Coyne and Huck on The Game

I've been unable to post for most of the last week and, in that span of time, a lot has gone on in the world of hockey.

There were, of course, the NHL awards (Thornton gets the Hart? Really?) and the draft. The draft was not really eventful as all the experts agreed that the crop was not a particularly strong one. That being said, some interesting trades were made and there are some big ones to come. Then, looking forward, we will have the Hall of Fame induction ceremony on Thursday.

Luckily, Rob was on the case and we were kept up to date on all of these events.

About a week ago, Rob mused about the Great Game and, as it only appeared on his personal blog, many of you may not have read it. The post to which I make reference is a response to well-known columnist and pundit, Andrew Coyne.

Coyne wrote, in a column subtly entitled "Why hockey rules ...And other sports suck", that, when compared to other major professional sports, hockey clearly was the best of the lot. Here is a passage from the column that illustrates his argument:

"There is more action in five minutes of hockey than in your average 90-minute game of soccer, whose fans live for the moment when, by some mischance, the ball strays within 50 yards of the net. Basketball suffers from the opposite affliction: As the comedian David Brenner argues, they should start both teams at 100 and make the games two minutes long, since that's what every basketball game comes down to. Only hockey combines frequency of scoring chances with difficulty of actually scoring..."

In his response, Rob didn't get into the debate of which sport was the best, but he rather adeptly pointed out how futile an exercise that really is. I, for what it's worth, agree with him wholeheartedly. Here are some gems from Rob's post:

"...if you're going to compare hockey to its alternatives, you have to take the tack of Jim Rome, the syndicated sports talk show host based out of Los Angeles (heard here in Calgary on The Fan 960 AM). Not a show goes by during the Stanley Cup playoffs when Rome doesn't receive an email or phone call from American listeners who think hockey is sucks and the like. His response is consistent and correct: hockey is one of the best spectator sports in the world, but it's a sport which doesn't work well on television and that will never change.

For me, most sports have their own fine points which can be appreciated. Football, of both English and American varieties, is a game of territory. The idea is to move the ball down field by devising strategies to move your opponents out of position, thereby opening lanes for a new assault. It is somewhat akin to the game of chess being played by the respective managers/coaches, especially if the teams involved are quite skilled. Football can be a compelling sport once the strategies to take territory can be understood."

Those two paragraphs are, however, only the setup for this great passage on why hockey is, in fact, a great sport in its own right. Without the need to bash other sports:

"Hockey is different in that it's a wonderful hybrid of grace, power, speed and skill. Coaches can play with defensive systems and offensive tactics all they want, but when it gets to crunch time, the function of the coaching staff is primarily motivational; it's up to the players to perform and adjust to the play on the go. Speaking of "on the go", it is not without significance that hockey is the only sport in which players change on the fly, meaning that this sport, more than any other, has an engaging flow and ebb to it which, in turn, means that momentum can reverse itself and back again in an instant." (My emphasis)

I don't know if I've ever read a better description of the game in so few words. Ken Dryden might be able to do something similar (again), but it would take him ten years and it would be presented to us as a Ken Burns-like documentary.

A tip of the hat to you, my friend.