"Somewhere in our souls is a spiritual Canada.
Its bedrock is of snow and ice, winter and the land.
And if we were to penetrate it a little deeper,
Chances are, we'd find a game ...
It's a game about us."

-- from Home Game, Ken Dryden

During the early hours of Friday, February 20th, 1998, a dark cloud fell over our land. For those diehards who stayed up late to witness Canada's 2-1 loss to the Czech Republic, this mist of gloom set in immediately. Others would be overcome by the same illness upon waking up to face the new day.

Since then, discussions have raged on and on trying to explain what went wrong. Some argue that the loss was inevitable when one considers the lack of skating and stick-handling skills which Team Canada demonstrated. Others will argue that the skills are still there, but this time around Canada ran into a brick wall by the name of Dominik Hasek. In this case, the truth is in the eye of the beholder. But as one contemplates the issues at hand, consider the historical elements of recent international competition.

Canadians have long thought of themselves as the dominant nation in hockey. We've felt as though given an opportunity to ice our best professional players, we would undoubtedly come out victorious. And yet, recent history shows that we haven't been as dominant as we think.

In 1972, Canada successfully defeated the USSR in the now famous Summit Series, but relied upon Paul Henderson's last-minute goal in the final game of the eight-game series to claim victory. Team Canada showed true heart as they battled back from an early series deficit to win the final three games, all of which were played in Moscow before a predominantly hostile crowd. Prior to the series Canadians were convinced that the Soviets would be a walkover. They would simply go out for a skate, much like an all-star game and walk away with the prize. One game into the series Canada realized that they would have their work cut out for them. A shattering 8-3 defeat brought many to the depths of humiliation. Yet Paul Henderson brought the pride and identity of a nation together. We had come out of the series as the reigning superpower of hockey. All was well in the world.

In 1974, a collection of WHA players were brought together for a similar eight-game series. Although not as heavy on talent, the WHA stars put up a good battle, but inevitably were outclassed by a more skilled bunch, which only two years prior had lost to Paul Henderson and Co.

The next important series featured the likes of Canada, USSR, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Sweden, and the USA. It was in 1976 that the Canada Cup was born. Played in Canadian rinks, the format of this tournament brought together the six best hockey nations in the world. In the end, Czechoslovakia and Canada met in the finals. Again Canada needed an OT goal, this time by Darryl Sittler to outdo the pesky Czechoslovakians. This with what many believe today, was the best Canadian team put on ice. It featured the best that Canada had to offer, including the legendary Bobby Orr who dominated the tournament.

1981 saw the same six teams brought together for the second edition of the Canada Cup. This time around the storyline would be very different. Canada would lose big. After making through to the final, the USSR would spank the Maple Leaf 8-1 in a game that left many feeling as low as ever. But Canada was about to turn the corner, a corner which would yield great success, or at least we interpreted it that way. The Canada Cups of 1984, 1987, and 1991 saw Canada retain their status as Kings of Hockey. But, what is often forgotten in these triumphs is the fact that again, Team Canada had to rely on small miracles. Miracles such as Mike Bossy tipping in a shot in OT in 1984 to claim victory, Mario Lemieux scoring in OT after being fed a perfect pass from the "Great One" to claim the 1987 prize, and the heroics of Bill Ranford in robbing the US from claiming victory in the 1991 edition of the tournament.

1996 brought with it the World Cup of Hockey. Again, Team Canada carried with it the weight of a nation, a weight created by huge expectations to defend our game. This time around the US iced a team which was as competitive, as skilled, and as tough as the red and white. Add to that a goalie by the name of Mike Richter, and presto - the US laid claim to hockey supremacy. Canadians again felt sick to their stomach, but his time around we focused our efforts on the upcoming 1998 Olympics knowing that this was the one tournament which we had failed to win in over 40 years.

The excuse was known to all: "if we could only send our NHL's best, we would win the gold". However, somebody forgot to tell the Czech Republic about our intentions to regain the gold. And yet, even though Team Canada stunk the joint out in the first 58 minutes of that dreaded game on the 20th of February, they found a way to extend the game to OT. Trevor Linden would be the recipient of a lucky deflection which would result in the tying goal with less than a minute to play. Canadians across the country cheered as Team Canada had again found a way to tie the score. It was a moment reminiscent of Paul Henderson. Had the country witnessed the sequel to "The Goal"? But ten minutes of OT proved nothing and before long, Team Canada was faced with a shootout against arguably the best goaltender in the world. It looked bleak, it proved true.

Call it whatever, you want, Canada did not have what it took to win that game. Not only were they not able to beat Hasek in the few shots they managed to fire at him, but they looked a step behind the Czechs. Where was the speed? Where were the skills which Canadians had grown up accustomed to relying on? On this day, they were nowhere to be seen. At least none wearing the Maple Leaf.

And so you see, we really haven't been as dominating as we think we are. We've been the recipients of lucky bounces, deflections, and timely goals which rescued us from that eternal abyss in years gone by. But in 1998, there would be no such miracles. And thus we are now left to ponder what will become the most important question for the 2002 Olympics: What went wrong? And if we admit that something did go wrong, what can be done to remedy the problem?

Well, let me throw my two cents into this pool of opinions. Our game is still our game, if for no other reason because of the way in which it dominates our life, our society, and our identity. However, others have learned to play it well, and in some tournaments, on a given day they will play better than Canada.

The key to our game can be found within the grass roots level. We've become so focused on winning through size that it dictates who and how we play. The smaller perhaps faster player, is sideswiped by coaches, in favor of a slower, but bigger player. Hence the individual skills are gone. We dump the puck in and expect to out-muscle our opponents in the corners and in front of the net. One has to wonder if the likes of Yvan Cournoyer, and Rocket Richard would be able to crack a professional lineup which promotes toughness and size over speed and finesse.

Gone are the days in which a kid would play a generous helping of structured games, augmented by a ton of shinny, for it is the lack of this form of the sport which has allowed players of years gone by to develop stickhandling, shooting, and passing skills. I guess we could blame that on "El Ni¤o" for restricting our access to outdoor rinks. Here we are in February and the temperature in Southern Ontario (a hotbed of hockey) is in the 5-degree Celsius mark. Try skating on a pond in those conditions!

Today, we throw a ton of pressure at our kids requiring that they play a physical game, that they hit everything in site, and most importantly, to the degradation of skills, we schedule them in for over 100 games per season. In some cases, in some locals, we push our kids to play through the summer. That is the reality of a "Rep-Level" hockey player in Canada. Could we not reduce their schedule to 30-50 games and use the balance of the time to play unstructured shinny, and fun, creative practices?

No, we haven't necessarily lost our edge, and we certainly don't need to set up a national inquiry into the state of affairs of our game. However, we do have to accept the fact that we are no longer the only ones who can play this great sport well. As such we have to also consider that we can't expect to win by simply out-muscling the opponent. Intimidation which may have existed in the past is no longer there. And finally, we need to simplify our approach at the grass roots level. Less games, and more fun will carry us further than we can imagine. Therein lies the future of Canada's success in international hockey. Wasn't there a great thinker who once said, "Keep It Simple Stupid!"

[ issues | web extra | stats | nhl archive | home | chat | mailing list | about us | search | comments ]

1998 © Copyright LCS Hockey All Rights Reserved