Honestly, I'm not even sure where to begin... I responded to a post that suggested that the forum was getting overrun by people that wanted to talk about the EPL. That's clearly not Canadian content and, again, clearly, there are many, many places one can appropriately discuss the EPL. I never made a comment about the TV thread. To be clear, I don't care if there is a TV thread. To me, it's clearly something that adds value to the forum. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Posts about Liverpool's chances in Europe are off-topic, posts about where to watch Liverpool on TV in Canada, although not dripping-in-maple-syrup-Canadian, have enough Canadian content to pass the smell test. Again, how hard is that to understand? And, you got me. I called the poseur-Brit's fan son. I fully admit that I was insulting him and was suggesting that he was a little too sure of himself and that his posts made made me think he was young. I still think he's young. I was reacting to what I considered to be a pretty damn condescending and self-righteous post of his that was directed towards me. Still, you're right, I was bad. I'll try to be nicer in the future. I'm not sure how a word is "intimidating," but I'll leave that one well enough alone. Lastly, a word about the Brit. If you folks want to "debate" Owen Hargreaves (see, I wrote the name as an effort to be nicer!) then you have to be prepared to deal with the reaction that he causes amongst many Canadian supporters. He's a hot button topic on Canadian forums. My opinion of him, which is far from unique, is solidified. You aren't going to change my mind about him and his selfish, soulless decision. Actually, it's my experience that you aren't going to change anyone's mind about him. Those that are OK with the sell-out are sincerely baffled by the strong reaction he evokes. I get that. I don't get them, but I get that. So, and I'm saying this as nicely as I can...I would recommend that we stay away from further debates on the former Calgary resident. They don't end well.
What difference would it make if I were young? (I turn 38 on Sunday by the way). You seem to imply that young people don't know what they're talking about, if they happen to criticize soccer in Canada. And another clarification: where did I ever say I was an Owen Hargreaves fan? All I said was that the national team made a huge mistake cutting him. The issue of him deciding to play for England is irrelevant to me.
Happy birthday, gramps (that was a joke. You're older than me). I felt (and still feel) that you justified Hargreaves decision. Many others have. I strongly believe that his decision isn't justifiable. BTW, the national team never cut him. The national team would have been happy to have him play. A single youth team cut him, once. I'm sure he isn't the only successful athlete to have been cut at one point in his or her life. There are lots of things that the CSA can legitimately be faulted on. I don't think this is one of them. And, as long as we are going down the where have I route...show me where I have ever said that you, or anyone else, can't criticize Canadian soccer. I challenged your opinion on Hargreaves, that's all.
Terrible example. Brett Hull was drafted 117th overall by Calgary in 1984. He was slow, he was bad defensively, and he hadn't played any worthwhile hockey at the time (He was drafted from Junior A). He was cut from a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP team in 1986. Let's examine that a bit. Brett Hull was 22, and had played 2 years of college hockey in the US. He had put up good numbers, but college hockey, even then, was not as good as the CHL. Now, since it was a World Championship, that means that most of the players who made the team were NHLers. I haven't seen any lists yet, but most of those players would have been proven in the NHL, with some proven in the junior/farm levels. Brett Hull hadn't played a worthwhile game yet. So the best comparison that I can think of, Canadian soccer wise, would be if Andrea Lombardo were to be cut from the mens team. He's unproven at the top levels, and there's proven people ahead of him. It wasn't that Dave King made a mistake in cutting Hull. In hockey, we want to win, and we want to win now. Would you choose Hull, who's riding his father and uncle's fame (okay, so Dennis wasn't famous, but he was pretty good as well. Just not as good as Bobby, so he never really got recognised), or would you choose a proven player? I'd cut Hull any day of the week, even if I knew what he'd go off and do. He wasn't worth it.
Were there? Keep in mind that NHL players did not play for Team Canada at that time. The Brit was a kid trying out underage when he was cut from one team. If the actual reason he decided not to play for Canada internationally is because of this then he is pretty much a prima donna, don't you think? ANYWAY....
