greatest athletes by nationality
rcp...@iamerica.net
is a very difficult task. I’ve done plenty research and I’ve tried to be as
objective and thorough as possible. I don’t know enough about some nations
and their athletic history to include them; however, most countries are
included. Write me with any additions, questions and/or comments. I will
release a "greatest female athletes by nation" in December.
NATION ATHLETE (sport) OTHERS CONSIDERED
Albania Pyros Dimas (weightlifting)
Algeria Nourred. Morceli (athletics) Cerdan, El Ouafi, O’Kacha
Argentina Alfredo Di Stefanio (soccer) Maradona, Monzon, Perez, Porta
Armenia Igor-Ter Ovan. (athletics) Emmiyan, Militasian
Australia Don Bradman (cricket) Camp., Elliott, Clarke, Laver, Matthews
Austria Toni Sailer (skiing) Klammer, Sindelar, Maier, Muster
Azerbaijan Nik. Abdullayev (wrestling)
Bahamas Troy Kemp (athletics)
Barbados Garfield Sobers (cricket) Richards, Walcott, Worrell
Belarus Vitali Scherbo (gymnastics) Sidiak
Belgium Eddy Merckx (cycling) Moens, Scherens, I.Van Damme
Bermuda Clarence Hill (boxing)
Brazil Pele (soccer) Friederich, R & H Gracie, Jofre, Santos
Bulgaria Valen. Jordanov (wrestling) Kiran, Markov, Stoichkov, Valchev
Burundi Ven. Niyongabo (athletics)
Cameroon Roger Milla (soccer) Bessali, Suke
Canada Wayne Gretzky (ice hockey) Conacher, Howe, Langford, Lemieux, Orr
Chile Marcelo Rios (tennis) Figueroa
China Yang Yang (table tennis) W. Cheung, Jianhua, Tse-tsung, Xiaoshaog
Columbia Carlos Valderrama (soccer)
Congo Anacet Wamba (boxing)
Croatia Drazen Petrovic (basketball) Ivansevic, Kukoc, Suker
Cuba Javier Sotomayor (athletics) Canseco, Dihigo, Gavilan, Stevenson
Cyprus Garo Yepremian (football)
Czech Rep. Emil Zatopek (athletics) Hasek, Jagr, Lendl, Mikita, Zelezny
Denmark Battling Nielsen (boxing) M. Andersen, Ellegaard, Kipketer, Kops
Djibouti Ahmed Salah (athletics)
Dom. Rep. Juan Marichal (baseball) P. Martinez, Sosa
Ecuador Andres Gomez (tennis) Perez
Egypt Amr Bey (squash) Al-Khatib, El-Touni, Krism
England Daley Thompson (athletics) Coe, Fitzsim., Grace, Matthews, Redgrave
Estonia Juri Tamm (athletics) Salurce, Klunberg, Palusalu
Ethiopia Abebe Bikila (athletics) Gebresilasie
Finland Paavo Nurmi (athletics) Kurri, Nykanien, Thunberg, Viren
Fiji Vijay Singh (golf)
France Jean-Claude Killy (skiing) Cochet, d’Oriola, Morelon, Platini,
Georgia Viktor Saneyev (athletics) Tediaschwili
Germany Franz Beckenbauer (soccer) Becker, Dietr., Harbig, Hingsen, Matthes
Ghana Abebi Pele (soccer) A. Nelson, Quartey
Greece Leonidas (athletics) Gallis, Milo, Tsilchitiros
Guatemala Ted Hendricks (football)
Guinea Cherif Souleymarie (soccer)
Guyana Michael Anthony (boxing)
Haiti Silvio Cator (athletics)
Hawaii Duke Kahanamoku (swimming) Akebono, Kahauala, Kono, Leopoldo
Honduras Steve Van Buren (football)
Hong Kong Bruce Lee (martial arts) Billington, P. Wai Man Chung
Hungary Tamas Darnyi (swimming) Gyarmatti, Kocsis, Nemeth, Papp, Puskas
Iceland Vilh. Einarsson (athletics)
India Dhyan Chand (field hockey) Dev, Gama, Gavaskar, H.Khan, U.Singh
Indonesia Rudy Harton (badminton)
Iran Abdellah Mouched (wrestling) Takhti
Iraq Abdul Wahid Aziz (wrestling)
Ireland George Best (soccer) Coghlan, Dempsey, Flanagan, McBride
Israel Yael Ana Arad (martial arts) Berger, Berkowitz, Henefeld
Italy Alberto Tomba (skiing) Benvenuti, Monti, Nadi, Rossi, Thoeni
Iv. Coast Gabriel Tiacoh (athletics)
Jamaica Donald Quarrie (athletics) C.Davis, Ewing, McKenley, White, Wint
Japan Masahiko Kimura (mart. arts) Chiyonofuji, Kato, Nagashima, Nakano, Oh
Kazahstan Boris Shaklin (gymnastics) Smirnov
Kenya Henry Rono (athletics) Keino, Kiptanui, Komen
Korea Sosai Mas Oyama (mart. arts) Il Kim, Gishi, Bong, Park, Yang-ki
Latvia Janis Lusis (athletics)
Lebanon Zakana Chibab (wrestling)
Liberia George Weah (soccer)
Libya Moh. Trabulsi (weightlifting)
Liechten. Hanni Wenzel (skiing)
Lithuania Arvidas Sabonis (basketball) Budin, Marciulonis
Luxembourg Marc Girardelli (skiing) Frantz
Malaysia Wang Peng Soon (badminton) Choong
Mali Salif Keita (soccer)
Mexico Salvatore Sanchez (boxing) Alvarado, Carbajal, Chavez, Valenzuela
Morocco Said Aouita (athletics) El Guerrouj
Namibia Frank Fredericks (athletics)
Nepal Tenz. Norpeng (mtn climbing)
Netherlan. Johan Cruyff (soccer) Romme, Schenk, Smits, Van Basten
N Zealand Peter Snell (athletics) Hadlee, Hillary, Meads, J.Walker
Nicaragua Dennis Martinez (baseball) Arguello
Niger Issaka Boborg (boxing)
Nigeria Hakeem Olajuwon (basketball) Okoye, Tiger
Norway Bjorn Daehlie (skiing) Ballangrud, Mathisen, Olav Koss, Ruud
Oman Moham. Al-Malky (athletics)
Pakistan Janshar Khan (badminton) Akram, Imran Khan, J.Khan
Panama Roberto Duran (boxing) Blackman, Al Brown, Carew, LaBeach
Paraguay J.C. Romero (soccer) Amarilla
Peru Teofilo Cubillas (soccer) Duarte
Philipp. Pancho Villa (boxing) A.Clark, Elorde
Poland Jasek Wszola (athletics) Baszonowski, Kulej, Lato, Sidlo
Portugal Eusebio (soccer) Cubillas, Lopes
P. Rico Roberto Clemente (baseball) Benitez, Camacho, Cepeda, J.Gonzalez
Qatar Moham. Suleiman (athletics)
Romania Nicu Vlad (weightlifting) Muresan, Nastase, Patzaichin
Russia Aleks. Karelin (wrestling) Andrian., Brumel, Popov, Tretiak, Yashin
Samoa Junior Seau (football) Fatialofa, Tatupu
S. Arabia Majed Abd. Mohammed (soccer)
Scotland Andy Irvine (rugby) W.Anderson, Galloore, Gardiner, Hastings
Senegal Amadou Dia Ba (athletics) B. Siki
Singapore H. Tiang Tan (weightlifting)
Slovakia Michal Martikan (canoeing)
Slovenia Leon Stukelj (gymnastics)
Somalia Abdi Bile (athletics)
S. Africa Gary Player (golf) G. Anderson, Brits, Craven, Els, Gerber
Spain Miguel Indurain (cycling) Ballesteros, Cacho, Zamaro, Zubero
Sri Lanka Sanath Jayasuriya (cricket) D.White
Suriname Anthony Nesty (swimming)
Sweden Bjorn Borg (tennis) A.Borg, Frederiksson, Jernberg, Stenmark
Switzer. Pirmin Zurbriggen (skiing) Gunthor, Miez, Weder
Taiwan C.K. Yang (athletics)
Tanzania Suleiman Nyambui (athletics) Ikangaa
Thailand Sunluck Kamsing (boxing)
Tonga Jonah Lomu (rugby) Wolfgrun
Trinidad Ato Boldon (athletics) Constantine, H.Crawford
Tunisia Mahmoud Gammoudi (athletics) Tarak
Turkey Naim Suleym. (weightlifting)
Uganda John Akii-Bua (athletics) Mugabi
Ukraine Sergei Bubka (athletics) Avilov, Medved, Syedikh
USA Jim Thorpe (athletics/fb) Ali, Brown, Cobb, Jordan, Lewis, Ruth
Uruguay Juan Schiaffino (soccer) Andrade, Ghiggia
Venezuela Serge Blanco (rugby) Aparicio, Galarraga, Rodriguez
Vietnam Dat Nguyen (football)
Virgin Is. Tim Duncan (basketball) Griffith, P.Jackson
Wales Gareth Edwards (rugby) C.Jackson, Meredith, JPR Williams, Wilde
Yemen Naseem Hamed (boxing)
Yugoslavia Vlade Divac (basketball) Bancic, Cosic, Scekic, Topic
Zaire Dikembe Mutombo (basketball)
Zambia Samuel Matete (athletics)
Zimbabwe Nick Price (golf)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lauri Tarkkonen
>Denmark Battling Nielsen (boxing) M. Andersen, Ellegaard, Kipketer, Kops
IN the most recent assessments by the public and the experts the most
remarkable sportsman in Denmark is the sailor Poul Elvström, who is one
of the most succesfull sportsmen in the whole world. There are not many
who come even close to him.
