Team Canada in 1998 Olympics - What would you change?

Blitzkrug

Registered User
Sep 17, 2013
25,785
7,633
Winnipeg
Comparing Zamuner to Kunitz is an absolute insult to Kunitz. At least for the most of his time in Pittsburgh, Kunitz was a bonafide top 6 forward. A bit of a baffling pick given the ridiculous depth we have? Sure, but not nearly as bad as ****ing Zamuner. Dude never cracked 20 goals once in his career.

At least when Canada picked Draper he was coming off a Selke trophy win, the hell did Zamuner ever do?
 

86Habs

Registered User
May 4, 2009
2,588
420
Poor Rob Zamuner. Puts together an unremarkable but reasonably decent career, including a 50 point season in the dead puck era and representing Canada on a few occasions, and will get slammed for all eternity for being named to the 1998 Olympic team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
I weep for you.

Love shootouts. Love 'em, love 'em, love 'em.

I love-hate them. The argument of "a gimmick scandalously deciding important games" I don't buy. From the same perspective, a rebound goal is a gimmick. A deflection goal is a gimmick. A long shot goal is a gimmick. Almost the entire game is one silly gimmick.

As a matter of fact, compared with what is usually going on on the ice, the shootout is quite fair.

What I hate about it is the stress and nerves. It's quite a horror. When you're one up and the opposition is taking one. When you're one down and your player is circling around the center of the ice, preparing to take the last one. Those are some long, long seconds. And it's definitely unhealthy for people who squint watching Silence of the Lambs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killion

blood gin

Registered User
Jan 17, 2017
4,174
2,203
I love-hate them. The argument of "a gimmick scandalously deciding important games" I don't buy. From the same perspective, a rebound goal is a gimmick. A deflection goal is a gimmick. A long shot goal is a gimmick. Almost the entire game is one silly gimmick.

As a matter of fact, compared with what is usually going on on the ice, the shootout is quite fair.

What I hate about it is the stress and nerves. It's quite a horror. When you're one up and the opposition is taking one. When you're one down and your player is circling around the center of the ice, preparing to take the last one. Those are some long, long seconds. And it's definitely unhealthy for people who squint watching Silence of the Lambs.

Just keep playing continuous OT until somebody scores. At least it's a continuation of the game that occurred for the previous 60 or 65 minutes. That is the fairest way to decide an outcome. Shootouts are unnecessary and just a 1 on 1 competition. It's too far from an organic hockey game. Sure 3 on 3 and 4 on 4 are also gimmicks but at least it is closer to conventional hockey
 

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
Just keep playing continuous OT until somebody scores. At least it's a continuation of the game that occurred for the previous 60 or 65 minutes. That is the fairest way to decide an outcome. Shootouts are unnecessary and just a 1 on 1 competition. It's too far from an organic hockey game. Sure 3 on 3 and 4 on 4 are also gimmicks but at least it is closer to conventional hockey

TVs won't like that. Plus: breakaways are part of the game as well. So are penalty shots. And shootouts are nothing but a last resort. I would hate it too if OT just disappeared and tied games went straight to a shootout, but that's not happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,849
4,699
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Just keep playing continuous OT until somebody scores. At least it's a continuation of the game that occurred for the previous 60 or 65 minutes. That is the fairest way to decide an outcome. Shootouts are unnecessary and just a 1 on 1 competition. It's too far from an organic hockey game. Sure 3 on 3 and 4 on 4 are also gimmicks but at least it is closer to conventional hockey
Sudden death is a far greater gimmick. Pond hockey. "Next goal wins, then we all go home." Shootouts are about skill and nerves. Very "organic." People who hate shootouts, hate skill.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,541
4,938
TVs won't like that.

Not only them. Regular season games with the potential of lasting two hours or even longer? Ask the players about it. Or the officials. Or people in the audience who have to work the next day.

Not that I like shootouts. Personally I would simply call a draw what it is: a draw. There is no need to break a tie outside of elimination games. But I guess that's just me. Apparently many would rather have an artificial winner than no winner. "Artificial" in the sense of: special conditions are created to make it easier for either team to score and reach a decision.
 

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
Not only them. Regular season games with the potential of lasting two hours or even longer? Ask the players about it. Or the officials. Or people in the audience who have to work the next day.

Not that I like shootouts. Personally I would simply call a draw what it is: a draw. There is no need to break a tie outside of elimination games. But I guess that's just me. Apparently many would rather have an artificial winner than no winner. "Artificial" in the sense of: special conditions are created to make it easier for either team to score and reach a decision.

I wouldn't mind tied games ending as tied games. Not at all. But I definitely would not like teams cowardly clinging to ties as a means to get that one ratty point. I think the idea behind the current way things are handled was to prevent playing it safe and encouraging teams to bet on offense come overtime. From that perspective, the current model is probably the best one.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,541
4,938
I wouldn't mind tied games ending as tied games. Not at all. But I definitely would not like teams cowardly clinging to ties as a means to get that one ratty point.

That is a sensible concern, but it wouldn't be so difficult to think out measures that discourage this behavior. Three points instead of two for the winning team is an obvious one. My favoured solution would be to determine the standings by the number of wins. If two teams have won the same number of games you look at the number of ties (as opposed to defeats).
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,146
Comparing Zamuner to Kunitz is an absolute insult to Kunitz. At least for the most of his time in Pittsburgh, Kunitz was a bonafide top 6 forward. A bit of a baffling pick given the ridiculous depth we have? Sure, but not nearly as bad as ****ing Zamuner. Dude never cracked 20 goals once in his career.

At least when Canada picked Draper he was coming off a Selke trophy win, the hell did Zamuner ever do?

Let me clear that up, Kunitz is definitely the better player. No question. What I meant with comparing them is that the media seemed to push for it to the point where it sort of got normalized saying it. In other words, in 2014 the idea was that Crosby is the best player in the world and why not pick a guy he has so much chemistry with? There is at least that reason for the selection of Kunitz. He made the team the same way someone like Rob Brown might have made the team if there were a Canada Cup in 1989. I "get" why Kunitz was there, I get the logic, but I didn't agree with it and we left much better players like Giroux and initially St. Louis at home in favour of him. Kunitz also missed a ton of scoring chances that drove me up the wall that tournament.

However, like I said there is at least a reason why Kunitz was picked. Zamuner I have no clue. Didn't then, still don't today. He gets 50 points, he finishes 7th (not great mind you) in Selke voting. I don't know, maybe because he was 6'3"? Seriously though, that's all I've got. Peca was the far better defensive forward at that time when it comes to killing penalties and such. I don't know what the reason truly was. His selection reminds me of a game we played as kids called the "telephone game". Where you whisper in someone's ear and they pass it down the row and the person at the end says out loud what they heard. Usually by then it is something totally different such as, "Hey what about Rob Zamuner?" I honestly thought it was such a dumb pick that they might have thought it could throw people off. No kidding here, the Hockey News prior to the Olympics did a mock Gold medal game and it was Canada vs. USA with none other than Rob Zamuner scoring the winning goal in a shootout. I thought - even then - you have GOT to be kidding me!

I weep for you.

Love shootouts. Love 'em, love 'em, love 'em.

Let's not get nuts here. They are the equivalent of a home run competition or a quarterback throwing the ball through a tire. A rare regular season game in the NHL I can live with - although still don't agree with - but it should never judge a big game like in the Olympics or Worlds. And to boot, Canada is more often than not on the right side of these things, we just weren't in 1998. Toews' WJC show in 2007..........no way! Let them play and finish the game as a team.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad