'It was like men against boys' Michel Therrien notoriously lamented as coach of the Pittsburgh Penguins. It was a cold January night in 2006 and his slumping team had just dropped a 3-1 stinker to the Edmonton Oilers.
Therrien threw the entire team under the bus that night and perhaps unwittingly, himself. He lambasted the player's soft defence and utter lack of passion, then concluded his exasperated diatribe by wondering aloud if he could possibly find a solution.
Despite the much publicized rant, Therrien managed to turn things around for the Penguins, eventually leading the team to the Stanley Cup finals in 2008. Though the Peguins lost to the Detroit Red Wings, the team looked poised to become perennial cup contenders. But by February of the following season it had all unravelled again and Therrien was sent packing. It was an inglorious end to what had once seemed a storybook tale for the former Habs coach. Adding insult to injury was his replacement, Dan Bylsma, leading the team to their third Stanley Cup in the same season, fulfilling a destiny Therrien surely felt he had earned.
When Therrien returned as coach for the Canadiens in 2012, that rant among other things, was firmly on the minds of fans. It was unsettling to know that the organization had placed its trust in a man whose past history included the most public display of losing a locker room in living memory. Secondary to that, was a lingering concern about whether Therrien was still capable of coaching at the professional level after a three-year absence from the bench.
We got our answer in the shortened 2012-2013 season when the Habs showed significant improvement. The mission was simple: make the playoffs. To that end, Therrien delivered. But the first round loss to a truculent Ottawa Senators team seemed to bring out a bit of the old, exasperated Therrien, although his frustration was mercifully not directed at his players.
Last season was something of a different story. Although Therrien more than delivered on the goal of the post-season, it was during the regular season when fans and pundits began to wonder which Michel Therrien was behind the bench. There were moments of what some might label strategic brilliance, like putting Peter Budaj between the pipes for a second time in Boston, as a healthy Carey Price sat on the sidelines. Then there were those head-scratching moments, such as stapling P.K. Subban to the bench in critical 3rd period situations, or virtually any time he let Douglas Murray on the ice.
As the season progressed, opinions in the Canadiens' fan-base and media alternated between various levels of frustration, confusion, surprise and muted admiration of Therrien's coaching abilities. When things went bad, Therrien stood silently behind the bench, looking remarkably like that bronze Rodin sculpture, while more than a few of us wondered if he was thinking 'what is the solution?'
The Habs solid performance in the post-season seemed to erase much of that doubt. Save for a couple of fumbles (see Douglas Murray again) Therrien adjusted strategy, boosted minutes of his top performers and most importantly, remained composed.
So the real question for the forthcoming season is: Which Michel Therrien will show up? Will the old habits resurface, or has the experience of the past two seasons become the wisdom that will take his coaching abilities to the next level?
It could be argued that there is a similarity between the Pittsburgh Penguins roster under Therrien and the 2014-15 Canadiens. Both are teams well equipped with a core group of young players with the capacity of becoming the league's best.
Similar too, is coaching a talented, but struggling team to a turnaround that led deep into the post season. In 2009, Therrien failed to capitalize on that past success, which ultimately led to his dismissal.
One hopes these similarities are not lost on Michel Therrien, and that somewhere behind that distant thoughtful gaze lies a man with something to prove.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Captain? What Captain?
The announcement of Saku Koivu's retirement last week was bittersweet. Sweet, for the memories of one the Montreal Canadiens most loved and respected team leaders in their history. Considering that list includes the likes of Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau and Yvan Cournoyer, that is high praise.
Bitter, for the ignominious way in which some media in Montreal regarded his captaincy and being uncerimoniously jettisonned to the Anaheim Ducks in 2009, after a record tying ten-year tenure as team captain. Yes, that other captain was Beliveau.
Koivu was a talented hockey player, though maybe not a superstar by a statistical measure, who played in an era when the Habs roster was mediocre at best. He was a difference-maker for a team that managed far more playoff success than expected.
It was his battle with cancer, specifically Burkitt's lymphoma, that truly defined his character for Habs fans. Koivu demonstrated a quiet courage and determination that inspired many in the stands and on the ice. The experience cemented his relationship with the community, a legacy that remains to this day courtesy of the Saku Koivu Foundation's onging support of the Montreal General Hospital, and his role in securing a PET/CT diagnostic scanner.
