|
|
Post by CrocRob on Feb 16, 2010 23:45:24 GMT -5
Maybe I should start watching the Olympics more. Both times I've sat down to watch (both times at the behest of someone else, though) Canada has won a gold medal.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 17, 2010 0:20:09 GMT -5
Then you have no choice, fella. You are anchored to that chair in front of the tube. Or else, we'll send Luigi and Ivan after you.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 17, 2010 0:27:49 GMT -5
I for one am really enjoying the games and I really like the new attitude from the Canadian athletes as it is more of a winning orientated attitude and not just a happy to be here attitude like it was before. Begg-Smith is the Canadian that left Canada for Australia because he couldn't have his internet company and compete for Canada, right? Yes, it's perfectly fine to want to win. I am quite happy with the fact Begg-Smith considers himself Australian. I don't know if it was mentioned above, but when Bilodeau went to shake his hand after Alexandre won the gold, Begg-Smith turned away. Horrible display of class. Or should I say lack of class. He was probably too busy lamenting the dough he'll miss out on by placing 2nd. He may be a better person after one gets to know him, but that was not a mature response. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Feb 17, 2010 2:30:23 GMT -5
Markov in the lineup for Game 1.
10:57 of icetime after 2 periods.
Up 4-0 over Latvia after 2, I thought he might take the 3rd period off...and work his way back slowly...that is...if he's still suffering from whatever kept him out of two crucial games 3 and 4 days ago. (They've dressed 8 defensemen...and all are getting icetime....likely because the opponent is Latvia.)
Up 7-2, he remained in the 8-man rotation. Poor Latvian coverage allowed him to waltz in and get an assist on the 8th goal....late in the game.
Final ice time: 15:29.....4th most on D....so, I guess he's a-ok.
The coach divided up the D's TOI quite nicely.
17:00, 15:45, 15:44, 15:29; 14:51; 13:04; 13:01; 13:00.
That will likely change as the competition gets stronger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Feb 17, 2010 6:17:15 GMT -5
Markov in the lineup for Game 1. 10:57 of icetime after 2 periods. Up 4-0 over Latvia after 2, I thought he might take the 3rd period off...and work his way back slowly...that is...if he's still suffering from whatever kept him out of two crucial games 3 and 4 days ago. (They've dressed 8 defensemen...and all are getting icetime....likely because the opponent is Latvia.) Up 7-2, he remained in the 8-man rotation. Poor Latvian coverage allowed him to waltz in and get an assist on the 8th goal....late in the game. Final ice time: 15:29.....4th most on D....so, I guess he's a-ok. The coach divided up the D's TOI quite nicely. 17:00, 15:45, 15:44, 15:29; 14:51; 13:04; 13:01; 13:00. That will likely change as the competition gets stronger. From what I heard about Markov's injury, was that it was just a sciatic nerve issue that he's battled over the last few years...he wanted to play last weekend but was told that he needed a couple of days rest....and was given the OK to play in the Olympics by the team. |
|
|
|
Post by ValkyrieNS on Feb 17, 2010 6:54:29 GMT -5
From what I heard about Markov's injury, was that it was just a sciatic nerve issue that he's battled over the last few years...he wanted to play last weekend but was told that he needed a couple of days rest....and was given the OK to play in the Olympics but the team. That's right... we forgot to consult our source, didn't we?  *** Day 5:Women's Snowboard Cross:Thought it was rescheduled for another day, not later in the day. Just caught the small final and the big final, just in time to see Maelle Ricker win us a gold  Men's Hockey Canada vs Norway:The guys woke up after the 1st period was over... hat trick for Iginla and 3 assists for Crosby. Men's Hockey Russia vs Latvia:Marky! At least he had his number... Ilya was wearing 71 [which I associate with Evgeni, who was wearing 11 instead], so I got a little confused right there at the start. I can only assume that Ilya was a 71 at one point in his career, but should he not have stuck with the 17 he currently wears? I realize that he's older than Evgeni, so he would get first dibs on 71, but he's not currently wearing it... Anyone know? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 17, 2010 7:15:38 GMT -5
