Gonchar on Crosby

From Roy MacGregor's column in the Globe and mail today he quotes gonchar commenting on Crosby:

The second-guessing began before the players even reached the dressing room.The Russian players that is.Sergei Gonchar the superb Russian defenceman, was asked about his teammate Sidney Crosby,the 18 year old rookie sensation who was mysteriously left off Team Canada.

Mr. Gonchar smiled,showing what teeth he still has :D .The big ice surface,he said would have been an advantage for Mr. Crosby.

Seems like Gonchar and probably all Russia were happy with Canada's player selections.

I would hope he thought his teammate should have been there.



Fact of the matter is that Crosby shouldn't have anyways.

I would hope he thought his teammate should have been there.



Fact of the matter is that Crosby shouldn't have anyways.

Hehe.
Low... But IMO; correct. ;)

I would hope he thought his teammate should have been there.



Fact of the matter is that Crosby shouldn't have anyways.
Well there's several reasons why he should have been besides his playmaking ability on the large ice surface.For one Crosby owns Ovechkin in head to head action.That should have been reason enough alone so now we're up to 2 reasons .Let me add some more.
He's the most talented/skilled Canadian player(but granted doesn't have the experience of others).

He is the most agessive hard working player Canada has. He leaves nothing on the ice but blood ,sweat ,and tears.( I was astonished at how accepting the Canadians seemed to be of losing).

He has a record in big tournaments(2 wjc's,President's trophy and Memorial Cup of being VERY disciplined.(not like in the situation in Pittsburgh where most of the games are meaningless by the time he shows frustation).

He wouldn't be frustrated having linemates to pass too.He is better than his stats show this year.

There is no question in my mind Stall,Spezza and Crosby should have been there.

I've said it in another thread I'll say it here:

Does noone remember how many thought Pittsburgh would contend for the Cup because of all their talent in September?

Have the Penguins ever lost 3 of 4 games, and Crosby been held pointless in those losses?

C;'mon people. Heatley, Iginla, Sakic, Thornton were on that team.

Adding one player wouldn't have made the difference...if you're arguing that route, you have to replace 4 or 5 players before advocating that it would have made a difference.

Adding one player wouldn't have made the difference...if you're arguing that route, you have to replace 4 or 5 players before advocating that it would have made a difference.

Did Ovechkin make a difference?

What do you expect Gonchar to say? :dunno:

My thoughts are that Team Canada was missing defense, speed, shooting (instead of always looking for the pass) and consistent checking.
Out of that list, Crosby would have added speed and some youthful energy. He doesn't play defense and he can't be counted on to play the body. When guys like Nash and Iginla and Heatley are doing the cutesy little drop passes instead of firing on net, I can't imagine Sid the Kid would be the selfish one to take a shot instead. I don't think passing the puck was a problem for this team. In fact, it was such an attribute that they did it to a fault.
He would have had to be on the wing, both due to the fact that he wouldn't fit on a checking line and the fact that his faceoffs numbers aren't as good as Sakic/Richards/Lecavalier.
Quite frankly, I don't think including Crosby would have affected the team much.

Did Ovechkin make a difference?

You're not going to like this, based on your name, but Crosby is no Ovechkin...at least not yet.

Plus, the inclusion of Ovechkin on Team Russia was in combination with the inclusion of other fairly young players, some would say "unproven" players, from what I hear.

Well there's several reasons why he should have been besides his playmaking ability on the large ice surface.For one Crosby owns Ovechkin in head to head action.That should have been reason enough alone so now we're up to 2 reasons.

Why do you keep on repeating the "head-to-head" thing as if it's some accepted fact? In a TEAM game, offensive head-to-head is irrelevant. Are you implying that if Crosby played the Caps without AO in the lineup, he would have produced less?

How many players on that team Canada have done well "head-to-head" against AO and the Caps? Considering Washington is a bad team, I would guess quite a few, so no, we're not up to 2 reasons.

Having said that, I absolutely think Crosby should have been on the team. But him alone would not have made the difference.

