Sunday, January 07, 2007

Canada wins gold

Note Jonathan Toews's colourful choice of language

6 Comments:

At 11:50 PM, January 07, 2007, Blogger J. Michael Neal said...

What I noticed about Toews' interview wasn't the swear word. It was the statement that, "We had to overcome so much." What, exactly, did they have to overcome? Not being a Canadian, I may have missed something, but I can't think of anything.

This is something that bugs me about sports today. Nobody gets the respect that they deserve, and everyone has to overcome adversity. Canada was one of the favorites coming into the tournament. They proceeded to win every game they played. I just don't see the adversity. Does everyone really need to have that kind of chip on their shoulder?

 
At 2:01 AM, January 08, 2007, Anonymous Peter Ahola said...

Ray Whitney was unavailable for F-ing comment I assume?

 
At 10:05 AM, January 08, 2007, Anonymous pete said...

While it's true the Canadians were among the favourites, I don't think it's fair to say they didn't face any adversity at all -- especially when we're 5,000 miles away saying that.

What about the stories claiming this team is incapable of scoring? What about having to kill off a 2-minute 5-on-3 in an elimination game? What about needing an 8-round shootout to overcome a strong rival? What about spending more than half of the 3rd period in the gold medal game a man down?

Hell, what about having to spend Christmas holidays in Europe as an 18-year-old, and having to play 6 games in about 10 days in a different time zone? With an entire country saying you can't match up to your peers of last year if you lose a game?

Granted, Your point about the overused cliches from athletes is still valid, I concede.

But it's not like this was a cakewalk.

It's not exactly "overcoming cancer" but I'd say it qualifies.

 
At 12:20 PM, January 08, 2007, Blogger J. Michael Neal said...

What about the stories claiming this team is incapable of scoring? What about having to kill off a 2-minute 5-on-3 in an elimination game? What about needing an 8-round shootout to overcome a strong rival? What about spending more than half of the 3rd period in the gold medal game a man down?

None of this is adversity; it's playing the game. If you think that playing the game is adversity, I suggest a different line of work.

 
At 3:55 PM, January 08, 2007, Anonymous pete said...

I suggest a different line of work

Different than what? My current job? I'm not a professional hockey-blog reader. I'm keeping my amateur status so I can comment on blog posts in the Olympics.

Whatever. I'm not going into a semantic argument over something as asinine as this. We essentially disagree on the definition of adversity.

I go with Oxford's "the condition of adverse fortune, or, a misfortune." Within the context of a hockey game, I'd say any of those things qualify as misfortunes.

You go with something else. Que sera sera.

Toews's postgame comments were inane and clicheed, as hockey interviews often are. In that we agree. Carry on.

 
At 8:29 PM, January 08, 2007, Anonymous ken said...

Maybe he meant they had to overcome the pain having Pierre Maguire and Bob McKenzie do colour commentary on their games?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


.

Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker