I said nothing about him having to be likable on the ice, but if you are one of those fans who always watches the post game stuff and the guy is on tv always acting like an a-hole that's not going to make you cheer for anybody. Why do you think people dislike Crosby? For the most part it's because of those same interviews where he whines and says how he won't play in the sandbox with the rest of the kids because his feelings are hurt. The legitimate fans of hockey take nothing away from his talent and skill, that can't be argued with - but we are still human and enjoy good sportsmanship OFF the ice even if all bets are off ON the ice.
You Bring up the Bruins, let me remind you that this is their first Cup in how many years? I will bring up Detroit, a team with multiple wins and one that has spoiled their fans with always making the playoffs no matter how far they go. Lidstrom is one of the classiest players who ever played the game and their whole organization is built on that approach. This is just to say to you that goonery is not a requirement to win the Cup.
It's also not a problem for "Canucks" fans. I am a hockey fan first and foremost, then a canuck fan. I have no objection to adding grit or playing more physical - that wasn't my complain with Brown. I do think, however, how you conduct yourself off the ice is important, how you present yourself in interviews, how you handle questions. Listening to Marchand and Lucic is painful, Patrick Kane is getting wasted every night, Quick "doesn't care" about a Vezina or a Conn Smyth because to him "they mean nothing," Crosby is whining about how he "doesn't like anyone." Yeah, sorry.... I am not going to cheer for guys like that. Similar thing with actors, you may make some great movies, but if I find out you are an a-hole to fans, are a druggie, or beat women - you will no longer be getting my money at the cinema.
You ask why do people hate Crosby? I don't, but, I'd like to think it's because he's one of the best on the planet at what he does. Just as I couldn't stand Michael Jordan for that exact same reason. I'd feel different if he played for MY favourite team, though. What do I care what he says in post-game interviews or how he conducts himself while he says it?
Canuck fans are too personality-focused and seem to prefer the type of hockey player who is "good in the community" (a direct CDC quote from last season, although in regards to whom, I can't remember) rather than the type who will "do whatever it takes" (define that as you wish) to win. I DO NOT care if the latter is not someone who YOU can or can not cheer for. I really don't. In fact, you can have
the former and bring them ALL home to meet your mum & dad, since that's apparently what you look for in an NHL-er. But, the latter is exactly the type of guy --- warts and all --- who I will pull for so long as he's wearing the Orca. Guys who you don't have to question whether or not they "want it" or don't find yourself asking "where's the killer instinct?" How many times have Canuck fans --- if they're honest with themselves --- asked that question of certain high-profile players over the last year?
THIS is what I had in mind when I made reference to Boston, not the thuggery that you brought up. I give them all the credit in the world for being smart enough to realise that if the refs generally weren't going to penalise them for the after-the-whistle rough stuff against the Canucks in the SCF, then that was reason enough to stay the course and not change a thing. I would've done the same, too, if I felt I could get away with it and especially if I knew I was inside my opponent's head because of it. Doesn't take a genius to sort that one out. You brought up Detroit and Lidstrom. I'll counter with his former teammate Darren McCarty. Not exactly the "nice guy" that you seem to prefer, but, he served a purpose on those championship teams. Ask Claude Lemieux about that.
You keep going on and on about "good sportsmanship", both on and off the ice, but, I think that "certain Canuck fans", and perhaps even some in major decision-making capacities within the organisation (MG), are for whatever reason afraid to get dirty or employ players that tend to excel at that type of play. I'm not endorsing the return of the NHL goon, but, a team full of "nice guys" is of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever. If a guy has a bit of an edge to his game? So what. Why de-fang him If he performs and makes a contribution to the team goal, which I assume is still to win a Stanley Cup? What do I care if he's a neanderthal who doesn't have a kind word for his fellow humanoid? But, does he finish his checks and have his teammate's back at all times? It's all I care about, sorry. Not the off-ice stuff, so long as they aren't out there breaking the law or demonstrating behaviour patterns that suggest there might be some sort of substance abuse problem.
Edited by Fakename70, 10 June 2012 - 04:47 PM.