Adding one player wouldn't have made the difference...if you're arguing that route, you have to replace 4 or 5 players before advocating that it would have made a difference.
That's untrue. If you remove Bert there's a lot better chance of the Russians not scoring that first goal. If you add Crosby then there's a not insignificant chance that Canada scores a goal.

It is true that switching those two would not have guaranteed a win, but nothing is guaranteed. It can definitely be argued that Canada would have a better chance with Sid.

Why do you keep on repeating the "head-to-head" thing as if it's some accepted fact? In a TEAM game, offensive head-to-head is irrelevant. Are you implying that if Crosby played the Caps without AO in the lineup, he would have produced less?

How many players on that team Canada have done well "head-to-head" against AO and the Caps? Considering Washington is a bad team, I would guess quite a few, so no, we're not up to 2 reasons.

Having said that, I absolutely think Crosby should have been on the team. But him alone would not have made the difference.

Unless he scored/assisted. Or would that not have made a difference in your opinion?

Seems like Gonchar and probably all Russia were happy with Canada's player selections.
You realize that Russia has a bunch of players that aren't even NHL caliber? I don't think they could care less about team Canada player selections; they just went on the ice and played their guts out.

One player wouldn't have made a difference, but several would have.

IN: Spezza, Staal, Crosby, Kariya, Shanahan, Phaneuf, Boyle

OUT: Lecavalier, St. Louis, Nash, Bertuzzi, Draper, Foote, Regehr

*these two sets of players have similar levels of international experience, in fact, the first group probably has more.

That's the thing. I don't agree with Bob MacKenzie that you leave the players that were there off the hook by questioning the selections. To the contrary, they chose great players that were having bad seasons or that don't have skill sets that translate well to international ice.

I doubt Crysob would have made much of a difference. He'll have his turn in Vancouver, along with Staal, Spezza, Phaneuf, etc.

Did Ovechkin make a difference?

he definately did....as a goal scorer no one in the World can rival Ovechkin right now, IMO.

What do you expect Gonchar to say? :dunno:
Well, what i thought was interesting and telling was the "big smile" as if to say yeah we are happy with that decision.

Unless he scored/assisted. Or would that not have made a difference in your opinion?

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. We can argue hypotheticals all day.

Canada was oozing with talent, with or without Crosby. The problem was that they weren't playing as a team, and in my opinion, Crosby wouldn't have made a difference in that regard.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. We can argue hypotheticals all day.

Canada was oozing with talent, with or without Crosby. The problem was that they weren't playing as a team, and in my opinion, Crosby wouldn't have made a difference in that regard.
They were not oozing with their best available talent.Some of those players must be hurt or they just don'y have it anymore.7 of Canada's top ten point scorers in the NHL were left off the team.That is just absurd.

Also, on a team with so many guys struggling with their game it makes it that much harder when they were put under pressure.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. We can argue hypotheticals all day.

Canada was oozing with talent, with or without Crosby. The problem was that they weren't playing as a team, and in my opinion, Crosby wouldn't have made a difference in that regard.

I'm going to have to disagree.

Crosby, Staal and Spezza would have made a huge difference. The team was totally indifferent to losing, those 3 guys wouldn't have been. Plus, Crosby isn't afraid to let his veteran teammates have it and that's what these guys needed because the effort simply wasn't there.

And let's be fair, the difference wasn't Ovechkin, it was Kozlov. The man played the game of his life.

Well there's several reasons why he should have been besides his playmaking ability on the large ice surface.For one Crosby owns Ovechkin in head to head action.That should have been reason enough alone so now we're up to 2 reasons .Let me add some more.
He's the most talented/skilled Canadian player(but granted doesn't have the experience of others).

He is the most agessive hard working player Canada has. He leaves nothing on the ice but blood ,sweat ,and tears.( I was astonished at how accepting the Canadians seemed to be of losing).

He has a record in big tournaments(2 wjc's,President's trophy and Memorial Cup of being VERY disciplined.(not like in the situation in Pittsburgh where most of the games are meaningless by the time he shows frustation).

He wouldn't be frustrated having linemates to pass too.He is better than his stats show this year.

