On Thu, 28 Dec 1995, greenie wrote:
 
> 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."
 
I agree that picking players who will play well together is important,
even paramount, but that is not the point  I was making
>
> 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.
>
Do you know Sean Haggerty, or the other players I mentioned?  If not, you
are making an unwarranted assumption about their character.
 
> 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.
>
ALL the players in the Junior tournament are young.  The idea that all
the team players go to college and all the individually oriented players
play juniors is not supported by any evidence you cite.  You're entitled
to your opinion, but I see no evidence in your post except your comments
on Lilley, and I'd like to know more about your source on that.
>
> 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?
>
There are plenty of "showboats" playing NCAA hockey and plenty of team
players in Juniors (and vice versa).
 
> 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.
 
There is plenty of serious competition in Junior hockey.  In Canada the
Memorial Cup gets more coverage than the NCAA tournament does in the
States.  It would never, for example, be preempted for golf while a game
was in progress.
 
>
> 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.
>
As a coach, he should have *invited* a 40 goal scorer like Haggerty.  If
he was not a team player, he could have been cut.  My point is you don't
select a team based on prejudice, you select by meeting people, seeing
both their personalities and playing abilities, then make a choice.  What
Parker did, IMO, was discrimination of the worst sort, with character
assassination as part of the mix.
 
>
> 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.
 
Is what you are saying that people with Team USA have no pride?  It seems
that is how they are playing, and how they are being run by Parker.
 
>
> 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.
>
Unless you have solid evidence for the above accusing people of having
this type of (lack of) character is irresponsible at best.
 
> Sure, he's prejudiced about some things. Isn't everybody?
 
For sure, but most of us are not allowed (legally or morally) to make our
decisions in hiring based on these prejudices.  There are laws that
address this thankfully.
 
Arthur Berman [log in to unmask]
GO BU!!! NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
GO CANADA!!!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.