- Lauri Tarkkonen
rcp...@iamerica.net
tark...@cc.helsinki.fi (Lauri Tarkkonen) wrote:
> In <73mus6$i4b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> rcp...@iamerica.net writes:
>
> >Denmark Battling Nielsen (boxing) M. Andersen, Ellegaard,
Kipketer, Kops
>
> remarkable sportsman in Denmark is the sailor Poul Elvström, who is one
> of the most succesfull sportsmen in the whole world. There are not many
> who come even close to him.
>
> - Lauri Tarkkonen
>
Darren
He was so good they changed the rules to combat his superiority but it
didn't work and he continued to outclass his opponents.
I do not know of any other sportsman so great that rules were changed to
stop him.
Darren Flowers
Broken Hill,NSW
Australia
rcp...@iamerica.net wrote in message <73mus6$i4b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Darren
brains and write up an Australian list by Sports and post it on Tuesday
Dr. Stick
sabreguy
> GREATEST ATHLETES BY NATIONALITY Ranking the greatest male athletes by nation is a very difficult task. I’ve done plenty research and I’ve tried to be as objective and thorough as possible. I don’t know enough about some nations and their athletic history to include them; however, most countries are included. Write me with any additions, questions and/or comments. I will release a "greatest female athletes by nation" in December.
>
> NATION ATHLETE (sport) OTHERS CONSIDERED
> Russia Aleks. Karelin (wrestling) Andrian., Brumel, Popov, Tretiak, Yashin
A pretty good idea but with this list comes many choices that people
feel were either left out, should have been first, or both. Here are my
selections instead of the ones chosen above.
Czech Rep: I know, I know, my name gives it all away but my choice
would have to be Hasek. 2 MVP awards, 4 Vezina (FOUR!!!!) trophies,
far and away the best player in the league he plays in and rule changes
made to goalies just to make it harder to score on him. He gets inside
people's heads the way Pele did in soccer. The are no others in his
league.
Dom Rep: Isn't Marichal Nicaraguan?? If not, I apologize but he isn't
the best from the DR anyways. It has to be Sosa. He has further put
DR baseball on the map. He will forever be remembered as the other guy
who hit more than 61 homers with average and fewer strikeouts.
Germany: This one has to be Jurgen Klinsmann. He was German soccer
during their recent World Cup win. He is stellar defensively and
almost another striker even though he is a midfielder. All around
talent.
Jamaica: Donovan Bailey. World record holder in 100m. Need I say
more??
Romania: Gheorghe Hagi is Romanian soccer. Well, was. He has retired
since France but forever will new Romanian players be compared to him
and the search will rage looking for the next Romanian star.
Russia: This has to be Tretiak. I thought of Fedorov or maybe
Kharlamov but Tretiak revolutionized the way men play goal. He was
Russian hockey and flourished under the tyranny of Tikhonov. Fedorov
and Kharlamov are world-wide names but they didn't have the effect on
Russian hockey the way he did.
Slovakia: Has anybody besides me heard of Zigmund Palffy?? He might
just be the best pure goal scorer in the NHL at this moment. That is a
pretty hard decision in a league that has Bure, Mogilny, Jagr,
Sundin... He has a sixth sense when he has the puck less than 40ft.
from the net. Very rarely does he miss and when he passes it, it is
tape-to-tape. Best to ever come out of Slovakia; bar none.
Let's hear your reaction.
Sabreguy.
--
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
http://www.talkway.com
James Joseph Clark
>Slovakia: Has anybody besides me heard of Zigmund Palffy?? He might
>just be the best pure goal scorer in the NHL at this moment. That is a
>pretty hard decision in a league that has Bure, Mogilny, Jagr,
>Sundin... He has a sixth sense when he has the puck less than 40ft.
>from the net. Very rarely does he miss and when he passes it, it is
>tape-to-tape. Best to ever come out of Slovakia; bar none.
I don't think so....
I have some friends who are Slovakian, and I am sure that they
will agree with me when I say that the best ever to come out of
Slovakia is none other than PETER STASTNY.
You must be too young to remember him, but he was (still is)
miles ahead of Palffy.
Jim
rcp...@iamerica.net
nation is a very difficult task. I’ve done plenty research and I’ve tried to
be as objective and thorough as possible. I don’t know enough about some
nations and their athletic history to include them; however, most countries
are included. Write me with any additions, questions and/or comments. I will
release a "greatest female athletes by nation" in December.
> >
> > NATION ATHLETE (sport) OTHERS CONSIDERED
> > Czech Rep. Emil Zatopek (athletics) Hasek, Jagr, Lendl, Mikita, Zelezny
> > Dom. Rep. Juan Marichal (baseball) P. Martinez, Sosa
> > Germany Franz Beckenbauer (soccer) Becker, Dietr., Harbig, Hingsen,
Matthes
> > Jamaica Donald Quarrie (athletics) C.Davis, Ewing, McKenley, White,
Wint
> > Romania Nicu Vlad (weightlifting) Muresan, Nastase, Patzaichin
> > Russia Aleks. Karelin (wrestling) Andrian., Brumel, Popov,
Tretiak, Yashin
> > Slovakia Michal Martikan (canoeing)
>
> A pretty good idea but with this list comes many choices that people
> feel were either left out, should have been first, or both. Here are my
> selections instead of the ones chosen above.
