Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Kentucky Basketball: Where the Wildcats Stand as of Today

AP Proves Stupid Sportswriting is not Confined to Men's Hockey

The Russians didn't care about losing in the "lesser theater" in 1972.  via www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com

It seems clear that Olympic journalism school teaches that the only good article is one that talks about how long it has been since something happened.  Jaime Aron, writing for AP, tells us:

"Canada['s women's hockey team] hasn't lost an Olympic hockey game since dropping the gold-medal game at the 1998 Nagano Games."

"Considering the dominance of Canada and the drop in quality after the United States, there's been speculation about cutting women's hockey from the Olympics."

You know, when I think of "dominance," I think of Mike Tyson - 19-0 to start his pro career, with 12 knockouts.  What I don't think of is the Canadian record against the US at the World Championships and the Olympics:

 

Year Tourn Winner G Loser G
2010 Olympics Canada 2 USA 0
2009 Worlds USA 4 Canada 1
2008 Worlds USA 4 Canada 3
2007 Worlds Canada 5 USA 1
2005 Worlds USA 1 Canada 0
2004 Worlds Canada 2 USA 0
2002 Olympics Canada 3 USA 2
2001 Worlds Canada 3 USA 2
2000 Worlds Canada 3 USA 2
1999 Worlds Canada 3 USA 1
1998 Olympics USA 3 Canada 1
1997 Worlds Canada 4 USA 3

 

In a sport where teams routinely put double- or even triple-digits on the scoreboard, Canada going 8-4 over 12 games with an average margin of 0.58 goals is not "dominance."  In fact, odds are that Canada and the United States have been evenly-matched this entire time.

But the press seems to think we have no interest in a story unless it involves some kind of drought in the win department.  I want to highlight yesterday's most egregious offender, the Vancouver Sun's Cam Cole:

"because of World Cups and Canada Cups and world juniors and all kinds of hockey games and titles Canada has won that mattered very little in the grand scheme of things to the Russians -- whose grand scheme is, and always has been, the Olympics.  Russia...has happily traded losses in lesser theatres for the opportunity to break Canada's heart on the big stage.  And they've been doing it for 50 years."

Come on, Cam.  You're really stretching it - Canada has no psychological issues because they've beaten the Russians more times than they can count, but "the drought" is still meaningful because the Russians have decided that they don't give a shit about all of the times they've lost and they only care about the Olympics?  You don't really believe that BS, do you?  When Canada boycotted Olympic hockey in 1972 but beat the Russians in the Summit Series in Moscow later that year, do you think the Russians found solace in their 1968 Olympic win over a bunch of Canadian university students?  Did the Russians send Vladislav Tretiak to three Canada Cups because they wanted to demonstrate their insouciance?

Comment 9 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I think you miunderstood the dominance quote

He’s not saying that Canada dominates the US. He’s saying that there’s a massive drop in quality of teams after the US. Basically, saying that it’s a two team tournament. The line isn’t drawn as Canada and everyone else. It’s Canada + US and then everyone else.

by mendicant on Feb 26, 2010 1:44 PM EST reply actions  

Nope. He says Canada is dominant, and that there’s a big drop off after the US. He didn’t say that Canada and the US were both dominant.

by Hawerchuk on Feb 26, 2010 7:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Besides, not losing a game in the Olympics in 10 years is dominance

And since that writer’s argument was about the Olympics, and women’s hockey’s future in it, I think it’s fair to use the word dominance in that context.

Official BYB Juju Consultant...now accepting rally creature applications!

by ahtrap on Feb 26, 2010 6:03 PM EST reply actions  

But Canada is not dominant. The United States beat Canada in 3 out of their last 4 WC meetings before losing yesterday. If you are going to pretend that all other top-level international tournaments don’t exist, you are deceiving your audience.

by Hawerchuk on Feb 26, 2010 7:45 PM EST up reply actions  

i think vegas had the usa women at like +165 going into the gold medal game.

by sunnymehta.com on Feb 27, 2010 4:32 AM EST reply actions  

Yeah, they’ve probably played each 500 times and the line corresponds to their overall record.

by Hawerchuk on Feb 27, 2010 11:09 AM EST up reply actions  

I get your point

but really, they’re just trying to say that it’s a 2-team tourney

C’mon though, if they don’t give other countries a chance to play the best how are they going to get better? Give it 10 years, one of the European countries will have a contending team.

Leafs Nation: A drinking team with a hockey problem.

by nhlcheapshot on Feb 27, 2010 10:48 AM EST reply actions  

The implication is that the US is good, but an also-ran. This is a strange assessment of a team that has beaten Canada so many times.

by Hawerchuk on Feb 27, 2010 11:09 AM EST up reply actions  

Bonus points for using "insouciance" in a sentence

I was surprised that local fans here in Calgary wanted to see the Americans lose to Switzerland and Finland. They seem more interested in seeing us beat the Americans than the Russians.

That makes no sense to me. USA is ranked #5, don’t care about winning/losing at hockey, and have very rarely entered any international tournaments as a top-3 favourite (except years ago when their team was stacked with Canadian-born/trained castaways).

Our real rivalry should be with Russia. But no one seems to care about that anymore.

by Rob Vollman on Feb 27, 2010 1:28 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The finest Winnipeg Jets analysis on the internets

FanPosts


Managers

Hawerchuk_small Hawerchuk

Gary_bettman_bad_dreams_small Bettman's Nightmare

Grapes_small canadian texan

Howe_small TJCAPS

Editors

Ryan_small SO_RyanP

0_small maplestirup

Jets2_small arby_18