60

Martin Brodeur: Not a goaltender


 

The Heritage Minister tweets his colour commentary.

I hope Brendan Shanahan, Cam Neely and Ray Bourque come out in the 3rd

Fyi, shots in the game 45-22 for Canada. 3rd period: 14-3

Start Luongo next was my point: Fyi, shots in the game 45-22 for Canada. 3rd period: 14-3


 

Martin Brodeur: Not a goaltender

  1. Brodeur played terribly tonight and based on this performance, Luongo probably should start next!

    I usually just read past the "Wherry, you're a partisan hack"-type of comments that accompany most of your posts without giving them much credibility, but I'm really having trouble seeing this as anything but rather petty and partisan.

    • To further clarify – it's the title that's really irking me. I hope I don't have to explain why…

      • Brodeur is a Liberal? That would explain a few things.

        • Hardly, he's just a prop Wherry's using to poke fun at a Conservative for saying something that's entirely reasonable (a large number of dedicated Canadian hockey fans, myself included are saying it – and unlike many of us, Moore's only criticizing Broduer implicitly).

          Not only does the title completely misrepresent what Moore's saying both in wordage and intent (poor journalism at its finest), it also implies, even jokingly, that Brodeur is not a goalie?! That's just flat-out disrespectful. I'm as critical of his performance as anyone, but neither I, nor Moore, are insulting the man's amazing goaltending career. I know, Wherry's joking, but that doesn't make insulting a Canadian Olympian to attack a politician for saying something completely uncontroversial justified, especially for a journalist.

          • if you know it is a joke craig, then don't you you know it isn't serious/that the literal meaning doesn't apply?

          • Intent doesn't absolve him of action. He may not have meant to insult Brodeur, but that's exactly what he's doing, in the worst possible way, by attacking Brodeur's professional standing at a job that Brodeur's excelled at for two decades. When is belittling an Olympian's status not just as a master of their sport, but even as a participant, ever appropriate?

            If it were satire – if Wherry were just taking what Moore said and taken it to the extreme, that would be different. But Moore said nothing of the sort, not even remotely a less severe version of that. As john g says, there's nothing noteworthy about this tweet besides the fact that it's from a Conservative Cabinet Minister – so why bring it up and throw a back-hand shot at Brodeur in the process?

          • The joke is that Brodeur is as much not a goalie as Dion was not a leader. The CPC said that Dion wasn't a leader when they actually meant he wasn't a good leader; Moore, Wherry jokes, by tweeting that Luongo should go in, implies that Brodeur is performing badly, ergo is not a goalie. Part of the joke is also that it's absolutely friggin' ridiculous for a relatively senior Cabinet minister to be tweeting his thoughts on goalie selection like he was in Grade 10.

          • What Moore posted is exactly what hundreds of other Canadian Hockey fans were and are saying – it's only ridiculous for him to tweet it if he's being offensive (he's barely being critical – all criticism is implied), or if we're now expecting politicians to not have opinions on completely non-political things.

            The link to the Dion criticisms are weak, at best and doesn't change that this is hyperbole on something Moore never said – he never says that Brodeur is a bad goalie (nor are the majority of people who are criticizing Brodeur now). Heck, even the criticism of Brodeur is implied, making what Moore said very, very mundane.

          • Look, I'm sure you're right if we come right down to it, but how could anyone — Wherry, Moore, the puck itself — be implying that Brodeur is literally not a goaltender? He's one of the greatest goalies of all time.

            "if we're now expecting politicians to not have opinions on completely non-political things."

            Oh, they can have as many as they like — they can discourse on their thong size for all I care — as long as it's not on the @#$%$* twitter.

          • Intent doesn't absolve him of action. He may not have meant to insult Brodeur, but that's exactly what he's doing, in the worst possible way, by attacking Brodeur's professional standing at a job that Brodeur's excelled at for two decades

            hey, who said Canadians need to get a bit more perspective when it comes to hockey?!?!

          • 1) I get the joke, that doesn't mean it's either funny or appropriate.

            2) We're arguing over the internet, and both of us do it rather consistently. Do you really want to start accusing others of spending too much time on the computer?

          • 1) then you would understand that he is not making fun of Brodeur he is making fun of the Tory talking points that he is applying.

            2) i didn't say you were spending too much time on the computer, it just appears that to the degree you are outraged about this, maybe you need a short break now… by all means come back later!

          • This didn't strike me as looking to score political points, just as a not very good joke.

