Arthur Berman quoth:
 
>Jack Parker may be an icon at BU, and lord knows I love the BU team, but
>Parker is displaying prejudices which have demonstrably harmed the US
>team on the ice as they embarrass themselves at the World Junior
>tournament.  Never mind what I've got to say, or feel about this, the
>following is from today's Edmonton Journal:
>
[snip Edmonton Journal article]
>
>Indeed, results show the US team is paying the price for Parker's myopia.
>
 
Jack Parker, when asked by the media why he "cut" so many Major Junior
players, answered [sic] "In the last 2 years we've gone with only the
'best' players. With those players, the team went nowhere. I believe that
picking players that will work together is what counts, not individual
stars."
 
While I don't think that Parker assembled the best "team" he could have, I
can't blame him for trying a different combination of players. After all,
the last two tournaments brought the USA nothing.
 
I support Parker in his decision, for three main reasons:
 
1. "All-star" Juniors vs. a "team"
==================================
First, a major criticism by both fans and the media of USA World Junior
teams over the years has been that they are nothing but a team of
all-stars. The majority of the media has felt that these squads are not
playing to win as a team; rather, they're playing to tally up points in
front of the scouts.
 
I agree with this sentiment. If you take the best players available, each
player you bring to the team is usually (one of) the top players on his
home squad. An "all-star" Junior team would be a team filled with leaders;
given the ages of these kids, most of them do not yet have the competitive
maturity nor experience to shelf their egos aside and play as a team. Do
you really think that Sean
Haggerty or Jason Bonsignore would be happy about playing "under" Brian
Berard? Would they be able to work together, and feed off of each other's
skills? With very little playing time together, probably not.
 
Think about it: these kids are 18, 19 (yes, there are younger ones). These
"kids" have been drafted in the first and second round by professional
hockey teams. These "kids" generally lead both their team and their Junior
leagues in scoring. These "kids" also act like kids, which in many cases
means being pompous, arrogrant brats.
 
I'm not trying to say that all these kids are puck-hogs; I'm merely
pointing out that Parker's main goal was to create a TEAM, not an all-start
squad. In any sport around the world, all-star teams have never been shown
to be as competent or successful as their respective league leaders. At the
next Winter Olympics, what team do you think would play better -- a team
made up of American all-star showboats, or a solid squad of American
players that work together?
 
 
2. Junior players vs. College players
=====================================
Recently on Hockey-L I started a somewhat heated debate that led to a lot
of flames directed back on me when I criticized colleges for going after
the Juniors so heavily, and bringing in 21-year-old freshman.
 
Many people (both publicly and privately) made it quite clear that they
believed that college players coming out of juniors, regardless of any age,
were much more mature and could play on a "team" much better than most high
school kids. The main reason? High school kids going straight to college
don't have the experience of regular, tough competition (as their HS teams
usually blow away most others), and the kids themselves are usually the
stars of their teams.
 
I believe the same goes for kids playing Junior hockey; that is, most of
these kids haven't faced serious competition. What do you think means more
to the team members -- winning a regular-season college game, or a junior
game? Factor in the college playoffs, and you've got players with more
experience playing "under pressure." Heck, Parker's got 3 kids on his squad
with last year's National Championship under their belts.
 
Look at Boucher, considered by many to be the best American Junior
goaltender. Many of the previews of Team USA claimed that while Boucher is
a skilled netminder, he lacks experience in "big games." Heck, even the
ESPN announcers commented after Canada's fourth goal that Boucher hasn't
ever really played "under pressure." [and while it is a personal judgment
call, I don't think I'm off the mark by saying that 2 of Canda's first 3
goals should have been EASILY saved by Boucher]
 
Parker has stated repeatedly over the years that he believes college
players (yes, even freshman) have more "game maturity" than their junior
counterparts. Prejudice or not, he does seem to have a point.
 
 
3. Candian Juniors vs. USA Juniors
==================================
My final point here regards the attitudes of both the players and the fans.
Growing up in Canada, most kids not only dream of the NHL, but also dream
of the chance to WIN the World Junior Championship.
 
Do kids playing hockey in the USA feel the same way? Hardly. While any
player would be honored, excited, and very proud to play for Team USA, it's
not nearly the stuff of dreams that it is in Canada. Much of this is due to
the local media coverage, and the US fan's attitude towards the Junior
championships.
 
For most members of the Canadian squads (as well as other entries from
Europe), the number one goal is clear: WIN THE GOLD. This is clearly
evident when watching the excitement that the entire team generates when
scoring each goal, and winning each game.
 
For this reason, Parker selected a squad that he felt wanted to play in the
tourney for the right reasons, rather than the wrong ones. I remember when
John Lilley returned from the '92 Juniors (when the USA won the Bronze).
Lilley was one of the points leaders for Team USA, and brought an attitude
back to BU with him. Parker didn't appreciate it, and midway through the
season Lilley left school to play Major Junior. Not much of a "team"
player, eh?
 
 
 
I will concede that YES, PARKER WAS PREJUDICED. I believe however, that
Parker was prejudiced against attempting to coach a squad made up of
inflated egos, attitudes, and showboats.
 
For years, Parker has both coached and recruited kids the same way at BU.
He doesn't go out looking for the best talent available; he looks for the
players that he feels can help his team. Additionally, Parker has proven
over the years that he has the ability to take ALL of his players to a
higher level; his recent success with walk-ons Ken Rausch and Mike Grier
are testament to that.
 
Parker was selected because he was thought of as a good coach. The
selection committee was well aware of any prejudices of his, including his
attitudes towards Junior hockey, "all-star kids," and building a team. His
selection of players did not come as a surprise to USA Hockey, nor most
members of the media.
 
Sure, he's prejudiced about some things. Isn't everybody?
 
 
 
Greenie
 
S P O O N ! !
(go BU)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.