>
> Czech Rep: I know, I know, my name gives it all away but my choice
> would have to be Hasek. 2 MVP awards, 4 Vezina (FOUR!!!!) trophies,
> far and away the best player in the league he plays in and rule changes
> made to goalies just to make it harder to score on him. He gets inside
> people's heads the way Pele did in soccer. The are no others in his
> league.
>
This was close one but I feel Zatopek (who won the 5,000, 10,000 and marathon
in the same Olympics) deserves this honor!
> Dom Rep: Isn't Marichal Nicaraguan?? If not, I apologize but he isn't
> the best from the DR anyways. It has to be Sosa. He has further put
> DR baseball on the map. He will forever be remembered as the other guy
> who hit more than 61 homers with average and fewer strikeouts.
No, Dennis Martinez is. Sosa may eventually be the greatest Dominican ever but
Juan Marichal had (at least til this point) a better career.
> Germany: This one has to be Jurgen Klinsmann. He was German soccer
> during their recent World Cup win. He is stellar defensively and
> almost another striker even though he is a midfielder. All around
> talent.
I considered Jurgen but I feel Franz was the best German ever.
> Jamaica: Donovan Bailey. World record holder in 100m. Need I say
> more??
Bailey was born in Jamaica; however, he's represented Canada for several
years now and I grouped him with Canada. But if I did consider him Jamaican -
he would be at #1 (with another Jamaican born - Linford Christie)
> Romania: Gheorghe Hagi is Romanian soccer. Well, was. He has retired
> since France but forever will new Romanian players be compared to him
> and the search will rage looking for the next Romanian star.
>
> Russia: This has to be Tretiak. I thought of Fedorov or maybe
> Kharlamov but Tretiak revolutionized the way men play goal. He was
> Russian hockey and flourished under the tyranny of Tikhonov. Fedorov
> and Kharlamov are world-wide names but they didn't have the effect on
> Russian hockey the way he did.
>
This one was another toughy - I feel Karelin's the best wrestler ever - he
simply dominates.
> Slovakia: Has anybody besides me heard of Zigmund Palffy?? He might
> just be the best pure goal scorer in the NHL at this moment. That is a
> pretty hard decision in a league that has Bure, Mogilny, Jagr,
> Sundin... He has a sixth sense when he has the puck less than 40ft.
> from the net. Very rarely does he miss and when he passes it, it is
> tape-to-tape. Best to ever come out of Slovakia; bar none.
>
You're right here! I forgot about Palffy!
> Let's hear your reaction.
>
> Sabreguy.
>
Thanks for your opinions
--
> Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
> http://www.talkway.com
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
sabreguy
<cl...@athena.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> wrote:
>
> >Slovakia: Has anybody besides me heard of Zigmund Palffy?? He might just be the best pure goal scorer in the NHL at this moment. That is a pretty hard decision in a league that has Bure, Mogilny, Jagr, Sundin... He has a sixth sense when he has the puck less than 40ft. from the net. Very rarely does he miss and when he passes it, it is tape-to-tape. Best to ever come out of Slovakia; bar none.
>
> I don't think so....
>
> I have some friends who are Slovakian, and I am sure that they
> will agree with me when I say that the best ever to come out of
> Slovakia is none other than PETER STASTNY.
>
> You must be too young to remember him, but he was (still is)
> miles ahead of Palffy.
>
> Jim
Come to think of it, I am too young to know of Statsny in his prime but
from what I did see, he did rule the Nords along with Goulet. I must
concede this one but Palffy still comes second. You have no choice to
give me this one. Anton and the other Statsny do not qualify because
neither had the skills that Peter. However, to the other message from
the creator, I am sorry but Hasek must still be the rep from the Czech
Rep. Nobody in 30 years (maybe never!!) has the skills in the net he
does. Klinsmann, I still must say, is the best German player and
Bailey has to be considered to be Jamaican. Although he does race for
us Canucks, he is Jamaican first and should be considered that. Funny,
you didn't say anything about Gheorghe Hagi...... :-)
Sabreguy.
Alexander Beeser
"sabreguy" <du...@me.net> wrote:
However, to the other message from
> the creator, I am sorry but Hasek must still be the rep from the Czech
> Rep. Nobody in 30 years (maybe never!!) has the skills in the net he
> does.
In czech this is probably right, but to suggest that hasek is the best
goalie in the last thirty years is simply naive. There are a lot of
players that are ahead of him. He's the best goalie playing right now (
irbe whom I consider a mediocre goalie at best isn't dogging it but its
likely flash in the pan) but to suggest that he's surpassed the exploits
of some of his contemporaries, like roy, is silly. Patrick roy
singlehandedly won the last habs cup with a bunch of scrubs in front of
him. That team was no better than the current sabres, and the sabres
haven't gone far enough yet. A better multiple series exhibition of
goaltending I have never seen, including the dominator. Hell last year
I'd say that ollie went stride for stride with hasek, and no one considers
kolzig the best goalie in the game.
If your basing this on the regular season, then all hail the best
goalie of the nineties, ronnie "let in the backbreaker goal in the
playoffs" hextall. Is hasek a great goalie, sure you would have to be an
idiot to argue this, but he hasn't done anything that surpasses that
magical drive that roy had.
Sandy
Richard Farley
abe...@utmem1.utmem.edu (Alexander Beeser) wrote:
> In article <CQ892.17436$el4.28...@c01read02.service.talkway.com>,
> "sabreguy" <du...@me.net> wrote:
>
> In czech this is probably right, but to suggest that hasek is the best
> goalie in the last thirty years is simply naive.
There is absolutely nothing naive about it. While one could argue against
the opine, it would not be hard to show that Hasek has been as dominant
for a 5-6 year period of time than anybody over the last 30 years. If you
chose to make that a relevant criteria, then you can make a great case for
Hasek.
RF
Alexander Beeser
<rf8225-0212...@ppp-207-215-141-159.sndg02.pacbell.net>,
rf8...@hotmail.com (Richard Farley) wrote:
>
> There is absolutely nothing naive about it. While one could argue against
> the opine, it would not be hard to show that Hasek has been as dominant
> for a 5-6 year period of time than anybody over the last 30 years.
The case is already made for Roy, who was as good for as long and at the
times when it counted, was better. How much better ? good enough to lead
a team composed of ageing players and scrubs to the stanley cup. Hasek
hasn't won a ring yet, and its not to say that he hasn't played well in
the playoffs, but for every year that he has played well there are other
goalies who played as well if not better. This is not true for roy.
If your basing your arguments on vezina's or the regular season then I
proclaim the buffalo bills the greatest football team of the nineties for
all of the jobbing they did in the games that counted.
> If you
> chose to make that a relevant criteria, then you can make a great case for
> Hasek.
Roy has played much longer and is not as good as he once was, has won
multiple cups and has only seemed less than stellar this year. Upto two
years ago if you had the choice most people would have chosen roy, the
olympics pushed hasek into the light ( note the difference between the two
in the game and the shootout was one perfect shot off the post). Untill
hasek leads an underserving team the way that roy did to the cup, he still
has a lot to prove. He's a great goalie but to think that he's in the
same league as roy, fuhr and kenny dryden is a little premature. You want
to proclaim him as the best regular season goalie that can't get it done
in the playoffs, fine but that's a pretty big albatross for him to carry.