            At the same time though, I'm mildly curious why Wherry found this particular tweet noteworthy. If there were medals for armchair coaching after a hockey loss Canada would own the podium. There's nothing more Canadian than that. It's not like Moore is suggesting something that about 10 million other Canadians are thinking…

        • Funny how people susceptible to the belligerent chess-playing of everything-goes CONs take exception to someone tossing out a tepid (in intent only) cheap shot at their own petard.
          What a strange web we weave, eh CraigO?

          • Ahem. I'm not a Conservative supporter. Heck, I'll probably be dancing in the streets when Harper is booted out of office. But that doesn't mean I condone using Canadian Olympic athletes as tools to score political points, especially by journalists who are supposed to at least try to be unbiased in their reporting.

            I appreciate 99% of what Wherry brings forward on this blog, but this is just so obviously partisan and classless, that I can't help but be critical.

          • Your sudden distaste for Mr. Wherry`s antics that involved a favourite of yours ( Brodeur ) only confirms my opinion of those who " appreciate 99% of what Wherry brings forward on this blog ". They tend to have a very subjective and biased view of the world.

          • "They tend to have a very subjective and biased view of the world."

            Also known as humans.

          • As one of those people:

            1. Proud to say this is true in my case.
            2. I have no idea how this make me different from anyone else.

          • I don`t know why your lack of objectivity makes you proud. Mr. Wherry`s bias seems to force him to write silly posts like the one above.

          • Everyone has their biases. On 99% of Wherry's posts, he at least brings something noteworthy to the table, that may be motivated by his bias, but is still either a valid criticism or an idea worth discussing.

            This isn't a valid criticism, because Moore said nothing controversial, offensive or out of place. It may be something worth discussing (should Luongo start next?) but not when it's introduced with such a misleading and inappropriate headline.

          • I'm feeling more and more petarded every time I read this comment, actually.

  2. Why does the Heritage Minister hate our athletes?

    • Because Sport Canada falls under his department.

  3. I'm sure quite a few Canadians who watched the game would agree with Moore's assessment.

    • I am shocked he did not joke how the right wing party was rooting for the American Team.

      • Unfortunately, its not a joke when its true.;^)
        Harper has a letter ready to file to the WSJ just in case…

        • It must be difficult in the angry left to wake up every morning to watch their political party support the CPC agenda.

  4. I think this was a case of USA's goaltender dominating tonight. Brodeur had some unlucky shots go in. Give Luongo a chance next, but Brodeur would also be a good pick.

    • Agreed, a few mistakes, but our team dominated the ice for a long period of time. The penalties in the 3rd period did not help with the momentum.

  5. james moore is a useless douche who prob cannot even skate let alone compete at anything remotely athletic… damn useless couch potato.

    • ad hominens really don't counter his points, fyi…

  6. … although i should clarify brodeur played bad, but it’s impossible to play perfectly every night. he’ll bounce back if they stick with him.

    • I think Brodeur's credentials made his start a no brainer. In that it wasn't the end of Canada's chances I don't see that one soft goal can't be redeemed, and I'd be more than confident having the ol' man standing in the crease again for the next battle. No matter who's going to be handed the task, Germany will be a different challenge – we do have to bury the puck with more regularity.

  7. I'm really uncomfortable with the participation of professional athletes in the Olympics. I've heard all the rationalizations about why this is justified and necessary, but I can't help thinking that having well-established professionals playing removes an important opportunity for up-and-comers to show what they can do and perhaps establish their own careers and credentials.

    I don't know how this can be resolved, but perhaps putting a sport-appropriate age limit to participation could be considered. Or, in the interests of selling MORE tickets, perhaps rigidly "non-professional" and "professional" catagories could be established.

    I also don't think success (or not!) at the Olympics, in any sport, says anything at all about Canada, or any other country. What, fundamentally, does winning a medal really mean to anyone but the athlete that wins it?

    • In the field of hockey there is no shortage whatsoever of opportunity to show one's ability. Your concern would be better spent on sports which have no professional division whatsoever, where people can rise to the absolute peak of achievement and still need a day job.

      • That's certainly the case in Canada, Mike, but I wouldn't say that can be generalized to other countries.

  8. Brodeur is a good goalkeeper. He just had a bad night.

    • Brodeur is just past his prime. The classy thing for him to do would be to admit it and let someone with a lot more potential mind the nets.