Still, it is bittersweet that his last days as an NHL hockey player were not spent in a Habs uniform. If you believe in the power of symbolism, then in many ways it would have represented the paradigm shift in thinking that the Canadiens management claim to have undergone under Marc Bergevin's leadership.
It is for this reason many believe that Koivu's number 11 should be retired by the team, if not for his inspired leadership, certainly to make amends for letting go of one of its most respected leaders.
Perhaps part of the reason for not choosing a captain after sending Brian Gionta packing, is that the organization at long last recognized the bar set by Koivu.
Perhaps veterans Andrei Markov and Tomas Plekanec, who both played with Koivu, recognize what it really means to be team captain.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization understand the maturity demonstrated by Koivu and so concluded that neither Max Pacioretty or P.K. Subban are ready to don the coveted 'C', at least not yet.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization is recognizing what it had, and what it meant.
Perhaps.
Saku Koivu has certainly earned something beyond a cursory congratulations from the Montreal Canadiens for a long and successful career. I wonder though, if the idea of retiring his jersey will awaken those critics who regularly described Koivu as overrated and a poor leader for his difficulty with a certain language.
It's a page of history for which the organization and media ought to atone.
You could easily do worse than having a team captain like Saku Koivu, but you most assuredly would have a hard time doing better.
Bitter, for the ignominious way in which some media in Montreal regarded his captaincy and being uncerimoniously jettisonned to the Anaheim Ducks in 2009, after a record tying ten-year tenure as team captain. Yes, that other captain was Beliveau.
Koivu was a talented hockey player, though maybe not a superstar by a statistical measure, who played in an era when the Habs roster was mediocre at best. He was a difference-maker for a team that managed far more playoff success than expected.
It was his battle with cancer, specifically Burkitt's lymphoma, that truly defined his character for Habs fans. Koivu demonstrated a quiet courage and determination that inspired many in the stands and on the ice. The experience cemented his relationship with the community, a legacy that remains to this day courtesy of the Saku Koivu Foundation's onging support of the Montreal General Hospital, and his role in securing a PET/CT diagnostic scanner.
Still, it is bittersweet that his last days as an NHL hockey player were not spent in a Habs uniform. If you believe in the power of symbolism, then in many ways it would have represented the paradigm shift in thinking that the Canadiens management claim to have undergone under Marc Bergevin's leadership.
It is for this reason many believe that Koivu's number 11 should be retired by the team, if not for his inspired leadership, certainly to make amends for letting go of one of its most respected leaders.
Perhaps part of the reason for not choosing a captain after sending Brian Gionta packing, is that the organization at long last recognized the bar set by Koivu.
Perhaps veterans Andrei Markov and Tomas Plekanec, who both played with Koivu, recognize what it really means to be team captain.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization understand the maturity demonstrated by Koivu and so concluded that neither Max Pacioretty or P.K. Subban are ready to don the coveted 'C', at least not yet.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization is recognizing what it had, and what it meant.
Perhaps.
Saku Koivu has certainly earned something beyond a cursory congratulations from the Montreal Canadiens for a long and successful career. I wonder though, if the idea of retiring his jersey will awaken those critics who regularly described Koivu as overrated and a poor leader for his difficulty with a certain language.
It's a page of history for which the organization and media ought to atone.
You could easily do worse than having a team captain like Saku Koivu, but you most assuredly would have a hard time doing better.
Monday, September 8, 2014
This Looks Bad
One of the first posts I saw on Twitter this morning concerning the Ray Rice video read quite simply:
This looks bad.
That could be the understatement of the year. The video, the second to surface since the incident last February in the elevator of an Atlantic City casino, is an irrefutable indictment of Ray Rice. The footage shows Rice violently striking his then-fiancee (now wife) Janay Palmer, knocking her unconscious. Those facts, as a prosecutor would say, are indisputable.
A star athlete caught on video in an act of domestic violence. This looks bad.
