Around the Rink: Post-Olympic euphoria?

Every once in a while 'Nucks and Pucks will offer links to some of the best hockey stories of the past few days. It's a chance for me to share the great hockey sites, blogs, and writers that entertain and inspire me. Enjoy!

• Hockey on the cover of Sports Illustrated! As you can see in the above image, Sidney Crosby graced the cover of Sports Illustrated. This is actually a big deal, as hockey does not feature this prominently in SI very often - even the Stanley Cup champions rarely make it to the cover of America's biggest sports publication anymore. Clearly the US making the Gold Medal game generated some serious hype south of the 49th, which is great to see. [Sports Illustrated]
  

• Eyeballs glued to TV screens: That serious hype translated into amazing ratings for the game both in Canada and (more importantly for the NHL) in the US. Roughly one in three American TVs was tuned in to the hockey game last Sunday, making it the second most-watched non-NFL sporting event of the year. Furthermore, the game beat out all World Series games since 2004 and every NBA and NCAA basketball final games since 1998. Awesome news for hockey interest in the States. [Puck the Media]

• But let's keep it in perspective... As Puck Daddy points out, many of these viewers are casual sports fans who will not automatically start following the NHL. Nonetheless, the momentum may generate interest in the sport amongst young athletes and hopefully help grom the game at a grassroots level. [Puck Daddy]
  

• Sid's celebration: Speaking of Puck Daddy, the blog launched an impromptu Photoshop competition in honour of Sidney Crosby's epic "golden roar" celebration pose. The first gallery is up here. My (weak) Microsoft Paint submission is below - it celebrates Crosby's maturation and ownership of Alex Ovechkin in major competitions, as well as Ovechkin's unfortunate freak-out following Russia's elimination at the tournament. [Puck Daddy]

• Meanwhile, From the Rink is bully on the mainstream publicity that Crosby is receiving - despite him not ranking as one of the game's all-time greats. [From the Rink]

• And finally, in case you missed it, Canada's Gold Medal victory touched off celebrations across the country. I posted three galleries of photos from the Toronto celebrations at Dundas Square, and posted some photos and video at Nucks Misconduct. Please do check it out! [Nucks Misconduct]
  

Women's Hockey at the Olympics: Should it stay or should it go now?

Another Winter Olympics, another Canada/US Gold Medal game. With the exception of 2006 in Turin, when the Swedish team pulled a remarkable upset of the heavily-favoured Americans in the semi-finals, the 2010 Games in Vancouver marked yet another chapter in the ongoing trend of the two North American hockey superpowers meeting for Olympic Gold every four years - since women's hockey got the IOC stamp of approval and was introduced in 1998 in Nagano, Canada has won three Golds and one Silver, while the US has one Gold, two Silvers and one Bronze.

Talk about domination.

The lack of parity in international competition has led to a number of calls for women's hockey to be excluded from future Olympic competitions - much like women's softball in the Summer Games - and notable critics include IOC President Jacques Rogge:

"We cannot continue without improvement. There is a discrepancy there, everyone agrees with that. This is maybe the investment period in women's ice hockey. I would personally give them more time to grow - but there must be a period of improvement."

The primary issue is not (explicitly) about gender, but rather competitiveness. The issue of North American dominance has been present in international women's hockey since its World Championship debut in 1990. Canada and the US finished first and second respectively, until 2005 when the US finally won the tournament. No team has ever finished first or second except for the two superpowers. In fact, before the Swedish upset of the US in 2006, no team had ever beaten the US or Canada except for each other.

Supporters of Olympic women's hockey argue that the women's game needs the Olympics to grow the game and raise the quality of non-North American hockey. The reasoning behind this is that the Olympics serve as an incentive for national hockey federations to promote the game within their borders. As Jason Kay of The Hockey News writes:

"The Olympics, meantime, are the dangling carrot for national federations, providing heightened incentive to get better. Remove the carrot and the horse slows down. . . . Best-on-best competitions are critical for the embryonic hockey programs. It not only provides a measuring stick for executives, demonstrating how big the gap is between their programs and others, but gives the actual participants first-hand experiences and lessons on how to improve. You can study all the film you want, but there’s no substitute for facing a superior foe in real, intense competition."