Mabey your of the opinion that the last habs cup team was chock full of
sleepers, and that roy didn't do anything spectacular, who knows. then
again mabey your just a hasek homer and didn't see the series where as
soon as it went to overtime scoring greats like paul dipietro would pot
the winner because they knew that even if the other team got their
chances, roy wasn't letting a goal in in overtime. You nee to win 16
games to get the cup, the habs won 11 ( I'm pretty sure of this) in
overtime.
sonny hays-eberts
> In article
> <rf8225-0212...@ppp-207-215-141-159.sndg02.pacbell.net>,
> rf8...@hotmail.com (Richard Farley) wrote:
> The case is already made for Roy, who was as good for as long and at the
> times when it counted, was better. How much better ? good enough to lead
> a team composed of ageing players and scrubs to the stanley cup.
so where does john leclair fit in? aging player or scrub?
vinnie damphousse? matt schneider? sure, lecalir wasn't the same player
then he is today, but he still tied for the league in playoff ot goals in
'93, so he wasn't some putz.
please, roy's performance in that series was awesome - i still have
nightmares of his rob of ferraro, but there's no need to diminish the
other players present on the team to make him seem better. his
accomplishments were enough. yes, he pretty much won it for them and
deserved the conn smythe, but it was not just a team of scrubs and aging
players he led. back then muller and bellows were actually worth
something, unlike today.
> You nee to win 16
> games to get the cup, the habs won 11 ( I'm pretty sure of this) in
> overtime.
want to bet? i know for a fact it was only 10. 2 vs. quebec, 3 vs.
buffalo, 2 against the isles and 3 with the kings.
Alexander Beeser
ebe...@oregon.uoregon.edu (sonny hays-eberts) wrote:
> In article <abeeser-0212...@tcooper2.utmem.edu>,
> abe...@utmem1.utmem.edu (Alexander Beeser) wrote:
>
> so where does john leclair fit in? aging player or scrub?
Third line forward fighting for ice time with players not currently in
the league, it's like saying that hasek is a crappy goalie because he
couldn't make first string in chicago. John leclair was not anywhere near
the player he currently is. Whether or not this has to do with style of
play of personal development I can't say although both seem pretty likely.
> vinnie damphousse? matt schneider?
Schneider is pretty solid but was on the up swing he certainly played
better after the cup. vinnie damphouse in my opinion is and always has
been overrated, a guy who dissapears when it counts and is good at taking
draws. People keep saying how great a job he does at shutting down the
opponents best lines, and I just don't see it. A poor man's carbonneau.
> sure, lecalir wasn't the same player
> then he is today, but he still tied for the league in playoff ot goals in
> '93, so he wasn't some putz.
Simple number of chances. who was number 2 ? Wasn't it dipietro ? Now
theres a class act as a player.
> please, roy's performance in that series was awesome - i still have
> nightmares of his rob of ferraro, but there's no need to diminish the
> other players present on the team to make him seem better.
You seem to object to the word scrubs, fine I'll retract it. The
canadiens had a lot less talent in every position beside goal than most of
the teams in the playoffs. Alex and I have done this dance before, I
still think that the sabres today are a better team than the habs were
then. They have speed, toughness and solid two way players and have
instigators like barnaby. Regardless of this its nice that you admit that
roy single handedly won the cup, like no other singular player I have ever
seen. It's not like the habs were great defensively in OT either, they
allowed their chances
but the habs played with confidence knowing that patty wasn't going to
let them down. You could see it the way teams played them they didn't
want it to go to overtime, and the habs were more than willing. That
series, more than anything, established roy as the consensus best goalie
on the planet, a title now currently held by hasek.
> his
> accomplishments were enough. yes, he pretty much won it for them and
> deserved the conn smythe, but it was not just a team of scrubs and aging
> players he led. back then muller and bellows were actually worth
> something, unlike today.
Can you think of another team that was that "untalented" that has won
the cup in the last 10-15 years ? I certainly can't. And the habs had
some probable hall of famers, but they were at the ends of their careers
or just beginning them.
> > You nee to win 16
> > games to get the cup, the habs won 11 ( I'm pretty sure of this) in
> > overtime.
>
> want to bet? i know for a fact it was only 10. 2 vs. quebec, 3 vs.
> buffalo, 2 against the isles and 3 with the kings.
They played 11 then if I remember right, although who knows I could be
wrong again. Still winning 10/11 in overtime aint to shabby. Seeing as
you seem to have the stats, of the 16 games that the habs won, how many
were by one goal ?
Sandy
Simon Juncal
> Come to think of it, I am too young to know of Statsny in his prime but
> from what I did see, he did rule the Nords along with Goulet. I must
> concede this one but Palffy still comes second. You have no choice to
> give me this one.
Err... Peter Bondra is faster, larger, and more of a pure goal scorer
than Palffy. Question is are we talking about Slovakian citizens or
strictly native born Slovaks? 'cause Bondra is the better of the
two.
--
______________________________________________
) Simon co List Admin Capi...@his.com )
( Aka Alhazred (
) http://capitals.washington.dc.us/ )
( http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/ (
)_____________________________________________)
Help fight spam check out http://www.cauce.org
sonny hays-eberts
abe...@utmem1.utmem.edu (Alexander Beeser) wrote:
> Simple number of chances. who was number 2 ? Wasn't it dipietro ? Now
> theres a class act as a player.
sandy, you'd better acquire a reference book if you want to stop putting
forth incorrect propositions. first was ferraro, muller, leclair and
carbonneau, all tied with 2 each. dipietro could have been no better than
5th, and if so would have been tied with quite a few players (like 19
others) with 1. so i don;t see why you're focused on singling out dipietro
as an example.
> You seem to object to the word scrubs, fine I'll retract it. The
> canadiens had a lot less talent in every position beside goal than most of
> the teams in the playoffs.
except perhaps the islanders. they had lafontaine and not much more
(krupp, thomas, malakhov and kasparaitis are the best of the rest) and
they also pretty much over-acheived that year until they ran into the
habs.
> Alex and I have done this dance before, I
> still think that the sabres today are a better team than the habs were
> then. They have speed, toughness and solid two way players and have
> instigators like barnaby.
well, i disagree. i'd consider roy, damphousse, muller, carbonneau,
schneider, keane, desjardins, daigneault, odelein (no shgabby instigator
there), muller, leclair, brunet, haller and savard a fairly good nucleus
of a team and not incomparable to hasek, barnaby, zhitnik, grosek, ward,
sanderson, peca, holzinger, varada, etc.
sure, the habs conatined some players that weren't great (racicot and
breeze-by), but they weren't a pathetic team. they may be remembered as a
3rd place team, but that was one with 102 points. that's not shabby. a
team built of simply scrubs and aging vets isn't going to perform to that
level over an 84 game season, wouldn't you admit? they were the 6th best
team in the regular seaon that year, and had they been in the smythe would
have won it by a point over vancouver.
> Regardless of this its nice that you admit that
> roy single handedly won the cup, like no other singular player I have ever
> seen. It's not like the habs were great defensively in OT either, they
> allowed their chances
yep. no argument there.
> but the habs played with confidence knowing that patty wasn't going to
> let them down. You could see it the way teams played them they didn't
> want it to go to overtime, and the habs were more than willing. That
> series, more than anything, established roy as the consensus best goalie
> on the planet, a title now currently held by hasek.
well, i guess i'm in the middle of you and richard; except obviously as an
isles fan i'd want billy smith in net for a money game! :)
i recognize that roy is regarded as the greatest goalie in recent past. i
won;t argue against that. but i also think richard has a valid point. one
can make an argument for hasek (not to say i am or will, it's simply
possible and not that unrealistic), especially since he is not on the
downside of his career yet. i also agree with you that championships are
useful and necessary when making these sort of determinations, as you've
likely heard me say when the perennial 'ray bourque is the best d-man
ever' arguments arise. hasek's olympic medal is a championship of sorts,
though i will also admit that o would regard a stanley cup win with more
regard.