I for one am really enjoying the games and I really like the new attitude from the Canadian athletes as it is more of a winning orientated attitude and not just a happy to be here attitude like it was before. Begg-Smith is the Canadian that left Canada for Australia because he couldn't have his internet company and compete for Canada, right? Yes, it's perfectly fine to want to win. I am quite happy with the fact Begg-Smith considers himself Australian. I don't know if it was mentioned above, but when Bilodeau went to shake his hand after Alexandre won the gold, Begg-Smith turned away. Horrible display of class. Or should I say lack of class. He was probably too busy lamenting the dough he'll miss out on by placing 2nd. He may be a better person after one gets to know him, but that was not a mature response. Speaking of sportsmanship, did anyone see the Swiss-Canada women's curling draw? Late in the 9th or 10th with the Swiss lying two well protected stones and the score tied the Canadian women play a beautiful triple takeout. However one of the Canadian sweepers got caught out of position by one of the ricchoeting stones and burned a Swiss stone. According to the rule the Swiss were permitted to leave the stone to or put it where they had thouht it would have stopped. And had they left it where the stone stopped the Canadian women would've been hard pressed to score any points for the end (and in fact the Swiss women could've possibly protected the burned stone quite well and scored a point of their own. But the Swiss skip came in and immediately pushed the stone to the back of the outer ring, far removed to one side saying "it'd have gone there" Classy move. Cost them the game, but that just makes it even classier IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Feb 17, 2010 7:22:41 GMT -5
Markov in the lineup for Game 1. 10:57 of icetime after 2 periods. Up 4-0 over Latvia after 2, I thought he might take the 3rd period off...and work his way back slowly...that is...if he's still suffering from whatever kept him out of two crucial games 3 and 4 days ago. (They've dressed 8 defensemen...and all are getting icetime....likely because the opponent is Latvia.) Up 7-2, he remained in the 8-man rotation. Poor Latvian coverage allowed him to waltz in and get an assist on the 8th goal....late in the game. Final ice time: 15:29.....4th most on D....so, I guess he's a-ok. The coach divided up the D's TOI quite nicely. 17:00, 15:45, 15:44, 15:29; 14:51; 13:04; 13:01; 13:00. That will likely change as the competition gets stronger. From what I heard about Markov's injury, was that it was just a sciatic nerve issue that he's battled over the last few years...he wanted to play last weekend but was told that he needed a couple of days rest....and was given the OK to play in the Olympics by the team. Verified? |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Feb 17, 2010 7:28:41 GMT -5
From what I heard about Markov's injury, was that it was just a sciatic nerve issue that he's battled over the last few years...he wanted to play last weekend but was told that he needed a couple of days rest....and was given the OK to play in the Olympics by the team. Verified? Speculation.  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Feb 17, 2010 7:35:03 GMT -5
Well my retort to that speculation would be that sciatic nerve pain is deemed tolerable/intolerable only by the patient. If he "wanted" to play last weekend, he must have thought the pain was manageable. Also, it's the first I've heard of Markov having a chronic sciatic nerve issue. i.e. I don't remember him missing any games over the last few years with that as the reason. Unless it was under the veil of "lower body injury". |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Feb 17, 2010 7:39:11 GMT -5
I heard about it last week...didn't know he wasn't gonna play on the weekend though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 17, 2010 8:00:19 GMT -5
I can only assume that Ilya was a 71 at one point in his career, but should he not have stuck with the 17 he currently wears? I realize that he's older than Evgeni, so he would get first dibs on 71, but he's not currently wearing it... Anyone know? This is just a guess ... but a rather educated one. Illya wears number 17 in honour of the great Russian star Valeri Kharlamov, who also wore #17. I believe that Russia has retired that number from all international competitions. I will try and verify if I can ... EDIT: Malkin also wears #71 in honour of Kharlamov. I can only guess someone was wearing #17 when he was drafted (Karl Stewart the year he was drafted and Petr Sykora the year after). I found this in the NY Post: He took No. 17 not only because it was his Atlanta number and available, but because it was worn by the late Valeri Kharlamov, often regarded as the greatest Russian player, whose ankle was broken by Bobby Clarke's slash in the 1972 Summit Series.
