.

Yeah, I know. I was disagreeing with the people earlier in the thread who said he should have been. Sorry, post wasn't very clear.

 

[VanIslander]

Messier wasn't there, remember? It was controversial because shortly after ousting Linden in Vancouver, Linden was named to the team over him.

Burke's evil spirit indeed. Brian inherited the Mess mess and later brought Linden back to Vancouver.

 

[vikash1987]

During that '97-98 regular season, prior to the Olympic break, only one player (Canadian or otherwise) had scored 4 goals against Dominik Hasek, and that was Rod Brind'Amour. He actually had two 2-goal games against Hasek under his belt.

In that same time frame, one other player had scored 3 goals against Hasek, and 14 other players had scored 2 goals against Hasek. Of these 15 players, seven were Canadian:

* Three went to the Olympics: Shayne Corson, Joe Sakic, Eric Lindros
* One could have gone, as mentioned previously: Vincent Damphousse
* The three others, none of whom were viable contenders for roster spots: Jeff O'Neill, Darryl Sydor, Brad Isbister

(courtesy Hockey-Reference)

This is just one barometer, and a narrow one at best. But based on this, it seems that alternative options for goal-scoring were limited at best for Canada.

 

[Ivan13]

Superior on paper maybe, but on the (big) ice? Czech Republic outshot Canada in regulation. Hasek only really had to stand on his head in OT

Yeah, but the myth of Hašek is growing ever bigger and more nonsensical. The truth is - as you've alluded to - that Canada has been outplayed and didn't look like they belong for the first 55 minutes. If it wasn't for Roy, that game would've ended long before the shootout.

 

[Big Phil]

There was this big obsession with losing to the U.S. in 1996. All of the sudden no other country mattered. None. It was basically a team that was built to beat the U.S. This is why Gretzky wasn't the captain and Lindros was. I never liked that idea from the start. Recchi didn't get on the team until Kariya got hurt while Corson made it. If this is the summer of 1997 the idea of Corson making it is insane but he had a hot start to the season and got on the team. Niedermayer should have been there with the big ice on defense. That was missed. Maybe take Desjardins off the team and put him in there? Not to mention Messier could do everything Zamuner could do and double that, even at that stage of his career.

Not that the bronze medal mattered a lot, but they really should have put fresh blood like Brodeur or Joseph in there for the bronze medal game. They didn't just lose the semis, they may have had some more motivation. Roy didn't.

And then there are the shootout selections...............ugh. I am not always on board with Gretzky being among the selections but how was Yzerman not? Or Recchi? They were quicker and could have replaced Bourque and Shanahan. Of all the things you think about Shanahan can you remember times he scored his goals on a breakaway? I can't.

Lastly, people forget that Zamuner was a lot like Kunitz in 2014 but even less likely. The media sort of dropped his name and then it sort of grew from there. It was one of those "I am smarter than everyone else in the room and can see things other can't" type of selection. I didn't get it then, or now. For some reason Clarke bought into it as well. It just didn't make sense. He had 9 playoff points in his career. He peaked at 50 points and then 43 and then 37. He finished 7th in Selke voting once. That's it. I honestly don't know what made them pick him.

 

[The Panther]

Rob Zamuner to Canadian hockey is a bit like Vanilla Ice to pop music.