> They played 11 then if I remember right, although who knows I could be
> wrong again. Still winning 10/11 in overtime aint to shabby. Seeing as
> you seem to have the stats, of the 16 games that the habs won, how many
> were by one goal ?
i'm pretty sure they won every overtime game they played in, though the
guide simply lists them as having the record for 10 overtime wins in the
series. i recall somebody here back in '94 doing the math to evaluate the
odds of going 10 for 10 in overtime games, and it was pretty phenominal.
as far as scores, every buf-mtl game was 4-3. there were 13 games mtl
played in decide by 1 goal.
i'm not arguing against roy, just trying to point out that the habs
weren't as miserable as many make them out to be in '93. they were a darn
good 3rd place team, certainly the best of any other 3rd place team that
year.
Richard Farley
abe...@utmem1.utmem.edu (Alexander Beeser) wrote:
> The case is already made for Roy, who was as good for as long and at the
> times when it counted, was better. How much better ? good enough to lead
> a team composed of ageing players and scrubs to the stanley cup.
This is a contention that Sonny has already exposed as being wishful at
best, so I'll move on.
> Hasek
> hasn't won a ring yet,
Which is more of an edictment of his team than himself. This really has
tangential relevance, at best.
> and its not to say that he hasn't played well in
> the playoffs, but for every year that he has played well there are other
> goalies who played as well if not better.
Well then congratulate the Kolzigs of the world. Do not endict Hasek
merely continuing his excellence.
> If your basing your arguments on vezina's or the regular season then I
> proclaim the buffalo bills the greatest football team of the nineties for
> all of the jobbing they did in the games that counted.
This is really bad logic. Team accomplishments are obviously different
and have seperate significance than individual accomplishments.
[repetition snipped]
Don Koharski
(Alexander Beeser) wrote:
> In czech this is probably right, but to suggest that hasek is the best
>goalie in the last thirty years is simply naive. There are a lot of
>players that are ahead of him. He's the best goalie playing right now (
>irbe whom I consider a mediocre goalie at best isn't dogging it but its
>likely flash in the pan) but to suggest that he's surpassed the exploits
>of some of his contemporaries, like roy, is silly. Patrick roy
>singlehandedly won the last habs cup with a bunch of scrubs in front of
>him. That team was no better than the current sabres, and the sabres
>haven't gone far enough yet. A better multiple series exhibition of
>goaltending I have never seen, including the dominator. Hell last year
>I'd say that ollie went stride for stride with hasek, and no one considers
>kolzig the best goalie in the game.
>
There's something mentally not right about Hasek. If he gets touched,
he starts freaking out, running around like his head is cut off,
throwing blockers, panicking. His puck pursuit is mind boggling.
There was a game this year where he had a shutout going in the 3rd,
Johnson received a pass at the Buffalo blue line, looked up and there
was Hasek, 80ft out of his net. What the hell? I don't know why he
does that stuff, but he'll never win the Cup that way. He was calm
and collected at the Olympics (at least after the US game), and he was
golden. Until he does that in the NHL, he won't win no cups.
sonny hays-eberts
(Don Koharski) wrote:
> There's something mentally not right about Hasek. If he gets touched,
> he starts freaking out, running around like his head is cut off,
> throwing blockers, panicking.
when everybody knows, the appropriate response is to whack behind the
legs, a la hextall or billy smith. :)
> His puck pursuit is mind boggling.
> There was a game this year where he had a shutout going in the 3rd,
> Johnson received a pass at the Buffalo blue line, looked up and there
> was Hasek, 80ft out of his net. What the hell? I don't know why he
> does that stuff, but he'll never win the Cup that way.
i saw that, and i agree. i thought it was foolish. but all goalies have
mental lapses like that. if i were to pick out just a few easy shots that
hextall or richter couldn't stop from past the blueline, i cauld say
they'd never win a cup either, and we both know how wrong that would be.
> He was calm
> and collected at the Olympics (at least after the US game), and he was
> golden. Until he does that in the NHL, he won't win no cups.
i think he could also use a little more team support; the sabres aren't
exactly composed of guys like yzerman/fedorov/etc, hull/zubov or
lindros/leclair.
last year was a big improvement for hasek in the nhl playoffs. he should
have reduced the 'flake' lable from the previous year and he won series.
as you say, he can improve, but i don't think that alone will get buffalo
a cup.
Alexander Beeser
(Richard Farley) wrote:
>
> This is a contention that Sonny has already exposed as being wishful at
> best, so I'll move on.
Lets dance, are you saying that the sabres today are no better than the
last habs cup team ? Because if you are its time to take off your
revisionist glasses and look at the waythe players played then, not how
they blossomed into better players like leclair and schneider. The habs
has a team or role players who have moved on to become role players ( with
the exception of leclair and schneider) on other teams.
> > Hasek
> > hasn't won a ring yet,
>
> Which is more of an edictment of his team than himself. This really has
> tangential relevance, at best.
Only if you missed the entire thread. How can you say that hasek is
better than roy, who has played longer and singlehandedly won the habs
that cup. I judge goalies based on how they play in the big games. Hasek
has played well but he's never been the difference. Roy has. If your not
going to use the "big game" theory then tell me what the criteria are
because if its stats, then marty brodeur is the greatest goalie on the
planet right now after two sub 2 GAA seasons. The same line of reasoning
states that hextall is a great goalie, so good that no one wants to see
him weat their uniform in the playoffs. I don't care what your GAA or
save percentage is or how many shutouts you get, the only real quality is
does your goalie keep you in games that you have no right being in and
does his play win games. If the avs are up 6-0 and roy screws around with
the puck loses it and costs himself the shutout I don't care as long as he
stops the breakaway when the game is tied or the avs are up by one with 2
minutes left in the third.
>
> > and its not to say that he hasn't played well in
> > the playoffs, but for every year that he has played well there are other
> > goalies who played as well if not better.
>
> Well then congratulate the Kolzigs of the world. Do not endict Hasek
> merely continuing his excellence.
So the fact that he's played in several series where he was arguably
the second best player is some sort of compliment ? I don't think so.
Roy outplayed every other goalie when the won the cup, the choice was
clear as to who was the conn winner ( when the avs won a case could have
been made fior roy again although joe was on fire was well) Hasek, who
played well, duelled with kolzig whom I think had a better playoffs last
year. And I'm not endicting hasek, I think he's a great goalie, certainly
the best czech goalie, but to proclaim him as the best goalie period in
the last 30 years is both premature and undeserved. You'd think that you
are tony schiavonne always proclaimming the next bout as being the
"biggest in the history of our sport". The only think that hasek has that
roy doesn't is league MVP, whereas the things that roy has that hasek
doesn't are rings o plenty and a conn smythe. Ask the people who play
which they think is more valuable.
> > If your basing your arguments on vezina's or the regular season then I
> > proclaim the buffalo bills the greatest football team of the nineties for
> > all of the jobbing they did in the games that counted.
>
> This is really bad logic. Team accomplishments are obviously different
> and have seperate significance than individual accomplishments.
For someone to claim that I'm using bad logic and then try to
distinguish individual accomplishments from a team game is hilarious,
where I assume your talking about his awards, and we all know how well
deserved tand just these are. And based on my criteria for ranking
goaltenders, this is perfectly consistent, roy is better than hasek. If
you want to introduce your reasoning for why hasek is in the same league
as roy, lets have it. Roy is no fluke and has been instrumental helping
two teams to the cup, played his ass off in the olympics, and has
accomplished far more than hasek has. but hasek is better because you say
so ? Geez you've convinced me. Mabey you could tell me where I can score
some of your "good logic"
Sandy
Richard Farley
abe...@utmem1.utmem.edu (Alexander Beeser) wrote:
|In article <rf8225-0312...@207.215.140.75>, rf8...@hotmail.com
|(Richard Farley) wrote:
|
[snippage]
|
|> > Hasek
|> > hasn't won a ring yet,
|>
|> Which is more of an edictment of his team than himself. This really has
|> tangential relevance, at best.
|
| Only if you missed the entire thread.