There is no question in my mind Stall,Spezza and Crosby should have been there.


Crosby should not have because despite Thornton playing like crap, he has been one of the best players in the league this season. Going down the middle, if you went with Lecavalier, Sakic, Staal, Thornton and Spezza, you can't go wrong with that. As good as all 5 of them were playing going into the break, that would have been.

Crosby might own Ovechkin in head to head action, but who cares? That's the NHL. An NHL where Ovechkin is the only legtimate scoring threat on the team. Team Russia had 3 #1 lines to throw out there and the line with Malkin on it was also spactacular. The Olympics are not the NHL, and as we have seen teams with player who aren't even in the NHL have played rather large roles on their respective teams.


The WJC's and Memorial Cup are not the Olympics. To go on top of that, Pat Quinn would have stuck Crosby on the 4th line anyways, and if you think he has been disciplined this season...wrong answer

I'm going to have to disagree.

Crosby, Staal and Spezza would have made a huge difference. The team was totally indifferent to losing, those 3 guys wouldn't have been. Plus, Crosby isn't afraid to let his veteran teammates have it and that's what these guys needed because the effort simply wasn't there.

And let's be fair, the difference wasn't Ovechkin, it was Kozlov. The man played the game of his life.
Good post,especially the part about the team being indifferent to losing.That just blows me away.Do you remember how devastated everyone was when we lost in the shootout to the Czechks in 98?

I'm going to have to disagree.

Crosby, Staal and Spezza would have made a huge difference. The team was totally indifferent to losing, those 3 guys wouldn't have been. Plus, Crosby isn't afraid to let his veteran teammates have it and that's what these guys needed because the effort simply wasn't there.

And let's be fair, the difference wasn't Ovechkin, it was Kozlov. The man played the game of his life.

If we're changing the entire makeup of the team by adding Crosby, Staal, Spezza, Kariya, Shanahan, etc, then it would be a different team. Crosby alone wouldn't have made the difference.

Both Kozlov and Ovechkin were difference-makers. It is a team game after all, and more than one player can (and needs) to make a difference for that team to be successful.

Crosby should not have because despite Thornton playing like crap, he has been one of the best players in the league this season. Going down the middle, if you went with Lecavalier, Sakic, Staal, Thornton and Spezza, you can't go wrong with that. As good as all 5 of them were playing going into the break, that would have been.

Crosby might own Ovechkin in head to head action, but who cares? That's the NHL. An NHL where Ovechkin is the only legtimate scoring threat on the team. Team Russia had 3 #1 lines to throw out there and the line with Malkin on it was also spactacular. The Olympics are not the NHL, and as we have seen teams with player who aren't even in the NHL have played rather large roles on their respective teams.

The WJC's and Memorial Cup are not the Olympics. To go on top of that, Pat Quinn would have stuck Crosby on the 4th line anyways, and if you think he has been disciplined this season...wrong answer

You make a pretty bad argument for not having Crosby on the team. Personally I have a hard time blaming bad skating forwards for not being faster. It's just not who they are. You can be great in the NHL and struggle on the big ice and visa versa. At least Crosby, Kariya and Staal have break out speed. The clubs management picked the guys they wanted. I don't by the "they'll have their shot" argument. If they're good enough now they should have been there. They messed up. It's a credit to Martin Brodeur that Canada was even in some of the games.

Crosby should not have because despite Thornton playing like crap, he has been one of the best players in the league this season. Going down the middle, if you went with Lecavalier, Sakic, Staal, Thornton and Spezza, you can't go wrong with that. As good as all 5 of them were playing going into the break, that would have been.

Crosby might own Ovechkin in head to head action, but who cares? That's the NHL. An NHL where Ovechkin is the only legtimate scoring threat on the team. Team Russia had 3 #1 lines to throw out there and the line with Malkin on it was also spactacular. The Olympics are not the NHL, and as we have seen teams with player who aren't even in the NHL have played rather large roles on their respective teams.


The WJC's and Memorial Cup are not the Olympics. To go on top of that, Pat Quinn would have stuck Crosby on the 4th line anyways, and if you think he has been disciplined this season...wrong answer

For every forward you name before Crosby, Staal, or Spezza you need to use a different argument to justify it.

