Sunday, February 12, 2006

 

Oilers and Olympic Game Day

I'm already in full Olympic mode, so I have nothing to say about today's Oilers' game except:

Back to the important stuff:
[Update]

*Make that 6-0, 3/4 of the way through the first.

Comments:

Hey, at least we got a quick one after St. Louis scored, rather than the other way around.
 


Nooo! Betrayed by the Stempniak!
 


A 12-0 Women's Hockey rout!

Man, those Russkies were pylons. And of all players to be 5"1, it had to be both of their goalies.

Meanwhile: goaltending is killing us again.
 


Classic over-celebration by le GG. Scoring the Fourth and TYING goal at home against one of the worst teams in the NHL is hardly anything to celebrate. But then doubling his goal output in one game is pretty decent.
 


Defeated by the fucking glove of Sanford & Son!!! God. If we weren't all blinded by the fact the Olympic tourney start on Wednesday, we would be considering mass seppuku. Jussi must have been pissed to get pulled in OT.
 


Wow, those women's hockey tilts are so incredibly entertaining. Back and forth, tense, the outcome always in doubt. Couldn't tear myself away from the TV!

Well, until I saw a plastic bag caught in an updraft outside. It was the most beautiful and exciting thing I've ever seen.
 


It's turning into another Smile Day (TM) -- The Oilers were Stempniaked and the Avalanche were crushed. The women's hockey team is manhandling (probably exactly the wrong verb to use there, but you get the idea) everything in sight. Now if the Wild can keep it rolling tonight against the Canucks I might even find myself looking forward to a Monday morning.
 


Oh, there's women's hockey at this Olympics? Do they have donkey baseball too?
 


um, what the fuck is that supposed to mean?
 


Does anyone intend to watch women's hockey EVER again after hearing on yesterdays telecast that the best (or second best) womens team on earth prepared for the Olympics by playing Midget teams? And going .500 against them?
 


Does anyone intend to watch women's hockey EVER again after hearing on yesterdays telecast that the best (or second best) womens team on earth prepared for the Olympics by playing Midget teams? And going .500 against them?

It takes real balls to post a comment like this anonymously.

I don't see why you'd be surprised by this-a great deal of hockey is speed and strength, both of which men tend to have in spades over women. Add to that that they weren't just playing midget teams but playing midget AAA teams, which tend to be pretty good and it's hardly surprising.

Obviously they aren't competitive with the elite men, but what do you expect? The best women sprinters run times that would put them nowhere near the Olympics. The same is true of women in virtually every other sport.

I'm a bit biased in my support of women's hockey as a sport because of family ties but to read such complete jackassery (and anonymous jackassery at that) pisses me off. If you're writing off all of women's hockey because they can't beat men at a level high enough to satisfy you, you're a retard.
 


The point was that the hockey is just not that good, much the same as the basketball is not good in the WNBA. But I suppose everyone that watches the NBA but refuses to watch an inferior WNBA product are practicing "jackassery."

The fact they prepped by playing teenagers is just an illustration of the calibre of play. There is a reason people will shell out $150 to watch an NHL game, but not for Junior B.

In hindsight I realize my comment could easily be viewed as offensive and I apologize for that. I should have found a better way to express my opinion that outside of the patriotic need to watch during the Olympics, I would choose not to watch an inferior calibre of hockey. (I guess I would if I had a family member involved so I can see why you are offended).

By the way my name is Eric. I wasn't trying to hide. And your name is ..... Mud?

And I'm not a "retard" - that is an ignorant thing to call somebody and a poor way to debate.
 


The point was that the hockey is just not that good, much the same as the basketball is not good in the WNBA. But I suppose everyone that watches the NBA but refuses to watch an inferior WNBA product are practicing "jackassery."

No, I think that for a lot of people they just don't have any interest in women's sports. That's fine with me. What I object to is saying that it's not worth watching because they aren't as good the men. That's not the point. The difference might be semantic but if you say that you don't want to watch it because it's not fast enough or there isn't hitting or whatever...fine. It's the comparison to the men that I object to and the suggestion that women's sport achieves it's validity (or watchability, whatever) from where it stands in relation to men's sport is a troubling one.

The fact that your complaint is apparently based on someone mentioning on the tube that they were playing midget teams kind of undermines your point about the skill level as well-you weren't aware that the women weren't as good as the men until someone told you?

The fact they prepped by playing teenagers is just an illustration of the calibre of play. There is a reason people will shell out $150 to watch an NHL game, but not for Junior B.

Fair enough. By the same token, if you're looking for entertainment value for your dollar, I'll take a tightly contested Dawson Creek-Fort St. John game for 7 bucks over a New Jersey-Minnesota game any day of the week. Once you achieve a certain threshold of skill, the entertainment value frequently depends on the two teams playing each other, the history that they have together and what's on the line.

I've probably mentioned this before, but I was at a Mercyhurst-Harvard women's NCAA tournament game last year that went 3OT, with Harvard winning 5-4. I've been to a ton of hockey games and that was far and away the most exciting one I've ever seen in person, even if it had a somewhat depressing finish. Obviously, I had a familial interest but it was an incredible hockey game to watch. I didn't have a family interest in the 2002 women's gold medal game, which I consider to have been one of the more entertaining hockey games I've ever seen.

I should have found a better way to express my opinion that outside of the patriotic need to watch during the Olympics, I would choose not to watch an inferior calibre of hockey.

Fair enough, as I said above. That said, you ever find that the first round of the NHL playoffs is more entertaining than the Finals? I frequently think that and yet I'm presumably watching less skilled teams take part.

By the way my name is Eric. I wasn't trying to hide. And your name is ..... Mud?

Tyler. I'm hardly hiding behind the screenname though-I'm pretty certain I've been referred to as Tyler on here before.

And I'm not a "retard" - that is an ignorant thing to call somebody and a poor way to debate.

Point taken. My apologies. It's a bit of a hot button issue with me.
 

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?