[snippage]
Hasek's lack of a Stanley Cup ring, in and of itself, provides little
insight into his dominance. Even if you did miss the entire thread you
would no that.
|> Well then congratulate the Kolzigs of the world. Do not endict Hasek
|> merely continuing his excellence.
|
| So the fact that he's played in several series where he was arguably
|the second best player is some sort of compliment ?
Why don't you judge him on his own merits. We have sufficient dsata where
we can do that. Hasek posted something like a .940 save eprcentage in the
playoffs last year. That is, bottom line, dominant regardless of the fact
that Kolzig's save percentage was better.
|I don't think so.
Then you think wrong.
[snippage]
|but to proclaim him as the best goalie period in
|the last 30 years is both premature and undeserved.
I never said this. I simply said that it is very naive to think that an
argument for Hasek can not be made.
|The only think that hasek has that
|roy doesn't is league MVP, whereas the things that roy has that hasek
|doesn't are rings o plenty and a conn smythe.
The Conn Symthe's are relevant, but the rings are not. The rings are team
accomplishments. We are not talking about teams; we are talking about
individual players.
|Ask the people who play
|which they think is more valuable.
I don't really care what they think. If they are dumb enought o think
that rings are a better indicator of value than a Hart or Vezina, so be
it. I am tired of accounting for the ignorance of others.
|> This is really bad logic. Team accomplishments are obviously different
|> and have seperate significance than individual accomplishments.
|
| For someone to claim that I'm using bad logic and then try to
|distinguish individual accomplishments from a team game is hilarious,
I don't see why it is so funny, but then again that is proabbly why you
have so many problems in these types of discussions. It is a team game,
and there are team orientated goals, but team accomplishments in and or
themselves do not give us very much insight into how much individual
players contributed toward the accomplishment of the team goal.
|And based on my criteria for ranking
|goaltenders, this is perfectly consistent, roy is better than hasek.
Your criteria is fundamentally flawed.
[snippage]
|but hasek is better because you say
|so ? Geez you've convinced me. Mabey you could tell me where I can score
|some of your "good logic"
Perhaps you should concentrate more on justifying your assertions than
developing your malmatured rhetoric. You wield your sarcasm like a mute
wields his tongue: inefficiently.
RF
sonny hays-eberts
> Lets dance, are you saying that the sabres today are no better than the
> last habs cup team ? Because if you are its time to take off your
> revisionist glasses and look at the waythe players played then, not how
> they blossomed into better players like leclair and schneider.
alright sandy - in order to make it crystal clear, let's get down to brass
tacks. you seem to be mixing two disparte issues here.
the first is that the habs of '93 were a worse team than the current ('97
being the last complete year) sabres.
the second is that the '93 habs were a team composed of less talanted
players than today's sabres.
the first assumption easy to disprove. the '93 habs were the 6th best team
in the nhl with 102 points. the '97 sabres were the 10th best team with 89
points. i'm aware that cross year comparisons are not exact, but in this
case there is no huge timespan to overcome. it's far from comparing
gretzky to howe, for example. i fail to see how anybody can argue that *as
a team* the '93 habs were inferior. why did they perform at a higher level
then? these are real numbers, not opinions.
the second issue is far more subjective. you feel the '93 habs had less
talent. i'm not so sure myself, but i do think the '93 habs as a team were
greater than the sum of the individual parts.
none of this is meant to put down roy. i still think he deserved that '93
smythe. i just don't think the habs of that year were as sorry as they get
made out to be. mayhap habs fans consider a team without a richard or
belevieau to be weak, but that wasn't a weak team.
i agree with your ranking of hasek and roy. i like hasek more than roy,
myself. i simply happen to agree with richard, it is not that unrealistic
(even if i don;t agree) to make a case for hasek being a great goalie, or
even the best in the game right now.
i agree, he is not the best goalie in the last 30 years, battlin' billy
smith was. :):)
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@oregon.uoregon.edu (sonny hays-eberts) wrote:
> i agree with your ranking of hasek and roy. i like hasek more than roy,
> myself.
oops, that could be read wrongly. i meant that as a fan, i enjoy watching
hasek more, not that i find him to be 'better', if that's more legible....
Alexander Beeser
(Richard Farley) wrote:
>
> Hasek's lack of a Stanley Cup ring, in and of itself, provides little
> insight into his dominance. Even if you did miss the entire thread you
> would no that.
So roy wins a cup with a less than talented team, hasek is afforded the
same hand dealt to him and hasn't won squat and all of a sudden its
immaterial ? I'm not talking about the cup in colorado, I'm talking
about a player, one individual, playing so incredibly well that he took a
less than talented team to the cup. No one in their right mind is going
around saying that anybody but roy was the difference in that series.
>
> Why don't you judge him on his own merits. We have sufficient dsata where
> we can do that. Hasek posted something like a .940 save eprcentage in the
> playoffs last year. That is, bottom line, dominant regardless of the fact
> that Kolzig's save percentage was better.
The argument is that he's the best goalie in the last thirty years.
I've been careful to state in every post that hasek is a great goalie, but
he's not the best in the last thirty years. Anyone who says otherwise is
a homer or naive. I asked you straight out, what criteria puts hasek
ahead of roy. I've told you why I rank roy ahead of hasek, you haven't
offered a damn thing.
> |I don't think so.
>
> Then you think wrong.
right the stat your using he comes in second and its still somehow
allows you to rank him ahead of kolzig and roy. Nice. I'm sure you will
dissavow using save percentage as the arbitrer of rank and then rthat
would leave you with.....
wait that would leave with nothing that your word. How nice.
>
> [snippage]
>
> |but to proclaim him as the best goalie period in
> |the last 30 years is both premature and undeserved.
>
> I never said this. I simply said that it is very naive to think that an
> argument for Hasek can not be made.
I'm willing to listen, lets hear it. If its not naive to say offer the
argument, because we both know there isn't one. There are lots of golaies
who have been better when it counts than hasek. Roy is one, and I'd give
the nod to billy smith as well.
>
> |The only think that hasek has that
> |roy doesn't is league MVP, whereas the things that roy has that hasek
> |doesn't are rings o plenty and a conn smythe.
>
> The Conn Symthe's are relevant, but the rings are not. The rings are team
> accomplishments. We are not talking about teams; we are talking about
> individual players.
ROY SINGLEHANDEDLY WON THAT CUP ! Is this clear yet ? No roy, no cup.
simple. He was the difference in every one of the games they won in
overtime.
His individual play hept the habs in games they had no right being in.
How's that for talking about individual players ? Not all cups are
equivalent, because you win a cup doesn't necessarily make you better than
someone who hasn't unless you win the cup singlehandedly. I can't see how
you can argue it both ways, mabey you can clear this up for me.
Is it your opinion that roy didn't win that cup by himself by putting on a
goaltending clinic in the playoffs the likes of which have never been seen
?
For the bonus points when has hasek done so ?
>
> |Ask the people who play
> |which they think is more valuable.
>
> I don't really care what they think. If they are dumb enought o think
> that rings are a better indicator of value than a Hart or Vezina, so be
> it. I am tired of accounting for the ignorance of others.
