You’re right, Alanah - it’s an interesting concept, this round table.

But man, am I tired of hearing people go on and on about how much better hockey was twenty or thirty years ago.

These are the same people who a few years ago complained about clutching and grabbing, and how it was slowing down the game. So the league gets rid of that. Now it’s too fast? Sweet G-bus, will they never be happy?

And are they trying to tell us Alex Ovechkin isn’t exciting to watch? Crosby? Gaborik? Heatley? Iginla?

I’ve watched some of those so-called “classic” NHL games on CBC and frankly, I don’t see what’s so great about watching a bunch of salmon-shouldered beanpoles lolligagging around while one or two star players skate circles around them.

I’d rather watch a game where the coaches obviously have a plan and every player on the ice is a skilled athlete who buys into that plan.

OK, done venting now.

Posted by the sieve from freakin' calgary on 01/08/08 at 04:41 PM ET

Ha!  Vent all you like—I know exactly what you mean.  Setting aside this particular program for a moment, there are always a handful of writers that are determined to find fault, because that’s nearly all they know how to do. Or perhaps all they want to do.

About the topic in this show, I just found the very question a bit bizarre.  It really never occurred to me before that a notable professional hockey journalist could look at a camera and say—with a straight face, no less—that hockey being a fast paced sport with athletic players, can be viewed as a bad thing.

Next we’ll be hearing something like how troublesome it is when arenas sell out. Or that some players score far too many goals.

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 01/08/08 at 04:58 PM ET

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

And what’s with Willes? “This wonderful easel for these artists to paint beautiful pictures on…”

Is he going to break into song?

Posted by the sieve from the bovine city on 01/08/08 at 05:07 PM ET

I never, ever miss a televised Canucks game. The concept of paying $12.95 for Canucks PPV is a non starter for me. You certainly can’t call me cheap as
I fly down for about 10 or so games a year. (Including this coming Friday’s game against the resurgent Coyotes wohoo)

I will never pay $12.95 for PPV.

Call me cheap, but I don’t even have digital cable so I can’t even if I wanted to.

Posted by Ryan from The Puddle, BC on 01/08/08 at 05:35 PM ET

the sieve— God, I hope not. Though I agree, you could probably set it to music…

Ryan— The only reason I have digital cable is to access those bloody PPVs—but I’m afraid I’m too much of an addict to pass up those games.

(And really, no matter how you cut it, $12.95 is cheaper than the cost of taking me to a bar for three hours to watch the game there.) 

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 01/08/08 at 06:31 PM ET

I never realized Ronning was such a play-making expert.  The only expertise I recall from his playing days was how to avoid an inevitable hit from a man twice his size (and those men being the vast majority of the NHL)

I’m sure the Nucks’ equipment staff don’t mind not stocking children’s sized equipment anymore…

Posted by LOUiE from Calgary on 01/08/08 at 07:43 PM ET

It costs me about $1300 bucks a game to fly down / hotel / food etc. LOL.

However I do know someone from Smithers who has season’s tickets and goes to about 90% of the games.

He actually has a condo / car just for when they go down there. Insane!

off to NHL RADIO.

Posted by Ryan from dapuddle on 01/08/08 at 10:05 PM ET