There is a definite logic to this argument, particularly given the allure of Olympic glory. But will countries make the investment into women's hockey given that, for the immediate future, they're basically trying to build a Bronze Medal team? Well, they should. As Sweden proved in 2006 upsets are possible, if rare. Furthermore, while Canada and the US will continue to have much deeper pools of talent to draw upon for decades to come, the beauty of the Olympics is that you only need 23 players on your roster - it's hard to imagine that a men's US 'B' team would have fared nearly as well against a Canada 'B' squad, but none of that mattered in the Olympic format. Same with the women's game. If countries like Sweden, Finland, Russia and China (yes, China has a competitive program that has grown by leaps and bounds) can get to the point where they develop elite players that can stack a full roster, they will begin to challenge Canada and the US in tournaments.

Unfortunately, this appears to be a long way from happening. As Sarah Kwak notes about the Russian program:

"The women's team receives minimal financial support from the Russian federation and little training for the World Championships and the Olympics. In anticipation of Vancouver, Russia's women gathered for sporadic international tournaments such as the Canada Cup, and didn't begin their final Olympic training camp until January 24, three weeks before the Games. To compare, by the end of January, Team Canada was on the tail end of its six-month Midget Series during which it played teams of teenage boys. Says [Russian player] Gavrilova, "I don't think [three weeks is] good enough to get trained for the Olympics.""

Clearly women's hockey is not getting the funding (to say nothing of attention and respect) it needs to develop more than two elite national teams. However, according to Kwak, there is hope that the "Olympic carrot" will spur development in Russia:

With the Games heading to Sochi in four years, it's difficult to believe the Russians wouldn't want to field a competitive women's hockey team. Federation president Vladislav Tretiak has promised more attention and funding, ostensibly for that exact reason, and went with a young team in Vancouver to prepare these players for the next Olympics.

But, for this to be effective, much more than funding and development is necessary:

Russian sport remains highly patriarchal. The country has never tapped a woman to carry the flag at the Opening Ceremonies -- Summer or Winter -- and still prefers to see its female athletes participate in tennis, gymnastics and figure skating, rather than sports like hockey and soccer. "It's a bit of a new concept, women playing hockey," says Slava Malamud, a reporter for the Russian paper Sport-Express. "There's a popular Russian song, kind of the unofficial theme song for Russian hockey, that says, 'Only real men play hockey.' So it's still hard for people to wrap their brains around it."

Clearly a lot has to change for international women's hockey to develop to the point of competitiveness - from resources to gender attitudes to player development. So how to start the ball rolling? In my opinion, women's hockey needs a professional league (or at least semi-pro one, where athletes may hold other jobs but still receive a decent salary - think of the Canadian Football League or National Lacrosse League).

Currently, there are not a lot of options for elite female hockey players. In the US, the NCAA offers possibly the best environment in the world for competitive women's hockey outside of national competitions - at least until the athletes graduate and are left with no other place to play. In Canada, there are two amateur leagues of note: the Canadian Women's Hockey League, with six teams in Ontario and Quebec; and the Western Women's Hockey League, which has a combined four Canadian teams in Alberta and BC and one team in Minnesota.

Fortunately, with the controversy surrounding women's hockey in 2010, a push for a professional women's league has gained new momentum. It makes a lot of sense. Think how much this would help develop international players, who would get to play against stiffer competition and improve their skills with the world's best coaches. This is, realistically, the only way that non-North American players will develop into the elite players that international teams so desperately need to be competitive. Maybe each team could have a quote for international players - e.g. they have to have at least five non-North Americans on their rosters. This would prevent the teams from being flooded by Canadian and American talent.

I really hope that a pro women's league can get up and running. Partnering with the NHL, much like the WNBA does with the NBA, is probably the best way to get the league started. This is not ideal, as I think a women's league would be governed and managed more effectively if it was independent. Nonetheless, for marketing, cross-promotional and financial reasons it does make sense to partner with the NHL.

But please, if this happens, don't call the league the Women's NHL - that will only perpetuate the gender inequality that currently plagues hockey by suggesting the new league's inferiority.

Overall, I think that a semi- or fully professional hockey league is the best answer to the problem of serious competitive imbalance in women's hockey.

Thoughts on the US victory over Canada

There are two ways to spin the game last night: Canada couldn't get it done against a less-talented team, made too many mistakes and didn't play hard enough; or, a plucky, aggressive and skilled US team outworked and outhustled the favoured Canadians to score a well-earned upset. So which is it? Well, as with many questions, the answer lies somewhere in between.