You must not like being in your own prescence then. The hart is a joke,
the vezina is as well ( not that patty hasn't won one). Brodeur should
have won the hart last year anyways, so these stupid year end awards mean
zip. The players play for rings not stupid biased awards. We all know
how well regarded the norris tropy is for best defenseman.
>
> |> This is really bad logic. Team accomplishments are obviously different
> |> and have seperate significance than individual accomplishments.
> |
> | For someone to claim that I'm using bad logic and then try to
> |distinguish individual accomplishments from a team game is hilarious,
>
> I don't see why it is so funny, but then again that is proabbly why you
> have so many problems in these types of discussions.
I have problems ? You claim that it's not naieve to claim that he's the
best goalie in the last thirty years yet don't offer any reasoning for
this. I've offered you the criteria that justify why I rank the way I
do. despite me asking you just keep saying that a case could be made for
hasek, well if that's true buddy step to the plate and offer one. Yeah
like I have problems with these types discussions. I guess my problem is
that I won't accept "because I say so" as a rational retort in a
discussion.
> It is a team game,
> and there are team orientated goals, but team accomplishments in and or
> themselves do not give us very much insight into how much individual
> players contributed toward the accomplishment of the team goal.
No watching the games does. Are you implying by this that roy wasn't
the deciding factor in his cup in montreal ? It's a team game for sure,
but there are rare instances when one players abilities carries an entire
team and makes them great. Roy has done this hasek has not. Do you
understand the concept of "big game players " if so rank roy and hasek.
>
> |And based on my criteria for ranking
> |goaltenders, this is perfectly consistent, roy is better than hasek.
>
> Your criteria is fundamentally flawed.
Coming from you, I'd take that as a compliment. Again there genius
what are you criteria upon which it wouldn't be naive to suggest that he's
the best goalie in the last thirty years ?
> [snippage]
>
> |but hasek is better because you say
> |so ? Geez you've convinced me. Mabey you could tell me where I can score
> |some of your "good logic"
>
> Perhaps you should concentrate more on justifying your assertions than
> developing your malmatured rhetoric. You wield your sarcasm like a mute
> wields his tongue: inefficiently.
I've asked nice one, a whole bunch of times in this post and still I
have no idea why you beleive its not naive to assert hasek's dominance,
other than you say so. If you have it let's hear it, or you can kepp
dodging it and looking oh so credible. And do ad homenim attacks fall
into the catergory of " malmatured rhetoric" ? I'd thought I'd get the
voice of authority on this one.
Sandy
>
> RF
Richard Farley
abe...@utmem1.utmem.edu (Alexander Beeser) wrote:
> > Your criteria is fundamentally flawed.
>
> Coming from you, I'd take that as a compliment.
I know I have kind of taken part in this kind of banter, but I really
don't see why anybody in this newsgroup should feel compelled or obligated
to engage in discussions with you when your hair-trigger response is to
resort to this type of defamatory argumentation. I illuded to this in my
last post, and unfortunately participated in it to a limited degree, but
what incentive do I have to ever respond to anythnig you offer when I know
that you'll just offer up these limited retorts?
The question was rhetorical, as I do not see why I will get a unexpected
response.
Alex Goddard
>Err... Peter Bondra is faster, larger, and more of a pure goal scorer
>than Palffy. Question is are we talking about Slovakian citizens or
>strictly native born Slovaks? 'cause Bondra is the better of the
>two.
Bondra is also four years older. Four years ago, Bondra wasn't as good as Palffy
is now. If I had to choose between a 30 year old Bondra or a 26 year old Pallfy,
I'd take Palffy. He has more upside potential and more years ahead of him, not
to mention that Bondra is having a terrible year.
---------------------------------------------------
Alex Goddard
"I shudder to think what would happen to education
if control ever fell into the hands of government."
- Mike Harris, dictator, hypocrite and former chair
of the Northern Ontario Trustees Association
---------------------------------------------------
Alexander Beeser
<rf8225-0512...@ppp-207-215-141-86.sndg02.pacbell.net>,
rf8...@hotmail.com (Richard Farley) wrote:
> In article <abeeser-0512...@tcooper2.utmem.edu>,
> abe...@utmem1.utmem.edu (Alexander Beeser) wrote:
>
> > > Your criteria is fundamentally flawed.
> >
> > Coming from you, I'd take that as a compliment.
>
> I know I have kind of taken part in this kind of banter, but I really
> don't see why anybody in this newsgroup should feel compelled or obligated
> to engage in discussions with you when your hair-trigger response is to
> resort to this type of defamatory argumentation.
Well I'd like to be able to anaylse your criteria but you don't have the
balls to post them despite repeated attempts on my part to goad you into
offereing them. and for the record, you started in on the personal
attacks first, so fo you to whine about it now is hypocritical.
> I illuded to this in my
> last post, and unfortunately participated in it to a limited degree,
And this makes you so much better than me right ? Because you
participated in it " to a limitited degree" yoy opened the floodgates, now
your criticising me for sending it back you way ? That's real manley of
you son.
> but
> what incentive do I have to ever respond to anythnig you offer when I know
> that you'll just offer up these limited retorts?
What incentive do I have to get you to defend your position with
something other that "because I say so " ? Well the one incentive it to
expose you as an ignorant pissant. There are a lot of people whom I
disagree with, but as long as they defend their arguments then I end up
agreeing that we simply differ on criteria for ranking. You on the
otherhand offer your opinion but fail, when asked point blank, to justify
that opinion. By not offereing any justification you expect people to
accept your argument "because I say so", something which adds absolutley
nothing to any discussion.
>
> The question was rhetorical, as I do not see why I will get a unexpected
> response.
Har dee har harr!!! Since you asked questions straight out why don't
you answer mine ? Fraid to go down with the sinking ship ?
To sum this up, if you beleive that a case can be made that hasek is
the best goalie on the whole planet inthe last thirty years let's have
it. Make the case or shaddapa you face. Failing to do so and attacking
me on points of netiquette is the tell tale sign of someone who has no
point to make.
Sandy
asuka_lang...@my-dejanews.com
time periods involved (say if we were talking five or ten years down the
line), then maybe Palffy would be the better choice. 10 goals really isn't
that bad after 20 games of thes season, but as a whole our team has sucked.
During the playoffs they finally found someone else that could be on his
other wing for him to pass to so he didn't have to do it all himself. The
real shit of it is that they haven't put that line back together this year
that I know of. I expect the Bondra to score 40 or 50 goals again this year
as well, I sort of doubt Palffy will do that this year and he may never reach
50. Bondra scores in streaks, always has, won't be surprised if in a week
where we have 3 games scheduled he opens up and gets 6 goals over that three
game period. It is a matter of time before he gets back on track nothing
more. Give it time anyhow, Bondra hasn't played a whole season in how long
and he still gets 50 goals a season. I think I'll take Bondra over Palffy at
the moment, Palffy has nothing to prove, I think he is a class act, but
Bondra is the better goal scorer, in my opinion.
Asuka
In article <366a2798...@nntp.netcom.ca>,
agod...@netcom.ca (Alex Goddard) wrote:
> Bondra is also four years older. Four years ago, Bondra wasn't as good as
Palffy
> is now. If I had to choose between a 30 year old Bondra or a 26 year old
Pallfy,
> I'd take Palffy. He has more upside potential and more years ahead of him,
not
> to mention that Bondra is having a terrible year.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Alex Goddard
> "I shudder to think what would happen to education
> if control ever fell into the hands of government."
