Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watrose.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watrose!absary From: absary@watrose.UUCP (Al Sary) Newsgroups: net.sport.hockey Subject: Re: Re: Let's give some respect to the Vancouver Canucks Message-ID: <7586@watrose.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 11:09:40 EDT Article-I.D.: watrose.7586 Posted: Thu Oct 3 11:09:40 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 03:30:13 EDT References: <7564@watrose.UUCP> <664@alberta.UUCP> <7569@watrose.UUCP> <669@alberta.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 66 From article 614: > If the team is playing to the best of their abilities, the Canucks > are in big trouble again this year. If they have more talent than last years > performance indicates, they are either lazy, poorly coached or both. In > either case the Canucks will end up on the bottom if they don't make major > changes. What kind of changes do you mean? You say poorly coached. I don't know if you realize but they had major coaching problems last year (firing their new coach after about ~20 games, most of which resulted in losses). So, as I said before, you never know with their new coach (Tom Watt, you may have heard of him), they may perform better this year, at least, I expect them to do so (but they may not; it may be kind of hard to recover from a season like they had). > Even though I am a bit fanatical about the Oilers, I do realize that > teams do go down hill in time. In time the Oilers will start to slide > and that will show in how they played in the LAST YEAR, not 2 or 5 years > before. Last years performance is the only one that is valid. I am not sure what you mean by valid here. Does that mean the Montreal Canadians' Stanley cup wins are no longer valid. Well, I guess what you mean here is that a team's current ability should be based on their previous year's performance. I don't know if I agree with that totally. Sure the previous year indicates something. However, I think a team's past few years may give you a better indication of what you can expect from a team. I think the Canucks' last year is a good example, but I don't want to argue about this, because it is not easy to recover from a year like the one they had (especially psychologically), so they may actually have just as bad a year again. However, if you take a look at other teams. The Rangers are a good example. Last year they didn't have a very good year. The previous years they have proven that they had a good team. I would expect a better performance from them this year, even though this may still leave them with the last playoff spot. On the other hand, Pittsburgh Penguins or New Jersey Devils' performance has not been changing very much in the last few years, so I won't expect them to make the playoffs. But you can never tell. A few years ago the Capitals were just like the Penguins or Devils now. > If the talent and or drive starts to go, looking back to the 'Good > Old Days' does not make the team any better. Last year the Canucks were > rotten, and until proven otherwise they will be expected to be rotten In my first posting I was trying to explain that they have not made many changes from 84 to 84-85, so they had just about the same talent to work with. I think the ~20 point drop was quite unexpected. A couple of years is no 'old days' (I left off the good intentionally). If the Oiler's had won their first Stanley Cup last year, finishing last a year before, I'd have doubts if they could repeat again this year. > again this year. Bemoaning the fact that most hockey fans and sportswriters > expect a team to prove its abilities EVERY year is like burying your > head in the sand. I agree, but the above is only easy to say if you are an Oiler fan.