Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Man vs. Animal
From the Globe & Mail yesterday, two competing views on Kevin Weekes' performance as a HNiC analyst. Here's one:
Here's the other:
I'm not a huge fan (yet?), but if Kevin Weekes is annoying Bruce Dowbiggin with his coachspeak one the one hand, and Bruce Dowbiggin with his bromides on the other, he's probably doing something right.
When at a loss for insight, Weekes reverts to the hockey-platitude bank: βHe was hungry, he wanted that puck... try to focus on the positives... good desperation for Roberto Luongo... the Canucks stepping on the gas pedal, going for the jugular.β
The Nuke LaLoosh bromides are what often happens when you're playing hockey games for 11 years instead of watching them on TV.
Here's the other:
When Canucks goalie Roberto Luongo let in three goals in rapid succession, Weekes dwelt on the technical reasons for the goals instead of concentrating on the real story β is Luongo enough of a clutch goalie for Vancouver to win a Stanley Cup?
I'm not a huge fan (yet?), but if Kevin Weekes is annoying Bruce Dowbiggin with his coachspeak one the one hand, and Bruce Dowbiggin with his bromides on the other, he's probably doing something right.
# posted by Matt @ 8:24 am 
Comments:
Dowbiggin may have his own problems, but Weekes is guilty of more than a few howlers.
Case in point: the HNIC Canucks-Sens game a couple of weeks ago. Canucks get three shots in rapid succession on Pascal Leclaire, and the third shot goes in (I think it was D. Sedin in the 2nd period). Weekes reviews the goal in slow motion, and says (about the 1st save) "Leclaire makes a key save here..."
Which was of course followed by another save, and then a goal.
It's ridiculous to refer to a save as "key" if it is almost immediately followed by a goal. But because of his relative inexperience, Weekes sometimes does fall back on the platitudes that Dowbiggin mentions.
Look, Weekes seems like a nice guy, and I appreciate (unlike Dowbiggin) the technical analysis he can offer about goaltending. But he would do well to study the game tapes of some of the last few Canuck broadcasters or colour guys (e.g. Robson, Hughson, Shorthouse, Garrett, Larscheid) all of whom have been exceptional. (And, yes, big homers.)
I certainly hope Weekes improves: we get him every week for the late game. And come the playoffs, we'll probably get Weekes for every game until the Canucks choke in the second round again.
Two words: Chicken Parm.
There are few analysts who couldn't learn something from Ray Ferraro. Partially because he's so good, and partially because most of them are so fucking awful.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Dowbiggin may have his own problems, but Weekes is guilty of more than a few howlers.
Case in point: the HNIC Canucks-Sens game a couple of weeks ago. Canucks get three shots in rapid succession on Pascal Leclaire, and the third shot goes in (I think it was D. Sedin in the 2nd period). Weekes reviews the goal in slow motion, and says (about the 1st save) "Leclaire makes a key save here..."
Which was of course followed by another save, and then a goal.
It's ridiculous to refer to a save as "key" if it is almost immediately followed by a goal. But because of his relative inexperience, Weekes sometimes does fall back on the platitudes that Dowbiggin mentions.
Look, Weekes seems like a nice guy, and I appreciate (unlike Dowbiggin) the technical analysis he can offer about goaltending. But he would do well to study the game tapes of some of the last few Canuck broadcasters or colour guys (e.g. Robson, Hughson, Shorthouse, Garrett, Larscheid) all of whom have been exceptional. (And, yes, big homers.)
I certainly hope Weekes improves: we get him every week for the late game. And come the playoffs, we'll probably get Weekes for every game until the Canucks choke in the second round again.
Two words: Chicken Parm.
There are few analysts who couldn't learn something from Ray Ferraro. Partially because he's so good, and partially because most of them are so fucking awful.
Post a Comment
<< Home
