• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
stactum

Why the Red Wings Don't Fight

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest Shoreline
Borrowing from the Russian hockey model, the Red Wings went completely against the grain and assembled a Russian line whose members could pass, skate and evade defenders with equal skill, making it more difficult for opponents to slash, check or punch their way to victory. "They didn't put themselves in a position to be hit," says Mr. Holland.

The philosophy led to a Stanley Cup win in 1997 and the team has continued the philosophy ever since, winning three more Cups. For years, the Red Wings kept one or two players on their roster who could skate well and fight if necessary, but in the salary cap era, the premiums on those players forced Detroit to make a choice between skills and toughness. "I'd love to be able to beat your team and beat your team up, but it's impossible to do," says Mr. Holland.

Fights have always broken out during physical hockey games, but in the 1960s it became a strategy. The Boston Bruins and Philadelphia Flyers used intimidation to win Stanley Cups between 1969 and 1975. Without players who specialized in fisticuffs, a team's star players would be beaten to a pulp.

In the 1980s, the NHL doubled the number of divisional games teams played, creating more intense inter-divisional rivalries that sparked even more fighting and led to the advent of the bench-clearing brawl. The league averaged an all-time high of one fight per game in the mid-80s.

Since the bloody '80s, the NHL has been struggling to scale back fighting. It instituted penalties for coming off the bench for a fight and extra penalties for instigating. After the lockout season of 2004-2005, the league made strides to speed up the game by increasing enforcement of hooking and interference penalties. These measures further decreased the need for "enforcers." Fighting plummeted in the 2005-2006 season. The Red Wings had 28 fights in 2003-04 and only six in 2005-06. This season the team has so little need for fisticuffs that it opted to populate its fourth line with skill players, leaving enforcer Darren McCarty in the minors for most of the season.

The goal of the NHL isn't to eliminate fighting -- it's widely seen as a big draw for fans -- but to further penalize teams for using fighting as a strategy.

Great article, and exemplifies how the goon and the goon'ish strategy is rightfully being eliminated from hockey, and even better for the Wings who don't need to employ the goon strategy to win. Good on Kenny Holland and the WSJ (never thought I'd say that). :thumbup:

Edited by Shoreline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the author of this article downplayed was that fighting is way up in hockey from last season.

Also, our regular season success has nothing to do with the fact that we don't fight. Last year we fought more often than previous seasons and still had a good regular season. Likewise, I'm sure that if we averaged around 40 total fights a year from several players combined, we'd still be just as good.

Also, Holland's comment makes no sense. It is possible to beat your team and beat them up, just not from this current team. Many teams have done so in the past, most recently Anaheim in this so-called "new NHL where no one fights anymore."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest micah

I enjoy the WSJ and hockey fights. Here's hoping that some physical team will find a way to render the Wings' strategy obsolete (without actually beating the Wings, hopefully the Wings adapt and respond in kind). I love that the Wings win, but it does dishearten me a bit to know that they are only able to win because new rules and new interpretations of old rules have made their brand of hockey a viable one. Skilled passers and puck possesion are not new inventions - bui;ding a team around only skill because rules now dictate that being a big meanie on the ice isn't acceptable is what the Wings ought to get credit for. They wree the first team to be super succesful without ever having to also protect themselves, the first team to take advantage of the NHL's zero0tollerance position on bullying. I think that sounds awful middle-school-esque and I sure hope things in the NHL turn around soon before the sport I love is only alive in history books and Beta tapes, but I'm not going to argue with thw Wings' success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest micah
I love Holland's comment: "I'd love to beat your team and beat you up, but it's impossible to do both." Yeah, we'll take just beating your team. ;)

I read that as a confession; "our players are skilled, but man, they are a bunch of *******, incapable of handling themselves physically against the other men in the league".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest micah
What is the point of fighting when were out there killing every team on the scoreboard?

The point is that fighting is fun and entertaining:) Who doesn't enjoy a good dust-up, either as a participent or a spectator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline
I read that as a confession; "our players are skilled, but man, they are a bunch of *******, incapable of handling themselves physically against the other men in the league".

Yet strangely, win cups, despite fighting less and less. I'll take the cup winning ******* any day, who are exciting to watch and can score more than any other team. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other advantage to this philosophy, is that the Wings were drafting small, skilled euros during the clutch & grab era, while other teams across the NHL were wasting drafts on 6'5 pylons. That strategy especially paid off when the game opened up following the lockout.