Canada, in a sense, lost this game. Martin Brodeur was spotty in goal, leading to calls for Roberto Luongo to assume the starter's job for tomorrow's game against Germany. Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger showed their age, particularly Pronger who was keyed on by the US forecheckers who shrewdly recognized his slowness and propensity for bad turnovers. However, Canada also threw over 40 shots at Ryan Miller, had an aggressive forecheck, and significantly outchanced the US.

Meanwhile, the US team certainly earned the victory. However, without the lights-out goaltending of Miller it might have been a different story. Similarly, the Americans benefited from a lucky deflection (first goal), Brodeur channeling Mark McGwire and failing to clear the zone (second goal) and auditioning for the Summer Olympics with a beautiful headfirst dive to pokecheck the puck away from Pronger, leading to the third US goal. So while the US was incredibly opportunistic, Canada gifted them many of the chances that turned into goals.

Overall, it was a hell of a hockey game with all the intensity of a Stanley Cup Finals match. Canada's road to the Gold Medal game just got a lot harder, as (assuming they handle Germany) that road will lead through Russia and then either Sweden or Slovakia. But this is where the tough get going - Canada is, I believe, the most top-to-bottom talented team in the tournament, and if they play to that level I believe we will see them facing off for Gold on Sunday.

The US, meanwhile, looks pretty good to at least medal, if not make the Gold Medal final. The US has to face the winner of Switzerland/Belarus, before likely facing Finland or the Czech Republic in the semi-finals. If the US medals it would be a very impressive for a new generation of US stars who are young, talented and still not in their prime. With (relative) youngsters like Patrick Kane, Ryan Kesler, Dustin Brown and the defensive tandem of Johnson & Johnson (Erik and Jack) coming into their own, the US has the potential to be a force on the world stage for years to come.

Here are some other random thoughts about last night:

• I thought Brodeur was brutal out there. He seemed to get overly excited about not being restricted in his ability to play the puck (international rules do not limit the goalie's abilityy to play the puck, unlike the NHL) and made some sketchy plays early on. The second goal was the result of Brodeur batting the puck out of midair instead of playing it safe and holding on to it. He also spent a lot of time flopping around on the ice instead of squaring up to the shooter and playing the angles. Brodeur is arguably the best goalie of all-time, but he doesn't look sharp right now, continuing his shoddy play in the run-up to the Games. If he had just played solidly, not even spectacularly, we probably would have seen overtime last night.

• Great to see Ryan Kesler stepping up for Team USA. He was out on the ice in key situations, played on the first powerplay unit and scored one of the most impressive empty net goals I have ever seen. Hopefully the Canucks get him signed long-term this summer, because this guy is a heart-and-soul guy who I wouldn't be shocked to see captain Team USA if NHLers play in 2014.

• Speaking of 2014, I feel that last night's game might go a ways towards convincing the NHL to let its players go to Sochi for the 2014 Winter Games. The upset win is getting (relatively) huge play in the US press, and America makes the Gold Medal game it will be a huge boost to the sport in the US. Hard to imagine the NHL spurning that domestic love when it comes to the next Olympics.
  

• Canada will be in trouble against Russia if they can't sort out their defense. Pronger had some brutal turnovers, Niedermayer was too often slow and out of position, and Boyle had problems with coverage. Don't be surprised to see Mike Babcock relying more and more on some of the young d-men on the team - so far Duncan Keith and Drew Doughty have been more impressive than their older, more decorated and more experienced teammates.
  

Who will have the best goaltending at the 2010 Olympics?

My friend Becky (R.A. DePalma in the Comments) emailed me about an ESPN article, suggesting that the USA might have superior goaltending to Canada at the 2010 Olympics. From Becky:

I just wanted to know what you think of this statement from a Scott Burnside article: (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=4369012) 10. Right now, who has the better goaltending lineup for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics? The Canadians likely will go with Martin Brodeur, who hasn't advanced beyond the second round of the playoffs since 2003, and Roberto Luongo, who imploded in the second round this past postseason and has never played in a conference finals game, let alone a Stanley Cup finals matchup. The Americans will go with Vezina Trophy winner Tim Thomas and Ryan Miller, who has backstopped the Buffalo Sabres to two berths in the Eastern Conference finals since the end of the lockout. Just asking. I wanted to post the question of what do people think about this on your blog... I think that it is foolish to say that Thomas and Miller are better than Luongo and Brodeur just because they have had more post-season success. Was it Luongo who imploded or the Canucks defense? Do we possibly think that the Canadian defense will be the same? And what illusion is it that Olympic hockey is between the USA and Canada. There are many other countries contending for that championship.

