So, having given up on the misery that is Rotherham United (not really, more a case of signing up to ESPN), I'm very much getting into hockey.

For reasons that I'm still to understand, I've opted to follow the Maple Leafs. The best reason I've got so far is that I like their badge. It doesn't tie in with the rest of my US sports following which is entirely centred around Chicago, for no better reason that the first NFL game I saw on Channel 4 was the Bears beating the Cowboys years ago.

Funny how, every sporting team I seem to touch becomes mired in mediocrity, but there we are. Not that I'm suggesting that's the only reason the Blackhawks look quite good this season.

Still, having read Zack Hample's "Watching Baseball Smarter", which seems quite good, I was wondering if there was something similar for hockey?

I've understood loads more of it just by repeated watching. But if not a book, is there a website that would be handy?

For reasons that I'm still to understand, I've opted to follow the Maple Leafs.

You poor, poor, man. A world of pain and depression awaits. Supporting Rotherham will be like following Manchester United in comparison.

I can't help much with the kind of book you're looking for I'm afraid. The most extensively recommended book on Hockey is Ken Dryden's The Game which is mainly reflection on the place the sport holds in Canadian society through the eyes of someone who played at the highest level.

I'd recommend checking in frequently to one of the Canadian newspapers who's hockey coverage is extensive. The Globe & Mail is pretty good. They have four or five regular hockey feature writers and several other reporters who cover games. Also a regular weekly round-table discussion podcast which is usually decent. Also, being TO based, there's extensive coverage of the forty year old slo-mo train wreck that are the Maple Laffs.

What Amor said about the Leafs and The Game.

If you are trying to get an insight into tactics, this book may be of interest. It manages to cover quite a bit, without assuming a tremendous amount of knowledge. You can get an idea of its level by reading the excerpts on Amazon that are accessible from the link.

If you want to get a sense of the game's history, I am a fan of Michael McKinley's two books: Putting a Roof on Winter and Hockey: a People's History. The latter was published to accompany a CBC series, and is stronger in terms of illustrations and the like.

Link to the G&M's hockey page.

Excellent. I'll check them out. Cheers. Oh I can tell the leafs are bad, despite the Ottawa game, but think it's more the history etc that will give me the insight (maybe) into such things. Hopefully in the same way I'll work out why the Cubs & Bears are so rubbish

Danger Mouse wrote:

For reasons that I'm still to understand, I've opted to follow the Maple Leafs.

DON'T DO THIS TO YOURSELF. IT'S LIKE VOLUNTARILY BECOMING A GEORDIE.

This sad, painful thread is one of the reasons you don't see me in Sports.

Hearing someone say they're voluntarily nailing their flag to the Leafs mast is like hearing your child say they're thinking of trying crystal meth or heroin. You know....just to see what it's like.

I have to confess I've lost touch with hockey in the last 5-10 years. Just as the Hawks actually turn good, too! I can't tell you how good it is to look at the tables and actually see the Hawks above the Wings. I've waited a long time to see that.

I got into the Hawks in the Goulet/Roenick/Chelios era, thanks largely to EA NHL Hockey 92 on the Megadrive* and the decline in televised NFL over here.

(* - I haven't owned a version of that since 2000. Do you still get the player writhing and blood spilling out of his head onto the ice when you injure them?)

You've no idea how much I chuckled when my Spanish team were compared to Newcastle. Now, why are the Leafs such a laughing stock? Is it all just cos they should be great but aren't?

I may opt for shameless glory hunting and switch elsewhere though it must be said

Dunno. I'm stuck with the Ottawa Senators. I've no idea either on whether this is good or bad...

I'm lumbered with the Canadiens me, would be rude not to support them, being born in Montreal.

evilC wrote:
I got into the Hawks in the Goulet/Roenick/Chelios era, thanks largely to EA NHL Hockey 92 on the Megadrive* and the decline in televised NFL over here.

(* - I haven't owned a version of that since 2000. Do you still get the player writhing and blood spilling out of his head onto the ice when you injure them?)

Me too, except it was the Pittsburgh Penguins (seemed natural as I was already a Steelers fan) in the Mario Lemieux era, and EA NHL 94 on the PC, in the days when you did everything with a joystick and two buttons.

I later upgraded to EA NHL 2003 - far more realistic, much smoother graphics, many more buttons, more options - but didn't enjoy it significantly more than the "original". My children enjoy it, especially the fighting, which I believe they removed in subsequent versions at the NHL's request (bad for the sport's image) and then restored in more recent versions (bad for sales without it!).

The latest plans to replace Southampton's long-lost Ice Rink now mention hosting an Ice Hockey team - that might be fun if it ever comes off (we've been waiting over 20 years, so I'm not holding my breath).