"I never saw him play," Kovalchuk said. "He died a year before I was born, but I've got the tapes and DVDs. That's why I'm going to wear No. 71 in the Olympics. The number 17 has been retired by the Russian national team."
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 17, 2010 8:43:28 GMT -5
Yes, it's perfectly fine to want to win. I am quite happy with the fact Begg-Smith considers himself Australian. I don't know if it was mentioned above, but when Bilodeau went to shake his hand after Alexandre won the gold, Begg-Smith turned away. Horrible display of class. Or should I say lack of class. He was probably too busy lamenting the dough he'll miss out on by placing 2nd. He may be a better person after one gets to know him, but that was not a mature response. Speaking of sportsmanship, did anyone see the Swiss-Canada women's curling draw? Late in the 9th or 10th with the Swiss lying two well protected stones and the score tied the Canadian women play a beautiful triple takeout. However one of the Canadian sweepers got caught out of position by one of the ricchoeting stones and burned a Swiss stone. According to the rule the Swiss were permitted to leave the stone to or put it where they had thouht it would have stopped. And had they left it where the stone stopped the Canadian women would've been hard pressed to score any points for the end (and in fact the Swiss women could've possibly protected the burned stone quite well and scored a point of their own. But the Swiss skip came in and immediately pushed the stone to the back of the outer ring, far removed to one side saying "it'd have gone there" Classy move. Cost them the game, but that just makes it even classier IMHO. Nice story for sure, TNG. I didn't see it but I'll try to find it tonight when I get home. I'm also kind of happy for Paul Martin. He's getting a second chance at Olympic gold after just coming up short last time around. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by ValkyrieNS on Feb 17, 2010 9:11:15 GMT -5
I can only assume that Ilya was a 71 at one point in his career, but should he not have stuck with the 17 he currently wears? I realize that he's older than Evgeni, so he would get first dibs on 71, but he's not currently wearing it... Anyone know? I found this in the NY Post: "I never saw him play," Kovalchuk said. "He died a year before I was born, but I've got the tapes and DVDs. That's why I'm going to wear No. 71 in the Olympics. The number 17 has been retired by the Russian national team."Thanks for the info, mon frère I hope they had a civil discussion about it, as opposed to Evgeni being told he had to change to another number. I'll be able to catch periods 2 & 3 of the Finland/Belarus game! Is it time to go home yet? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 17, 2010 13:17:21 GMT -5
I'm talking about this nonsense about how Quebec culture should, for some reason, be enshrined within Canada and elevated to a place above all others. . ...that nonsense notion that you refer to has been a motion officially adopted by the House of Common in 2006, recognizing Quebec as a nation within a nation. It isn't a motion declaring that there are a gazillion different nations and cultures politically recognized within Canada, it's one that said there are TWO disctinct ones within this country. That's it. See it as "elevated", "enshrined", "glorified", all you want, it's there anyway. They completely blew the first chance they got, to actually show the whole world, that indeed there is a true meaning to that motion and that it's not simply political buff. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 17, 2010 13:26:00 GMT -5
I'm talking about this nonsense about how Quebec culture should, for some reason, be enshrined within Canada and elevated to a place above all others. . ...that nonsense notion that you refer to has been a motion officially adopted by the House of Common in 2006, recognizing Quebec as a nation within a nation. It isn't a motion declaring that there are a gazillion different nations and cultures politically recognized within Canada, it's one that said there are TWO disctinct ones within this country. That's it. See it as "elevated", "enshrined", "glorified", all you want, it's there anyway. They completely blew the first chance they got, to actually show the whole world, that indeed there is a true meaning to that motion and that it's not simply political buff. This is not true Doc. The motion declares the Quebecois as a "a nation within a unified Canada". The prime minister has said he is using the word nation in a "cultural-sociological" rather than in a legal sense.As far as I know, there is nothing refering to two "distinct" nations. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 17, 2010 13:48:44 GMT -5