> - Mike Harris, dictator, hypocrite and former chair
> of the Northern Ontario Trustees Association
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Alex Goddard
> I think I'll take Bondra over Palffy at
>the moment, Palffy has nothing to prove, I think he is a class act, but
>Bondra is the better goal scorer, in my opinion.
When Bondra was 26 (Palffy's current age) he'd had two 20 goal seasons
and one 30 goal season. Palffy's had three 40 goal seasons by age 26.
If I had to choose, I'd take Palffy.
Chris Bailey
>
> The only think that hasek has that
> roy doesn't is league MVP, whereas the things that roy has that hasek
> which they think is more valuable.
>
That's worth a lot considering all the best players in the world showed
up at the last Olympics. And when you look at the rosters of the teams.
But to me Roy is the greatest goalie playing the game right now.
Chris Bailey
Chris Bailey
> There's something mentally not right about Hasek. If he gets touched,
> he starts freaking out, running around like his head is cut off,
> There was a game this year where he had a shutout going in the 3rd,
> Johnson received a pass at the Buffalo blue line, looked up and there
> was Hasek, 80ft out of his net. What the hell? I don't know why he
> and collected at the Olympics (at least after the US game), and he was
> golden. Until he does that in the NHL, he won't win no cups.
>
are a few things about Patrick Roy:
- started a fight with Mike Vernon (Avs vs. Detroit 1997)
- started a fight with Chris Osgood (Avs vs. Detroit 1998)
- jumps over every line on the ice when skating off at the end of a
period of play
- drives to the rink only with certain players who must sit in specific
seats
- ...?
Chris Bailey
Alex Goddard
> - started a fight with Mike Vernon (Avs vs. Detroit 1997)
A fight that Roy may have started but Vernon certainly finished!
Chris Bailey
>
> On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 13:16:16 -0700, Chris Bailey <ih...@mailing.lists> wrote:
>
> > - started a fight with Mike Vernon (Avs vs. Detroit 1997)
>
> A fight that Roy may have started but Vernon certainly finished!
>
forget that Shanahan gave Roy a shot, as Roy skated towards Vernon. I
heard that's where he got the cut over his eye. At least that's what Roy
said.
Chris Bailey
sabreguy
groups should be used for. Things like this and like who is the better
all around player Fedorov or Jagr? Stuff like this. Palffy at 26 is
far and away the better all-around player than Bondra and this is
undisputed. Bondra can't pass like Palffy and his vision is not as
good. I mean, 40 ft. from the net, Palffy will thread a pass to Claude
LaPointe (when he actually decides to play..... I know, he won't be
playing with NY but this is jus hypothetical) who will have to do
nothing but leave his stick on the ice and in it goes. Bondra's
passing is overrated because it is only a guess. He doesn't pass but I
guess if I had his skills, I wouldn't either. Either way, whether he
can score or not is not at question here. He can score but the better
all-around player is still Palffy.
Just a little sidebar: What do y'all think of this trade: Plante,
Holzinger, Audette and a first rounder for Palffy from the Sabres.
Just an interesting thought and a rumor I actually heard......
Sabreguy
Frederic Boy
> Holzinger, Audette and a first rounder for Palffy from the Sabres.
No way ! Palffy is a great all-around player, a very talented guy, no
doubt about that. But the Sabres just can't trade their first line +
their 1st rounder just for him. It'd be suicide. Put Bryan Berard in the
trade, and it definately sounds better to me.
What about you ? What's your opinion,as a "sabreguy", about this rumor ?
Fred.
Doug Norris
This is true, at least from I could tell watching the tape.
Doug
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Todd Norris (norr...@euclid.colorado.edu) "The Mad Kobold"
Hockey Goaltender Home Page:http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~norrisdt/goalie.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself.
Mankind. Basically, it's made up of two separate words---"mank" and "ind".
What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind."
- Deep Thought, Jack Handey
Alex Goddard
>Just a little sidebar: What do y'all think of this trade: Plante,
>Holzinger, Audette and a first rounder for Palffy from the Sabres.
>Just an interesting thought and a rumor I actually heard......
That'll never happen. Palffy is good, but he's not worth 4 players.
That's a ridiculous scenario.
sabreguy
wrote:
> > Just a little sidebar: What do y'all think of this trade: Plante,
> > Holzinger, Audette and a first rounder for Palffy from the Sabres.
>
>
(but quick), Audette will never play for the Sabres again because of
his present holdout/contract negotiations, Holzinger might be the
future of the franchise but you have to give something to get something
most times. I like Holzinger as an all-around player but Palffy is
worth more. The NHL draft is a crap shoot at the best of times.
Although I like their pick this year in defenceman Dmitri Kalinin (huge
kid who can skate!!), a great deal of the past first rounders have
been complete busts. Or you can get Manny Malhotra, Rico Fata, Phil
Housley... Players who can contribute their first year. But, given my
options with the Buffalo offence, I would have to consider that trade.
If Berard is thrown in, I make that deal in a heartbeat everyday and
twice on Sundays. Put Berard in front of Hasek and they give the West
a run for their money in the Cup finals. Right now, I think that they
have to be the favorite going into the 2nd quarter of the season.
13-5-5 is fabulous in what might be the most hotly contested division
in hockey.
The Sabres have to do something with their offence. Three goals a game
might be fine when playing TBay or Florida but when the season is on
the line in the playoffs... Imagine, if you will, Palffy alongside
Varada and Peca. They could score, play defence, and hit you so hard
your grandkids would have blurred vision. There isn't a line that
would outhit them because Varada is the next Probert: a tough guy who
can hit and score and play defence. I'm beginning to think that I
should start posting Sabre updates here if people can post Bondra,
Ducks, and anything else here. Hmmmmmm......
Feel free to agree or disagree. Just put it in writing so I can
respond to you!!
sonny hays-eberts
<b...@emi.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> No way ! Palffy is a great all-around player, a very talented guy, no
> doubt about that. But the Sabres just can't trade their first line +
> their 1st rounder just for him. It'd be suicide. Put Bryan Berard in the
> trade, and it definately sounds better to me.
only if buffalo wants hasek to face even *more* shots on goal.
> What about you ? What's your opinion,as a "sabreguy", about this rumor ?
as an isles fan - this won't happen, but sabres fans can dream.
Richard Farley
ebe...@oregon.uoregon.edu (sonny hays-eberts) wrote:
> In article <366E711B...@emi.u-bordeaux.fr>, Frederic Boy
> <b...@emi.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>
>
> > No way ! Palffy is a great all-around player, a very talented guy, no
> > doubt about that. But the Sabres just can't trade their first line +
> > their 1st rounder just for him. It'd be suicide. Put Bryan Berard in the
> > trade, and it definately sounds better to me.
>
> only if buffalo wants hasek to face even *more* shots on goal.
My God, can you imagine that? Buffalo has enough trouble keep the shots
down while using two defensemen. Why would they want to take Berard and
reduce that number to one? Hmm, maybe because he /is/ Dominik Hasek, but
I still wouldn't want to put even more pressure on him.
RF
Alex Goddard
>My God, can you imagine that? Buffalo has enough trouble keep the shots
>down while using two defensemen. Why would they want to take Berard and
>reduce that number to one? Hmm, maybe because he /is/ Dominik Hasek, but
>I still wouldn't want to put even more pressure on him.
Exactly. The Sabres' defense is terrible. We give the puck away in our zone more
than any defense I've ever seen. Outside of Zhitnik, our defense is brutal. Wooley
is "good-shift, bad-shift" and Smehlik is bailed out on a daily basis by the fact that he
plays with the most underrated playe in the game with Zhitnik. Berard would be a
huge step backwards on a defense corp that is already way too error-prone.