I have a strong feeling if you were to calculate the days lost to injury during the regular season, you would see the Wings as one of the healthiest teams - which ultimately is one of the most decisive key to a good playoff run: being healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline
The other advantage to this philosophy, is that the Wings were drafting small, skilled euros during the clutch & grab era, while other teams across the NHL were wasting drafts on 6'5 pylons. That strategy especially paid off when the game opened up following the lockout.

Yep, and now the speedy, skillful players who can actually play the puck in some fashion, are the most utilized today and useful post-cap era. Nah-nah-nah-nah, nah-nah-nah-nah, hey-hey-hey, goodbye. *sends off the goons and pylons to another league*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline
I'll take the Cups too, but as Grapes said - the Wings can be quite boring to watch.

That can be attributes to how often the Wings win, and the boring crowd.

Am I the only person who has seen this all before? It happened with the 49ers too. Fans were loud and rowdy, fired up the team, they started winning all the time, it got boring, team started losing, fans went apes*** (the bandwagoners going off to other teams), now the fans left are cheering for their team just to make the playoffs.

I really hate sayings and all, but it's true you don't appreciate something until it's gone.

Edit: But regarding the complaint about fighting, it's not for every team. Some teams do well with it. The Wings do not, and obviously don't need to.

Edited by Shoreline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll take the Cups too, but as Grapes said - the Wings can be quite boring to watch.

101% agree

That can be attributes to how often the Wings win, and the boring crowd.

Am I the only person who has seen this all before? It happened with the 49ers too. Fans were loud and rowdy, fired up the team, they started winning all the time, it got boring, team started losing, fans went apes*** (the bandwagoners going off to other teams), now the fans left are cheering for their team just to make the playoffs.

I really hate sayings and all, but it's true you don't appreciate something until it's gone.

100% agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest micah
I really hate sayings and all, but it's true you don't appreciate something until it's gone.

It's not true for me. I totally appreciated the efforts of Kocur, Shanahan, Probert, Grimson et al while they were here. Not so much Jamie Puschor though...

I appreciate the wings winning, I just don't appreciate their weakness. I will not miss their weakness when it's gone. If they stop winning, I'll miss that, but I do not believe for one minute that the Wings would stop being a succesful hockey team if they kept a Downey (or whoever) on the 4th line. I don't think Holland has been forced to choose between winning and a tough-ish player or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read that as a confession; "our players are skilled, but man, they are a bunch of *******, incapable of handling themselves physically against the other men in the league".

There's more to handling yourself physically than just throwing your gloves and having a fistfight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline
Actually many fans like myself enjoy watching the Wings win; just that many of the "character" players that the team has had over the years aren't seen on todays roster...Ever notice how Mickey Redmond comments as such when the ever so rare scrap breaks out? He's as excited as the fans in attendance.

This is why many of us prefer the Red Wings of 1997/1998 over the current roster.

I love Grapes and Redmond, but they are going to look at things through their own light, and both of them like old time hockey, where the Wings hadn't won in decades.

The thing that the 97 cup team had was, there was no cup in over 40 years. The intensity and interest of the fans was there too. It was the same well-oiled machine. I had tears for each of those 4 cup wins, but none of the latter 3 were anything like the first one. It's one thing to appreciate the past, another to dwell too much on it in nostalgia. This team we have has just as much character, as in, different roles to play, yet buying into the same system that makes the team successful. The only difference is the team winning means less and less to those who have been here throughout, or those who are new fans. We expect the Wings to win now, so anything less than a cup for some is a disappointment. I'm not saying you're wrong that the Wings wouldn't benefit from having more "entertaining" players like the old Probert or Kocur, but this mentality that the Wings need other things when their formula for winning is just fine, is silly. The team's bottom line is to win, and hockey itself is the entertainment.

I just see the exact same attitudes that people had with the 49ers when they won all the time. They'd complain about each and every thing, wanting a complete overhaul of the team if they didn't win the super bowl despite finishing first in the standings and looking forward to the playoffs year in and year out. They'd complain that the team doesn't have exciting receiving like the way the old Jerry Rice was, or Roger Craig, or complain about the West Coast Offense being boring and methodical over the run and gun Montana days where he and Rice set a ton of records.