Thornton has a proven record of "playing like crap" when it matters. No surprise he did it again.

As for Crosby/Ovechkin you're right it's not relevant.

More relevant is that Ovechkin, had he been Canadian, would probably have been left off the team due to "lack of experience", probably put on the "Taxi Squad".

Gretzky and company picked the team like they were afraid to make a mistake.

They "choked", plain and simple, when they picked the team. Then they wished Lemieux and Yzerman were there to hold the hands of the "experienced" players they picked.

He is the most agessive hard working player Canada has. He leaves nothing on the ice but blood ,sweat ,and tears.( I was astonished at how accepting the Canadians seemed to be of losing).

I think Staal and Spezza should have been ahead of him at Centre but those are the reasons i would have taken Crosby to play wing.

Give him a 4th line spot and use him as an energy spark-plug type..... similar to the role that Theo Fleury had in 2002.


Hard to critise the Canada roster to much, there is a load of talent there they just didnt have it for some reason or another. I think the biggest issue was the problems on the blueline, losing the guys they did before and playing others who where hurt just seemed to totally weeken what should have been Canadas biggest strength.

The only reason that Crosby should have been on that team was to get him some experience for the next 3 or even 4 Olympics that he will be playing for them. Certainly one player could have gone to have gotten him that experience and he would not be that huge a drop-off in value to the team playing even on the checking line - which he can do quite well I might add. It was an opportunity lost to get the future of the team some experience, but in the end was not that big a deal.

Adding one player wouldn't have made the difference

I disagree. The team played pretty uninspired hockey (I think most, if not all, would agree with that), so if you brought in one guy who played with passion and always attacked the net, he might've been the spark that got the rest of the team going. You can have 350 hemi engine that can put out all the power and torque you'd ever need, and so long as it's running, it'll run through anything, but if it's stopped, it needs a spark to get going. Even taking away his offensive skillset, Crosby's game is suited to be a spark. Maybe he wouldn't have made the difference on his own, but he definitely had the potential to be the spark that would get Canada's offensive machine going. If St. Loius played the type of game he played in 2003-04, he could have been the spark. If Iginla played his balls to the walls crash the net style that he's played in recently memory, he could have been the spark. All the team needed, imo, was a spark to get the rest of the team going, and they never got it. One player, just one player, could've been the spark and changed everything around.

They "choked", plain and simple, when they picked the team. Then they wished Lemieux and Yzerman were there to hold the hands of the "experienced" players they picked.


I don't buy that... Sakic.... You head to pick, he was the projected leader.
Thornton... top-3 forward this season, with Jagr and Alfie.
Richards, playoff MVP.
Lecavalier... deserved to be there, IMO.

If anybody should carry a grudge over not being selected, it's Staal. Not Crosby.

I disagree. The team played pretty uninspired hockey (I think most, if not all, would agree with that), so if you brought in one guy who played with passion and always attacked the net, he might've been the spark that got the rest of the team going. You can have 350 hemi engine that can put out all the power and torque you'd ever need, and so long as it's running, it'll run through anything, but if it's stopped, it needs a spark to get going. Even taking away his offensive skillset, Crosby's game is suited to be a spark. Maybe he wouldn't have made the difference on his own, but he definitely had the potential to be the spark that would get Canada's offensive machine going. If St. Loius played the type of game he played in 2003-04, he could have been the spark. If Iginla played his balls to the walls crash the net style that he's played in recently memory, he could have been the spark. All the team needed, imo, was a spark to get the rest of the team going, and they never got it. One player, just one player, could've been the spark and changed everything around.

The Canadians had players who played well in specific games, but what it comes down to is that adding one different player wouldn' t have changed the outcome. Crosby's not a difference-maker at the highest level yet, and the only way his addition to the team would have helped anything is with a different a group of largely different players that would've...I don't know...been hungrier, gelled better...

I don't buy that... Sakic.... You head to pick, he was the projected leader.
Thornton... top-3 forward this season, with Jagr and Alfie.
Richards, playoff MVP.
Lecavalier... deserved to be there, IMO.

