The post below is actually decent. A lot of guys recently have left the NHL to play in Europe. Most notably Jagr, but also guys like Yashin, Brylin and Modry etc. etc. None of these guys are in their prime of course and nobody really cares, but it does show that players consider it now. I actually think the NHL it at risk of players leaving for the reasons Olgie explains below. All it would take is one marquee player to leave and then this simple concept posted in a random hocley blog becomes front page headlines. “Crosby leaves for the Russian Super League”. Let’s face it, the NHL isn’t exactly crushing it these days. This is not an unimaginable situation.
Now – the debate the 5 hockey geniuses have had on this topic revolved around going 4 on 4 – full time. “Mags” has been arguing this for year now – the NHL should go 4 on 4 all the time. He has good reasons for this, and I respect all of them and the fact that he sticks to his guns on this argument. For the record, I like 4 on 4 hockey for the same reasons Mags does. Its more open, it showcases the talented players, it weeds out the weaker players. But that said, I have and will continue to argue that taking the NHL to 4 on 4 all the time is an extremely risky proposition and I disagree that it is a good idea. I like 4 on 4 in OT only. In my opinion, making it full time changes the hockey in the NHL entirely. If the NHL is the only hockey league that is 4 on 4, than every kid across the world will grow up playing one game, and then work to get into the NHL which is totally different. Every system you learn (forechecks, dzone coverage, power play etc) is now changed and obsolete to a degree. 4 on 4 is not a minor change at all – its taking 20% of the skaters off the ice. Its like taking the center out of basketball to free up the lane for more dunks; or taking the shortstop & right fielder out of baseball to produce more offense. Take a hypothetical. A player like say Malkin plays his whole life in Russia and learns 5 on 5 hockey, and is good enough to play professionally. Then he is faced with this choice (1) Play the same 5 on 5 game he knows in his home country of Russia (and maybe get more money to do so) or (2) Play an offshoot style of hockey, 4 on 4 in North America (and maybe get less money). Will the NHL still be considered the best league in the world, when it’s a different style of game entirely?
When the NHL is a different game of hockey than every other league in the world (IIHF/Olympics, Euro Pro, Russian Pro, US College/High School, kids hockey everywhere), than it just intensifies the risk of players leaving. I also think that from a fan point of view - for every guy like me and Mags that likes hockey 4 on 4, there is a guy who hates the idea and likes old school hockey.
The risk is huge that both the players and fans don’t love the change to 4 on 4, and the NHL falls apart b/c either they lose players (most likey) or fans (not like they have a ton anyway).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I think that all good players can adjust. They adjust when its 4 on 4 in overtime. Basketball players adjust to the extended 3 point line in the NBA. MLB players adjust to wooden bats. NFL players adjust to little differences (not down until touched, etc). I realize this would be a big difference but I think it makes for a more fun game to watch. I do think the NHL is in a better place then it was a couple years ago. I enjoyed the playoffs this year but still think it could be better and I am so tired of hearing of all these proposed rule changes every year....smaller equipment, smaller nets, etc.
Hey mags,
Who ever talks about making the nets smaller?
Mags,
I think you underestimate the impact that taking 20% of the skaters off the ice will have on the game of hockey. It is no way similar to the extended 3 point line in the NBA. That analogy is similar to taking out the red line in the NHL, which has already been done. Its a change that takes some adjustment, but it in no way alters the entire game itself. Going 4 on 4 is the same as taking two fielders away in baseball. Its so drastic that it changes the game entirely. Or in football, it would be synonymous with allowing guys to return field goal misses. XFL anyone? ZHITNIK!
Guys can adjust, but the question is will they want to?
I love this debate.
As we enter year five of this argument I still have to agree with Frosty that 4 on 4 is just too drastic of a change to the game and would risk alienating what few fans the NHL still has.
I disagree that it would make the games more fun to watch, there would be less contact, and as those of you who new me when I patrolled the blue line of the Saders, I loves me some contact. Especially when deliverd by Frosty in a meaningless captain's practice. But seriously folks, I'd argue hockey draws a great deal of it's fan base for the Rock 'em, Sock 'em element.
4 on 4 in hockey would be like removing the offensive and defensive lines in football. No more trenches. No more grinding it out. No more smashmouth. Just pretty boys flying around using the guertin bag of tricks every chance they got.
The beauty of hockey is it's combination of speed, skill and physicality. 4 on 4 would increase the value of speed but devalue the physical element, thus changing the very soul of the game! I'd love to see Mags v. Don Cherry on this one.
I fully expect that this post has completely changed Mags' mind, and he will recant the 4-on-4 argument for all time.
Post a Comment