I guarantee you though that most of the people complaining now will look back and appreciate this team when they aren't winning very much. Logic dictates one should appreciate the team they have now. That's the difficulty of producing teams in any sport that can win so often and that is they have to keep up the drive. Likewise, for fans, they need to keep appreciating their team and that the team is what it is. Often times fans from losing teams come in here and give our heads a shake, because they would LOVE for their team to be winning as often as our team does. And the fact is, those who are so entrenched in this enforcer mentality are going to be in for further disappointment because the Wings have not been goons for almost 2 decades now. And they aren't going to change their philosophy and start losing because a few fans can't be content enough with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's more to handling yourself physically than just throwing your gloves and having a fistfight.

I wish people would stop saying that being able to take a hit make the team physical. Theres a difference to absorbing physical play than actually giving physical punishment. And yes its not just fights, but grit and hits and not backing down in the scrums.

Detroit has done none of that this season.

And people seem to think that theres no possible way of having a tough team that can win the cup. Erm...so what did Anahiem do in the 06-07 season? Toughest team the league had seen since the lockout, and the breezed past skillful Detroit and the rest of the league.

A team needs to be tough. A team needs fighters and to have that mind set of not backing down from anything (Detroit last season anyone?). Its called having a balanced team. An unbalanced team has never won the Stanley Cup. And it wont happen this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Red Wings don't fight because they don't have to. They win regardless of whether they toss the gloves or not. The Wings play the way that's easiest for them to win.. that's really all there is to it.

Does that mean it's less enjoyable because there's no fights? That's really up for you to decide. It just seems to me that they're a finesse team - and they feel way more comfortable playing a finesse game than a physical game.. so that's what they do. And given their win record, I certainly won't complain.. but that part is a matter of personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline
I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think anyone here wishes for Holland to alter the team as to re-create the Broad Street Bully's of the 1970's, but add a little bit of character to go along with the skill like we had seen with our '97, & '98 Cups.

Back then Detroit could, & would beat most of it's opponents on both the scoreboard, & with their fists (much of both came thru the draft)...Now that IMO was a fun team to watch!

I'd be complaining if the Wings were playing the old New Jersey trap-and-bore style of rope-a-dope hockey but they've been in a lot of pretty exciting games this year and just about hit 300 goals this season, well above any other offense. I doubt dropping the gloves would do much other than appease a few who need fights to feel like the team is exciting. I must iterate that this team was 23rd and 25th (of 26 total teams) in 1997 and 1998 in fighting majors (the team you said was exciting), and has been decreasing in fights ever since, winning 2 more cups along the way while dead last in fighting. I do miss the old rivalries, and indeed missed times like Probert or Kocur throwing them down, but today isn't yesterday, and the Wings have yet another shot at the cup, which is a-ok with me. I don't need my type of hockey to be 100% happy with the team. Their job is to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest micah
I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think anyone here wishes for Holland to alter the team as to re-create the Broad Street Bully's of the 1970's, but add a little bit of character to go along with the skill like we had seen with our '97, & '98 Cups.

Back then Detroit could, & would beat most of it's opponents on both the scoreboard, & with their fists (much of both came thru the draft)...Now that IMO was a fun team to watch!

I was just rewatching my footage of those two seasons - man, those teams had it all, talk about fun to watch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Detroit doesn't need to fight to win, and folks always try to claim that "fighters" don't play in the playoffs (even though Drake, McCarty both played last year), then why doesn't Detroit have more Cups in the last 10-15 years? Did other teams "out-skill" or "out-finesse" the Wings in the playoffs? Did Anaheim out-skill the Wings on their way to the Cup? Did Edmonton? Did Calgary?

All I hear every game is how great the Wings org is from owner down to the stacked-with-talent lineups year after year. If that's so true and they've built this model franchise and style of play, why don't they have more Cups to show for it? I mean, if finesse and skill are all you need, where's the hardware? From what I can see, the years they did win it all, they absolutely had the fighter/tough guy element.

Articles like this are interesting reads, but in my opinion, not entirely accurate.

esteef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest micah
I must iterate that this team was 23rd and 25th (of 26 total teams) in 1997 and 1998 in fighting majors (the team you said was exciting), and has been decreasing in fights ever since, winning 2 more cups along the way while dead last in fighting.

LOL - funny that you fail to compare the number of FMs Detroit had those years to now. All most of us want is guys who are willing and able to drop the gloves, nobody has said we need to be among the league-leaders in FMs, have they? '97-'98 had 4 regular roster players with 5 or more fights, even though they were last in the league in FMs. That was okay with me. This year's squad has what, 1/3 as many FMs as that team did? I don't need a goon-squad, I'd be happy if they returned to icing a well rounded squad that was at least capable of taking care of themselves instead of hoping the refs would intervene before big meanies hurt them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this