If anybody should carry a grudge over not being selected, it's Staal. Not Crosby.

Noone is claiming Staal shouldn't have been there. Noone is that stupid.

Absolutely noone.

Noone is claiming Staal shouldn't have been there. Noone is that stupid.

Absolutely noone.

Okay. So who would have you kicked out in favor of Crosby..... Supposing Staal is ahead of him on the depth chart...

Sakic, Thornton, Richards, Lecavalier, Staal? :dunno:

Okay. So who would have you kicked out in favor of Crosby..... Supposing Staal is ahead of him on the depth chart...

Sakic, Thornton, Richards, Lecavalier, Staal? :dunno:

I would have named him as a RW possibly moving him to center after watching the "inspired" play of Thorton and Lecavalier.

Staal would be a top 6 before even starting to fill in role players. Sakic would have been captain but not necessarily top 6.
Richards top 6 but not necessarily center.

Okay. So who would have you kicked out in favor of Crosby..... Supposing Staal is ahead of him on the depth chart...

Sakic, Thornton, Richards, Lecavalier, Staal? :dunno:

I would have kicked vinny....and st. louis...and doan...and draper...and iginla..staal, spezza, crosby and phaneuf all should have been on the team instead of the struggling vets with "experience."

Ofcourse he says Crosby should've been there....

.... more liability for Team Canada, thus a 3 or 4-0 shutout of Canada in the quarters.

Ovechkin didn't make a difference. He scored the game winning goal, but the team won, not Ovechkin.

No disrespect for Ovechkin though, of course. He played a great game, it's just that it was a team effort.

One player wouldn't have made a difference, but several would have.

IN: Spezza, Staal, Crosby, Kariya, Shanahan, Phaneuf, Boyle

OUT: Lecavalier, St. Louis, Nash, Bertuzzi, Draper, Foote, Regehr

*these two sets of players have similar levels of international experience, in fact, the first group probably has more.

That's the thing. I don't agree with Bob MacKenzie that you leave the players that were there off the hook by questioning the selections. To the contrary, they chose great players that were having bad seasons or that don't have skill sets that translate well to international ice.


Regehr??? Did you watch any games? Regehr was probably our best d-man in our own end!

Ovechkin didn't make a difference. He scored the game winning goal, but the team won, not Ovechkin.

No disrespect for Ovechkin though, of course. He played a great game, it's just that it was a team effort.

Look "difference" up in the dictionary one more time.

Ovechkin was spectacular throughout the entire Olympics.

Crosby wasn't even there.

/end

i would take crosby ahead of sakic, richards, lecavalier, spezza, and staal. Thornton is the only center that has been playing better hockey than crosby.

Look "difference" up in the dictionary one more time.

If Ovechkin didn't score that goal, somebody else would have.

If Ovechkin didn't score that goal, somebody else would have.

Adam Foote?

Adam Foote?

Chris Pronger

The problem with all these "if only" scenarios is that it assumes that everyone who you would sub in would be playing amazing whereas the guys they are replacing played badly...and that just is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

I thougth Staal and Crosby should have been there too (not so much Spezza) but if the entire roster played this badly, why does anyone assume that Staal and Crosby would play amazing? The same malaise and lack of intensity that beset Iginla, Richards, Lecavalier, Sakic, Gagne, Nash, etc. etc. could have very easily affected anyone you put into the roster. Team Canada's problem was that it was not playing together as a unit and guys were trying to do too much individually. Remember when Heatley tried to take it coast-to-coast all by himself on that solo rush?

The only way you can argue that Crosby and Staal would have really made a difference is if you believe they would have been able, as rookies, to inspire their teammates to raise their collective play. I love Sid and I love AO, but neither of them makes their teammates that much better, they are just individually amazing players. The way this team played, even Ovechkin would not have made a difference.

Imagine... Crosby on team Canada and they still loose. Just imagine the outcry of negativity, especially if he wouldn't have preformed well, he might have as well retired right there an then as he would have never heard the end of it. Same goes to Gretzky in such a scenario, and Quinn for playing him too much.