The Game is one of my favourite sports books, but I can't get into ice hockey. I think it's hard to follow the puck if you're not raised on the game, plus it feels like all the ills of the Premiership (games played too fast, physicality valued over finesse) raised to the <i>n</i>th degree. I do realise I'm being unfair.

Despite living in the Vancouver area for sixteen years, working at GM Place for ten years, and being at Game Six of the Canucks-Rangers Stanley Cup Finals, I never really got into ice hockey either.

I think for me it was a combination of bad officiating (if it's a foul in regular time then it's a foul in overtime too), fighting, and especially Don Cherry and his followers.

I will admit though that watching a game is far better live than on TV.

I think that the only bit of ice hockey culture I've kept is my dislike of the Maple Leafs. In case you didn't know DM, if you don't support 'Canada's Team', then you hate them. There is no middle ground.

Danger Mouse wrote:
Now, why are the Leafs such a laughing stock? Is it all just cos they should be great but aren't?



Ah. But they're not a laughing stock. (Not in the traditional sense.)
No, they are loathed.

First, they are from Toronto, so they're a high-profile symbol of a hated town.

Second, they've broken hearts by not winning the Stanley Cup for 42 years and counting.

Third, they still sell out each and every game, win or lose. And they don't sell it out for peanuts. They sell it out with some of the most expensive tickets in the NHL.

Fourth, they are one of the wealthiest teams in the league, so they could afford to cobble together some good talent, but they don't. They just keep milking the cash cow, year after year after year.

Fifth, they were owned for years by the truly heinous Harold Ballard. This is the man who booked the Beatles into Maple Leaf Gardens for one show, and then sold tickets for two shows - forcing the band to oblige or break the hearts of 20,000 young girls. He then, in the middle of summer, turned off the air conditioning and sold only large beverages. He was a filthy human being, and he was the highly visible face of the Leafs for decades.

Then there's current ownership and management, which someone else can handle for reasons I can't get in to.

Despite living in the Vancouver area for sixteen years, working at GM Place for ten years,

What...? Was this pre-OTF? When did you leave?

I think for me it was a combination of bad officiating (if it's a foul in regular time then it's a foul in overtime too),

This bugged me too for years, now it just adds to the fascination. Hockey has the most elaborate double standards in professional sport, sometimes articulated as the "rules" (the laws as written) versus the "code" (unwritten laws tacitly understood by those playing the game but not always by those who don't.) The officiating discrepancies are part of that, as is when and who you fight.

Recently for instance there's been a terrific hoo-hah begun publicly by Canucks player Alex Burrows. He claimed that in the pre-game skate of a recent game against Nashville the referee told him that he would "get even" with him for "making him look bad" in a previous game. Sure enough in the third period he had two invisible penalties called against him. Cue two weeks of denial and counter-claim, lead by the unctuous HNiC point man Ron MacLean who delivered the most one-sided piece of character defamation against Burrows I've ever witnessed. This was followed by a refusal on the part of the Canucks to allow interviews on HNiC, and so on. It was a classic case of the code at work.

Worn Old Motorbike wrote:


Ah. But they're not a laughing stock. (Not in the traditional sense.)
No, they are loathed.



I think you were right the first time, at least from my perspective as someone who has only been in the country two years. They seemingly can't get anything right on the ice.

I loathe the CBC bias towards them (and to a lesser extent other networks); the fact they are on the early game on HNiC irrespective of how bad they are is a pain. I had to purchase extra time-shifted channels on my cable just to be able to watch Ottawa and Montreal games (I was on vacation in Ottawa with a friend and his fiance during the Sens' cup run in 2007 and have a soft spot for them)

And Bob Cole's 'commentary' of the recent Flames-Leafs game in Calgary back in January was a barely concealed exercise in pro-Leafs cheerleading. He sounded gutted when they lost. He's the Canadian equivalent of John Motson.

I was also a big NHL/Megadrive fan – the Boston Bruins for me. Ray Bourque, Cam Neely, staying up to three in the morning playing a ten-person league with mates, ah, the geekiness of youth.

47: you can't be faulted for supporting the Sens. See, they have hope. With them you can point to a cup run in your lifetime. With the Leafs, you can always cling to 'there's always next year', but you know there really isn't. Not next year. Not this decade either. But maybe before you die. Who knows. Anything's possible.

I am very interested to see how Dion Phaneuf will fare in Toronto. It's fair to say that he's been the lightning rod for us Flames fans in the last year-18 months, and was apparently the source of much of the dressing room disharmony out here.

If that's what happens in the third smallest NHL market, the mind boggles what'll happen in Toronto.

I've been thinking the same thing. He could be the source of a lot of anger-energy, both from inside and outside.