  9. Brodeau played HORRIBLY last night. If he had have stayed in his GD net rather than try to play both defence positions in addition to goalie, we would have won the game. I thought maybe he'd learn after getting burned the first time, but he kept leaving the net to play the puck when it was clear the defence had it under control. Three of the American gols were a direct result of his ranging too far afield. He is likely the best golie of all time, but last night he singlehandledly cost Canada the game.

  10. OMG, that would leave us with too few Francophones on the ice!!!!

    Way to go Moore, there go two more ridings in Quebec.

    • Thanks a lot for that little bit of info. I was hoping Mr. Wherry wouldn`t notice Moore`s obvious anti-francophone comments. Well I guess we know what the next post here will be about.

      • Careful now, yawning is contagious.

  11. Who was he tweeting for? Either we were watching the game ourselves or we didn't care.

    • "Who was he tweeting for?"

      I think you've arrived at the core existential question of our age.

  12. James Moore is just a puppet for "I am writing a hockey book" sweater photo-op guy. Expect a chapter about what Master strategist would have done to beat the Americans in Harper's upcoming book.

    Dear Leader sees all and knows everything.

  13. To be quite honest, I've never liked Brodeur's style of net minding. Luongo or Fleury would have been way better choices. In fact, wasn't Lu's save average higher going into the games??

  14. Tweet en Francais, s'il vous plait.

    • LOL – yeah. I mean oui, there's not enough French in this discourse!

  15. Reasons for last night's loss

    1) Brodeur: Forgot how to handle the puck, the irony is perfect. The best in the league at it flubs the puck twice and the Americans score twice.

    2) Perimeter shots: We outshot the States, but until the late going didn't get a ton of really good chances. Miller did a great job making the first save and the Canadians couldn't get to the rebounds at all. Made Miller's job a lot easier, something you probably shouldn't be doing for the best goalie currently in the tournament.

    3) Scott Neidermayer and Chris Pronger and the fact it's no longer 2004.

    4) Dear Joe Thornton, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but you're like 6"4 and like 230 lbs. Brian Rafalksi is like 5"10 and 6 years older than you. When you're coming in one on one he shouldn't be taking you out. 37 phyics professors quit their jobs in shame last night because of you. Hope you're happy.

    5) Line changes: I understand Babcock is flurrying around trying to find chemistry in short order, but they need more than 2 shifts to gel. The constant switching of the lines is stopping the players from developing any chemistry other than the Sharks line where poor Patrick Marleau deserves a gold just for playing with Thornton and Heatley (I hate that Heatley is playing quite well and may make me cheer for him for another week).

    6) Cory Perry better be the 13th forward on Tuesday after that abomination of a puck chase last night.

    • Regarding (4), lower centre of gravity actually helps the shorter guy when checking.

  16. I'm not sure what game everyone else watched, but I didn't think Brodeur was that bad, although I wish he would stay in his net.

    I think, that except for the last 4 minutes of the game, the Canadians lacked intensity. If they played the first 56 minutes like they played the last 4 I don't think there would have been any doubt about the outcome.

  17. and Jeff Carter was not good enough for this team

  18. Brodeur is one of the best, but he was trying too hard to show off his puck-handling skills. Threw the whole team off a little bit.

    Other than that, great game.

  19. Tweet en Francais, s'il vous plait.

  20. Wow James Moore took a break from lobbying for UFC coming to Vancouver to Tweet about hockey.

  21. I'm tired of hearing how Team Canada was foiled by a "hot" goaltender. Fact is, Team USA simply capitalized on a "cold" goaltender. Miller is a modern butterfly goalie. He takes away the bottom of the net, and moves efficiently throughout his zone. Brodeur is a flopper…and flopping just doesn't cut it in the modern game. Miller has a bright future. Brodeur had a bright past. Marty needs to update is game or step aside to make way for the next generation.

  22. So Canadians have flocked like a herd of sheep to embrace the "Louuuuuu" chant every time Luongo touches the puck. Pure genius. So when Luongo makes the save, or to put it another way when the opponents fail to score on Canada, make it sound like the Canadian crowd is booing. On second thought genius does this move no justice.

  23. Why do goalies in general leave their nets in order to play the puck behind the goal, when there is no chance a member of the opposing team will get to the puck before the goalie's team mates? Is it because they are bored, think they can handle the puck better than their team mates, or are they just stupid? Not only do they often get in the way of their own players, but they also risk not getting back into net quickly enough.
    Brodeur simply lost that game for Canada. His batting of the puck in mid-air and sending it to the Americans so they could score their second goal was beyond stupid.

Sign in to comment.