Edmonton — In many important ways, the Stanley Cup final turned out to be a microcosm of the regular-season: Some bad, mostly good and an overall sense that the National Hockey League has started down a path that they don't plan to deviate from much. From start to finish, the year highlighted the two best things about the game — speed and skill. There were wildly entertaining games, some erratic officiating, lead changes, momentum swings, but mostly, as Oilers' coach Craig MacTavish said the other night after Game 5, a product the league could be proud of.
Aesthetically, there was a night-and-day difference between the 2004 playoffs, in which the Tampa Bay Lightning defeated the Calgary Flames in seven games; and the 2006 edition, in which the Carolina Hurricanes squeezed out a seven-game victory over the Edmonton Oilers. The Flames were mostly celebrated for their hard work; there was nothing too magical or entertaining in their success formula. They relied on goaltender Miikka Kiprusoff for saves and right winger Jarome Iginla for goals and pretty much everybody else played the same way — working hard for every little thing they got. Back when it looked as if Calgary might actually win the thing, the defining moment of the series looked as if it would come in the fifth game, when Iginla had a high-intensity shift that lasted almost two minutes and resulted in the winning goal by linemate Oleg Saprykin. Afterwards, centre Craig Conroy called it maybe the best shift in the history of the league — just because Iginla won half-a-dozen battles for the puck and was a dominating physical presence. It probably didn't even make the highlight reels; the moment was appreciated for its diligence and commitment, not because he split the defence, or made a lift-you-out-of-your-seat sort of play. Eventually, the clock struck midnight on Calgary's season, in the same way it did on Edmonton's Monday night, and after they'd had time to digest the defeat, there wasn't much to say, other than to commend them for the way they'd gutted out win after grinding win.
Two years later, there was no shortage of effort from either the Carolina or Edmonton players, but they did put on a more aesthetically pleasing show. It was a track meet, from start to finish, and considering the finish came on June 19, the second-longest season in NHL history, that was an extraordinary accomplishment.
So how does one place the 2006 season in perspective? A handful of analysts from the major TV networks all agree: The game is heading in the right direction — although some are more enthralled about the direction the league is heading in than others.
Ryan Smyth of the Edmonton Oilers, right, congratulates Rod Brind'Amour of the Carolina Hurricanes after Game 7 of the 2006 NHL Stanley Cup Finals at the RBC Center in Raleigh. (Dave Sandford/Getty Images)
Related Articles
TSN's Pierre MacGuire says: "I prefer the hockey today because of the flow, the action, the ability of teams to come from behind. I like the fact that you can come from behind, the fact that you're down 3-0 in a Stanley Cup final game, you can still come from behind. The biggest thing is the skill level — the best players are now allowed to show their skill and defenders are understanding how to defend better. The speed and the skill of the game is back and that makes it a great celebration."
MacGuire also added that one of the great fears of the obstruction crackdown — that body contact would be weaned out of the game — never materialized.
"I think we've seen bigger body contact than we've ever seen before."
Nick Kypreos, MacGuire's counterpart at Rogers Sportsnet, also gave the new game a tentative thumbs-up, but was a little more cautionary in his praise.
"It is better," said Kypreos. "It is heading in the right direction. But make no mistake, it's still a work in progress. I think what they've tried to do, to the best of their abilities, is to take the refs out of the equation and make it black and white. I don't think our game is like that. Guys have to still make discretionary calls and that includes stick on body and what is relevant to the play and what isn't.
"Right now, they're calling everything. It pains me sometimes to see some of the penalties alter the game. That includes the diving. It's real bad, the worst I've ever seen. And I don't necessarily blame the players because you work with what you have and you try to get the advantage for your hockey club — at every cost, to the point where you might even embarrass yourself a little bit. It's up to the officials to call that sort of stop. It's up to them to say, 'look, I'm sending a message real early. If you guys can come out here, looking like you're wearing skate guards, you're going to sit in the penalty box.'
"It's more entertaining product than it was a few years ago."
Hockey Night in Canada's Harry Neale added this: "I certainly like the hockey better this year. The gap between the best teams and the weaker teams is much narrower — and the Stanley Cup final proved that. The pace of many of the games is up. It took the players a while to get used to some of the new rules and interpretations; in fact, they're still getting used to them, but hockey players who have played one way for their whole lives, I don't think you can expect them to adapt quite as quickly as you might have hoped. There are a few too many penalties, but they have been reduced in the playoffs most games.
"When the season starts again next year, you're going to have to be Harry Houdini to pick the eight teams that are going to make the playoffs and the four that are going to make it to the Final Four. So all in all, it's been a successful, the changes."
Like Kypreos, Neale singled out diving as the biggest negative in the new NHL and has a possible solution to the problem.
"I would give a four-minute penalty for the dive; and two minutes if it's a hook — or four minutes if it's just a dive. I think now, the chances are, with the players learning now that you can't even touch the guy on the pants or the arm with the stick, it's just a question of time before the coaches say, 'if you feel it and you know you don't have a great chance, then stumble and fall.' The referee, not always, but lots of time, will give the penalty. But the coach if it's a four-minute penalty, the coach will say: 'don't stumble or fall, even if you feel like it, because we're going to be shorthanded.'"
