Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Canadians make up half (maybe even a touch less than half) of the player ranks in the NHL. But they account for 24 of the 30 head coaches. The other six coaches are Americans, including our own Hot Daniel. The other countries, comprising about 25% of the players, are not represented at all. (And, other than the Czech Ivan Hlinka, have they ever been?)

 

Is this a problem? Will the tide turn? Would the game be better if the coaching ranks were more diverse?

 

Inspiration for this post: on NPR this morning it was mentioned that although blacks and Hispanics account for 25% of baseball players, only two coaches next season will be black or Hispanic.

 

(I guess I should look at the GMs, too.)

Edited by pASabreFan
Posted

Yes, I think the game would be better if the coaching was more diverse.  I'd love to see more European influence in tactics.  I imagine that language would be a big stumbling block that limits Euro coaches chances here.

Posted

Yes, I think the game would be better if the coaching was more diverse.  I'd love to see more European influence in tactics.  I imagine that language would be a big stumbling block that limits Euro coaches chances here.

 

Me too. One thing I do wonder about, along the lines of the language barrier, is...is there interest? I've never gotten the impression that a lot of European coaches were truly trying to break into the NHL. Of course, I'm not sure how I'd know if there was a lot of interest either, so there's that.

Posted (edited)

Me too. One thing I do wonder about, along the lines of the language barrier, is...is there interest? I've never gotten the impression that a lot of European coaches were truly trying to break into the NHL. Of course, I'm not sure how I'd know if there was a lot of interest either, so there's that.

I think the other problem was that for those that did follow and understand hockey( Like most on this site probably ) the glow became too much of a distraction. We already knew how to pick up the puck by following the flow of play which came with a rudimentary knowledge of the game. It was a chicken and egg thing. Learn the game /learn how to follow the puck. The glow won't teach you the game. It was always my belief that for the small amount of people that would actually be turned on to hockey because of this innovation it would piss off scores more because of the distraction. In my case it did. I hated it. 

 

Sorry Blue I had intended to quote a different thread and didn't realize I was here. Doh !

Edited by bunomatic
Posted

I think the other problem was that for those that did follow and understand hockey( Like most on this site probably ) the glow became too much of a distraction. We already knew how to pick up the puck by following the flow of play which came with a rudimentary knowledge of the game. It was a chicken and egg thing. Learn the game /learn how to follow the puck. The glow won't teach you the game. It was always my belief that for the small amount of people that would actually be turned on to hockey because of this innovation it would piss off scores more because of the distraction. In my case it did. I hated it. 

 

Methinks you quoted the wrong person :lol:

Posted

It's an old boys club that is recycling guys all of the time. New guys come through the junior ranks and have old boy contacts.

 

My experience is that the journeymen tend to make better coaches and Canada is full of grinders. My first point is the main reason for Canadian coaches.

 

Richard, Howe, Hull, Orr, Lafleur, Perreault, Gretzky, Lemieux were great but could not explain and teach the fire in the belly and creativity required for greatness. They probably cannot understand why the average guy can't see the game like they did. The plumbers relied on tactics and can teach this.

Posted

It's an old boys club that is recycling guys all of the time. New guys come through the junior ranks and have old boy contacts.

My experience is that the journeymen tend to make better coaches and Canada is full of grinders. My first point is the main reason for Canadian coaches.

Richard, Howe, Hull, Orr, Lafleur, Perreault, Gretzky, Lemieux were great but could not explain and teach the fire in the belly and creativity required for greatness. They probably cannot understand why the average guy can't see the game like they did. The plumbers relied on tactics and can teach this.

Not disputing your last paragraph. Have supported the view that stars rarely can coach because they don't see/learn the game like most/ normal players do. But other than Wayner, who in that list tried to coach?

Posted

If players wind up becoming coaches, then today's coaches would not be drawn from the same percentages of today's players. They'd be drawn from the pool of 10-15 or even more years ago.

Posted

Was Teppo a coach? Seems like I remember him behind the bench.

He was briefly.

 

 

I think part of it is nepotism in sports.  Since most of these ppl are working in NA they get jobs by knowing other people in NA.  They have connections so to speak.

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...