Regehr??? Did you watch any games? Regehr was probably our best d-man in our own end!

I was just thinking the same thing.

Robyn Regehr was not outstanding by any stretch of the imagination but IMO he was the best defender on Team Canada.

Perhaps being an Oilers fan clouded Hemsky4PM's judgement because if we went by performance alone, Robyn Regehr was much better than Chris Pronger.

IN: Spezza, Staal, Crosby, Kariya, Shanahan, Phaneuf, Boyle

OUT: Lecavalier, St. Louis, Nash, Bertuzzi, Draper, Foote, Regehr



i'm pretty sure i disagree with absolutely everything here.

Okay. So who would have you kicked out in favor of Crosby..... Supposing Staal is ahead of him on the depth chart...

Sakic, Thornton, Richards, Lecavalier, Staal? :dunno:

Considering Crosby can play the wing, there would easily have been room.

lol you guys think Crosby would have stayed disciplined???

Whenever the going gets tough, Crosby is the first one to end up in the penalty box. He would have probably cost us a few goals. Crosby is just not ready yet. A bad experience could go a long way to possibly halting his development somewhat.

Gretzky made a good decision not taking crosby, he was too young, inexperienced, undisplined...

Staal on the otherhand....

lol you guys think Crosby would have stayed disciplined???

Whenever the going gets tough, Crosby is the first one to end up in the penalty box. He would have probably cost us a few goals. Crosby is just not ready yet. A bad experience could go a long way to possibly halting his development somewhat.

Gretzky made a good decision not taking crosby, he was too young, inexperienced, undisplined...

Staal on the otherhand....

Right.

No doubt Sid would have "Bertuzzied" someone due to lack of experience.

Right.

No doubt Sid would have "Bertuzzied" someone due to lack of experience.

Malkin nearly did....

lol you guys think Crosby would have stayed disciplined???

Whenever the going gets tough, Crosby is the first one to end up in the penalty box. He would have probably cost us a few goals. Crosby is just not ready yet. A bad experience could go a long way to possibly halting his development somewhat.

Gretzky made a good decision not taking crosby, he was too young, inexperienced, undisplined...

Staal on the otherhand....
Maybe you shouldn't post about something you know nothing about.Check out WJC's,Presidents Trophy,and Memorial Cup........in other words games that mattered.

Hindsight or not Crosby certainly has the one attribute that is a must for Olympic hockey: Speed

Yes he is too high-strung and would take penalties, but is it even possible for a 18 year old to ‘out-do’ some of the boneheaded penalties Team Canada took?

But I guess Crosby needs a 2 week rest so the Pens can make a playoffs run ;) Calder run? Rocket/Ross run... no?

He will have absolutely nothing to show for this year :(

Sure it would have been lots of pressure for Crosby, any less then the media had put onto him by declaring him >>>>>>>>>>>>> every hockey player in the history of the game?

Maybe you shouldn't post about something you know nothing about.Check out WJC's,Presidents Trophy,and Memorial Cup........in other words games that mattered.

:clap: great post.

I mean, WJC's and Mem Cups have nothing on meaningless games against Atlanta where he gets hit from behind by Ilya, takes a retaliation penalty on him, and then gets pointed at while in the box...

People make way too much out of his undisciplined play

I keep seeing some people wanting Shanahan to be there and this is nuts. Shanahan was invisible in Nagano and also in Salt lake, hes horrible on the big ice. Maybe Tanguay, Cheechoo, Kariya, Spezza and Stall would have change something but i still believe that this tem could have get it done. The transition game was horrible and this was the main reason why they couldnt generate offense. The Finns, Russians, Czechs and Swedes gave us a clinic on how creating offense on the big ice by activating your defense but mostly by giving the puck to players in full stride. Watching the Czechs doing it is a thing of beauty.

People make way too much out of his [Crosby's] undisciplined play
Amen. It is ridiculous. Sure he is feisty, but he has to be. He is just like half of the NHL.

Malkin nearly did....

Malkin would have been pounded into the ice...