...that nonsense notion that you refer to has been a motion officially adopted by the House of Common in 2006, recognizing Quebec as a nation within a nation. It isn't a motion declaring that there are a gazillion different nations and cultures politically recognized within Canada, it's one that said there are TWO disctinct ones within this country. That's it. See it as "elevated", "enshrined", "glorified", all you want, it's there anyway. They completely blew the first chance they got, to actually show the whole world, that indeed there is a true meaning to that motion and that it's not simply political buff. This is not true Doc. The motion declares the Quebecois as a "a nation within a unified Canada". The prime minister has said he is using the word nation in a "cultural-sociological" rather than in a legal sense.As far as I know, there is nothing refering to two "distinct" nations. A nation within a unified Canada resemble quite a bit a nation within another one... But we can play on words... Anyway I wasn't raising the legal ramifications of this motion or the absence of it. Call it a an officially recognized nation, defined as a socio-cultural entity, within a unified country. Anyway you look at it, it recognizes 2 and only 2 different concepts. What I'm saying is, you recognized 2 official languages, you politically recognize that within this "unified country" there is a nation to be recognized, but when the whole world has their eyes on your country, both notions become a mere afterthought, then yes, it is a "faux-pas" . |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Feb 17, 2010 14:11:10 GMT -5
I would agree with that, Doc. In a country as multi-cultural as Canada is, you're never going to please everybody.....but you have to make sure the two official languages/cultures receive equal weight. =============================================================== Other oversights have happened as well. Apparently, there are plenty of complaints that the outdoor torch is inaccessible to tourists for pictures.....chain link fencing impedes the view and it's quite a distance from it. I understand why the torch has to be safeguarded....but the ascetics are every bit as pleasing as was Gretzky's truck ride to light it! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 17, 2010 14:24:16 GMT -5
In a country as multi-cultural as Canada is, you're never going to please everybody.....but you have to make sure the two official languages/cultures receive equal weight. I would go so far as to say there is only one officially recognized culture in Canada. The Quebecois. (possibly the Acadien too, NB is afterall the only bi-lingual province in the country) The rest of Canada, as you had said, is a myriad of other cultures where you are not going to please everybody. But to define my culture akin to the Ontario people's culture with broad strokes like Anglophone is not acceptable either, especially when my province was a defined legal nation just one generation ago (61 years in fact). I agree with Doc, as well, in regards to the french language, culture, and the right to protect it ... but I also feel I have my own, distinct from the rest of the country. As spidey's signature says "it's a whole 'nuther country" here. |
|
|
|
Post by ValkyrieNS on Feb 17, 2010 14:30:10 GMT -5
Apparently, there are plenty of complaints that the outdoor torch is inaccessible to tourists for pictures.....chain link fencing impedes the view and it's quite a distance from it. I understand why the torch has to be safeguarded....but the ascetics are every bit as pleasing as was Gretzky's truck ride to light it! LOL! Because you thought that was cheesy too, right? It wasn't just me? All I kept thinking was how potentially dangerous traveling in the back of that pick-up could have turned out to be... VANOC had the fence moved closer overnight. They still can't actually go in and touch the torch though... The public can get closer to the Olympic cauldron and a clear photo but the icon of the 2010 Games is still behind a chain-link fence. Workers toiled overnight to move the existing fence about 25 metres closer to the massive steel and glass structure that sits on a downtown waterfront plaza.