You don't know much about hockey do you. Since 1976, the World Championships has been open to anyone, including professionals. The only reason pro's weren't allowed was because of the rules from the Olympics. Until 1968, the world championship went to the Olympic winner. The Olympics did not allow NHL players until 1998. So yes, there were proven NHLers on the team. Well....technically I think Brett Hull would be more of a prima donna (how ever that's spelt). So you're 22, and you've been cut because older players are better than you. No big deal, at least not to me. If I've been cut compared to players my age, that's a bit different. The question is, why was he cut? I don't know (I'm also not defending/attacking OH, I only spoke because of my hockey knowledge), so I can't really say. Maybe he got in a disagreement with management so they cut him. Maybe they felt he had a big head and needed to be modest. Or maybe he just wasn't good enough. If he just wasn't good enough, then ya, that's a bad reason to run off to the Brits. If there were other reasons, then it might be okay. Also one must remember that within the other reasons could be something outside of that one tournament. I've read that Jonathan de Guzman wasn't well treated by the CSA, or something like that. That'd be a good reason to not play for Canada (or at least to shout for change in the CSA/wherever). The thing is, we're not Owen Hargreaves. He has his own life, and he has made his own decisions. As such, he plays for England. As much as I don't like the decision, I will cheer for him because he's a Canadian as well. As many have pointed out, Canadian soccer is a minnow compared to south america and europe. We should stand up for everyone we have, even if they choose to play elsewhere.
Not true. Jonathan's father has bad mouthed the CSA in the past because of their incompetance, not because of poor treatment. Jonathan has never spoken in praise or critism of the program. Daniel Fernandes, on the other hand is a different story....
At the risk of turning this into a pi$$ing match... Have you been paid to sit in a NHL press box Viruk? Did you interview Ted Nolan last Friday? Had a one-on-one with Darcy Tucker? Sat in former NHL linesman Ray Scapinello's living room and listened as he told stories of the 1994 Stanley Cup Final? Apologized to Bobby Baun because you had to ask him about the goal one more time.... 'Cause I have. I'm pretty confident my knowledge of hockey is, at the least, as good as yours. And we will always disagree about the Brit.
Now that I think of it, you could argue that cutting Brett Hull from the Canadian national team was not a mistake at all. If I recall correctly, Canada defeated the USA 5-2 in the Olympic Gold Medal Final of 2002, despite the fact Hull was in the USA line-up.
You could also point out that Brett Hull scored the winning goal in the 1996 World Cup against Canada...
Well, at first, I apologise. I guess everyone makes mistakes, and thus your mistake would have been assuming that NHL'ers weren't allowed to play in the 86 world championships. The only point I'm going to make, and I don't mean this as offensive, is that the Ottawa Citizen has a hockey writer who's a complete idiot. (therefore being paid to do that stuff doesn't technically make you knowledgeable about hockey. I say technically because I'm trying not to be offensive, and I'm no longer making assumptions about your knowledge) He wrote an article that said the redline (and thus the 2 line pass) was first put in to decrease scoring. I sent him an email saying that I was reading Roch Carrier's book on the rocket, and that Roch said it was put in to increase. He said something like "no offense to Roch, but he's an author, and can make mistakes about hockey". Then he referenced a book that says decrease. Well, I own that book (and another book with the same authors involved), and I couldn't find that reference. I did, however, find an article by those authors saying it was put in to increase offense. He just replied saying something meaningless. Now I have no respect for that idiot. (note: prior to the introduction of the redline, you couldn't pass forward across any line, so this definitely increased offense. I believe the previous year was when George Hainsworth had something like 22 shutouts in 44 games, so I really don't understand how the citizen writer thought otherwise...)
My mistake, for what it's worth, was that Hull was cut from King's 1984 Olympic team (where, if my memory is correct, there was a limited amount of minor pros allowed--although they may have loosened the rules in '88, rather than '84. I'd have to look that up and I don't have time now). And, to be clear, I'm not a NHL beat guy. However, as with any sports writer in this country, I've had more than a few opportunities to cover the game at its highest level. Knowing hockey is kind of a requirement of the job
I haven't looked into the olympic rules either, though I guess I could. I know I read that the world championship, prior to 76, allowed 9 NHLers, but Canada boycotted a bunch of competitions as they wanted more allowed. I believe that was a carryover from olympic rules, since the WC was part of the olympics until 68...so theoretically the Olympics could have kept that up afterwards. I consider hockey knowledge a requirement to being Canadian note: I just re-read your statement where you said you had a 1-on-1 with Darcy Tucker. You poor guy. and finally, if you ever see Wayne Scanlan (the Ottawa Citizen writer I mentioned), call him an idiot for me