When the NFL initially disciplined the Baltimore Ravens' running back, it was for a mere two games. What followed was a media and public outcry that essentially forced the league to amend its own policy and the suspension grew to six games.
Then came today's video. Rice has subsequently been released by the Ravens and faces an indefinite ban from the NFL.
It looks as bad for Rice as it does for the NFL, who must now deal with the question: had they or had they not seen the second video? One could easily presume that both versions of the surveillance footage would have come from the same source, which on the surface casts doubt of any claim of ignorance.
A damning video the NFL denies seeing. This looks bad.
The problem is, in a society obsessed with optics, the facts are often quickly kicked to the curb. They are superfluous in the eyes of the spin-doctors whose purview is not justice, but how incidents affect the brand.
A two-game suspension seemed a reasonable response to the NFL, but when the heat was on a contrite Roger Goodell stood before the cameras to concede the league had 'got it wrong.' Now in the face of universal disgust at Rice's actions, and with virtually no other choice, the league has issued its strongest punishment.
A professional sports league slow to react to the criminal behaviour of its players. This looks bad.
What is most unsettling is that, without the video, the disciplinary action most likely doesn't happen. The media would only have hearsay and eyewitness accounts to pursue the story, and the incident would fade into the shadows beyond the spotlight of professional football.
We didn't see it, therefore it doesn't look bad, we move on, forget the whole thing and go back to our Sunday sports ritual guilt-free. The NFL brand lives to cash another cheque.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm fairly certain Janay Palmer and all victims of domestic violence could give a good Goddamn about the NFL brand. In Janay Palmer's case she had the media and TMZ to do her fighting for her, but only because she's a high-profile figure. Most assuredly the plight of the vast majority of domestic abuse victims go unreported and unacknowledged.
It doesn't just look bad, it is bad. It's about time organizations stopped focusing on how things look and address the issue of domestic violence for what it is.
Unacceptable.
This looks bad.
That could be the understatement of the year. The video, the second to surface since the incident last February in the elevator of an Atlantic City casino, is an irrefutable indictment of Ray Rice. The footage shows Rice violently striking his then-fiancee (now wife) Janay Palmer, knocking her unconscious. Those facts, as a prosecutor would say, are indisputable.
A star athlete caught on video in an act of domestic violence. This looks bad.
When the NFL initially disciplined the Baltimore Ravens' running back, it was for a mere two games. What followed was a media and public outcry that essentially forced the league to amend its own policy and the suspension grew to six games.
Then came today's video. Rice has subsequently been released by the Ravens and faces an indefinite ban from the NFL.
It looks as bad for Rice as it does for the NFL, who must now deal with the question: had they or had they not seen the second video? One could easily presume that both versions of the surveillance footage would have come from the same source, which on the surface casts doubt of any claim of ignorance.
A damning video the NFL denies seeing. This looks bad.
The problem is, in a society obsessed with optics, the facts are often quickly kicked to the curb. They are superfluous in the eyes of the spin-doctors whose purview is not justice, but how incidents affect the brand.
A two-game suspension seemed a reasonable response to the NFL, but when the heat was on a contrite Roger Goodell stood before the cameras to concede the league had 'got it wrong.' Now in the face of universal disgust at Rice's actions, and with virtually no other choice, the league has issued its strongest punishment.
A professional sports league slow to react to the criminal behaviour of its players. This looks bad.
What is most unsettling is that, without the video, the disciplinary action most likely doesn't happen. The media would only have hearsay and eyewitness accounts to pursue the story, and the incident would fade into the shadows beyond the spotlight of professional football.
We didn't see it, therefore it doesn't look bad, we move on, forget the whole thing and go back to our Sunday sports ritual guilt-free. The NFL brand lives to cash another cheque.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm fairly certain Janay Palmer and all victims of domestic violence could give a good Goddamn about the NFL brand. In Janay Palmer's case she had the media and TMZ to do her fighting for her, but only because she's a high-profile figure. Most assuredly the plight of the vast majority of domestic abuse victims go unreported and unacknowledged.
It doesn't just look bad, it is bad. It's about time organizations stopped focusing on how things look and address the issue of domestic violence for what it is.
Unacceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)