At eye level in the fence, there is now a gap and early morning sightseers Wednesday were already sticking their cameras through for a clear shot. A senior Vancouver Olympic official who was on site but asked not to be quoted said an observation point on top of a nearby empty building will also open to the public. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 17, 2010 15:52:09 GMT -5
I'm talking about this nonsense about how Quebec culture should, for some reason, be enshrined within Canada and elevated to a place above all others. . ...that nonsense notion that you refer to has been a motion officially adopted by the House of Common in 2006, recognizing Quebec as a nation within a nation. It isn't a motion declaring that there are a gazillion different nations and cultures politically recognized within Canada, it's one that said there are TWO disctinct ones within this country. That's it. See it as "elevated", "enshrined", "glorified", all you want, it's there anyway. They completely blew the first chance they got, to actually show the whole world, that indeed there is a true meaning to that motion and that it's not simply political buff. I know, I know... muzzled and all. But this is more about logic than the language issue. The motion, as read in English (because my translation of the French would probably be flawed), is: That's it. That's all there is. There is nothing there that says "there are two distinct ones within this country". It says the Quebecois was form a "nation" (assuming the cultural and not the legal interpretation of that word) within Canada. It say nothing about the exclusion of others. It doesn't specicially recognize other cultures either, but if I go down the interpretation of that I get back into language issues, which I have already said I will not do. On that note - come on Doc. I am doing my best to keep the peace here and hold my tongue, despite my opinions to the contrary. This is a thread about the Olympics - not about a language debate (or so I have been told) - and it should be kept that way. |
|
|
|
Post by ValkyrieNS on Feb 17, 2010 15:56:01 GMT -5
I'll be able to catch periods 2 & 3 of the Finland/Belarus game! Is it time to go home yet? ;D And Sergei with the goal for Belarus, 21 seconds into the 2nd period! Looks like I got home just in time |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Feb 17, 2010 16:46:19 GMT -5
You know, I really want to see Finland win gold in men's hockey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 17, 2010 16:58:15 GMT -5
You know, I really want to see Finland win gold in men's hockey. Please expand... |
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Feb 17, 2010 17:14:59 GMT -5
For Saku Koivu
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on Feb 17, 2010 17:17:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ValkyrieNS on Feb 18, 2010 6:16:34 GMT -5
Mr. Val feels the same. I usually end up cheering for the underdog *** Day 6:Men's Hockey Finland vs Belarus:Got home just in time for the 2nd period. Saw Sergei with the lone goal for Belarus. Missed Saku's assist. Hagman with 2 goals, Mikko with 3 assists. Men's Hockey Czech Republic vs Slovakia:Missed the first 7 minutes [and a couple of great stops by Halak] because I couldn't figure out what channel was showing the game  JAGR! Well worth getting up at 12:50 am yet again. Goal, plus the assist on Pleky's goal. Hey, Nick Kypreos, Jaromir doesn't suck as much as you seem to think he does. Yeah, he was dead tired after a couple of his shifts, but he still went out there and made a difference. I wonder if we could bottle up that drive/energy/whatever it is and get Pleky to bring some home to Montreal? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Feb 18, 2010 19:24:40 GMT -5
Speaking of Jagr....McCown's show on the Fan 590 asked Kevin Lowe if the rumour is true that Edmonton is talking to Jagr....and Lowe said right now he's employed by another team and there's an NHL rule that says I can't talk about that.
They could've been kidding, jock-style....but Lowe's answer suggested there might be something to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Feb 18, 2010 23:05:08 GMT -5
Edmonton isn't talking to Jagr. I don't know why this rumour pops up all the time. If Edmonton signed Jagr to any contract, he would have to pass through waivers.
Unless they're talking about next season. And why the heck would Jagr want to play for an NHL bottomfeeder?
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Feb 18, 2010 23:29:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I would think Jagr is extremely comfortable right where he is. I'm sure they were just kidding....but Lowe's answer sounded all business. |
|