So, as Becky asks, what are your thoughts about goaltending for Canada, the US or any other team? Feel free to join the conversation in the comments sections.

Personally, I think Canada has the deepest selection, but that at the tournament many other countries have great goalies who can step up and lead a charge if they get hot. Here's my breakdown of the netminding situation for some of the countries in the tournament:

Canada - I don't think you can go wrong with either Brodeur or Luongo. I know some people (including Scott Burnside) are worried about the relative lack of playoff success by the two goalies in the past few seasons. However, anyone who is championing Cam Ward over these two should remember that he didn't exactly light it up in the Eastern Conference Finals against the Penguins: the Pens outscored the Hurricanes 20-9 in four games (a GAA of 5.00 for those of you scoring at home). By comparison, the Canucks were outscored 23-19 in 6 games (a 3.83 GAA) by the Blackhawks in the Second Round. The two Finals goalies were both Canadian, but would you really feel comfortable with Chris Osgood or Marc-Andre Fleury between the pipes in Vancouver? Yeah, me neither.

In the end, I think one of Luongo or Brodeur will seize the moment and be The Guy for Canada - and I think either of them will do a lights-out job of trying to push their team to Gold Medal glory.

United States - I think Ryan Miller is a very good goalie, but I wouldn't put him in the same category as Luongo, Broduer, Henrik Lundqvist or Evgeni Nabokov. Still, if he can get hot or if Tim Thomas can continue his remarkable run from the past season, then the US might become a Cinderella in this tournament.

However, I don't think Burnside's insinuation that the US has superior goaltending to Canada because Thomas won the Vezina and Miller helped the Sabres to two Eastern Conference Finals carries any water. Brodeur won the previous two Vezinas to Thomas (narrowly beating out Luongo in 2006-07, a season in which Luongo was also runner-up for the Hart and Pearson Trophies). And if you're going to claim that 2006-07 was too long ago to have relevance to this deabte, then check out the last time Miller played in the Conference Finals. Oh yeah, it was also the last time the Sabres made the playoffs.

Russia - Russia is pretty solid in net, thanks to Evgeni Nabokov. If he falters, youngster Semyon Varlamov proved in the playoffs that he can play at a high level for at least a short period of time. And don't count out Nikolai Khabibulin, who will be 37 by the time the Games begin. While many are slagging the Oilers for signing the 'Bulin Wall, he did record the third highest GAA in the league last season and helped the Blackhawks to the Western Conference Final - no mean feat. Khabibulin wasn't invited to the Russian orientation camp, but I would imagine that a strong start to the NHL season would put him in contention.

Sweden - Henrik Lundqvist, who helped Sweden capture the Gold Medal in 2006, is one of the best goalies in the league. As long as he's healthy, the Swedes will be a favourite - along with Russia and Canada - in 2010.

Finland - Finland is a bit of a goaltending factory, so the team is guaranteed to have solid netminding. Unfortunately the rest of the Finns' line-up is not as strong, but with the likes of Niklas Backstrom, Miikka Kiprusoff, Pekka Rinne, Vesa Toskala, Kari Lehtonen and Antero Niittymaki to choose from, you have to assume they'll be solid between the pipes. Did you know that Finland's only Gold Medal ever in men's ice hockey came in the 1995 World Championships. In all the tournaments they've competed in (World Championships, World Cups, Canada Cups, Olympics) since 1939, they have just the one first place, nine second place and six third place finishes.

Czech Republic - The Czechs are not as strong between the pipes since the retirement of Dominik Hasek, but still have Tomas Vokoun to backstop them. If he falters, the fortunes of the Czech team could head south very quickly.

Goaltending isn't everything, but in a short tournament whose latter rounds are single-knockout it can prove to be the key to success. Anyone who remembers the 1996 World Cup, whose MVP was US goalie Mike Richter, can attest to the huge impact that top-notch goaltending can have on an already-talented roster.

Okay, those are my thoughts. What are yours? Who has the best goaltending heading into the 2010 Olympics?