The announcement of a new collective bargaining agreement on January 10, 1995, was met with much joy and relief from hockey fans, players, and owners alike. Also keenly anticipated was the prospect of the subsequent altering of the 1994-95 season. The new season was now to consist of a shortened 48-game schedule, down from the 84-game haul of the previous year, and would feature exclusively intra-conference play. Oh, how seasoned hockey scribes and fans alike giggled with glee, anticipating almost intense, playoff-type hockey, but this time, all season long. Every game was now directly related to the standings, and it was thought that this would raise the level of play in every game.
Of course, the 1994-95 season was one of the most tepid, uninteresting few months of NHL hockey ever seen. By the time the Stanley Cup Finals wrapped up on June 24, with the New Jersey Devils hooking, holding and trapping their way to their first Stanley Cup over the Detroit Red Wings, most fans had been turned off, if they had ever even turned back on after feeling spiteful about the lockout.
Sadly, NHL hockey has followed the trend of that ill-fated abbreviated season. Once other teams saw what a team like the New Jersey Devils could do by playing safe, trapping hockey all year long, they were keen to jump on the bandwagon. The games became slower, and goal scoring dropped. In 1993-94, the season before Lockout I (how unfortunate it is to now have to number these labour disruptions), goals were scored at an average of 6.48 per game. In '94-95, that average dropped to 5.97. With a concerted effort from NHL officials, obstruction penalties were called in full force in 1995-96, which resulted in the Velcro-like Devils to miss the playoffs, and goal scoring to bump back up slightly to a rate of 6.29 (partly thanks to the Pittsburgh Penguins and a full season with their top line of Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, and Ron Francis). 1996-97 saw goal scoring drop back down to 5.83, then 5.28 in '97-98. The decline continued up until last season, 2003-04, where a mere 5.14 goals were scored on average per game.
Other factors are often mentioned for the lack of offence in the game today - larger players on the same small ice surface and Michelin Men goaltenders being two prime examples. But let's face it. The neutral zone trap has killed hockey. Popularized by the Devils in the mid-1990's, the strategy first reached its zenith with the Montreal Canadiens of the late 1970's. Of course, that Canadiens team could also score untold amounts of goals with players named Lafleur, Shutt, and Robinson, so we never took as much notice. Mind you, the trap has been utilized in just about every third period of every playoff game ever played. Most teams trying to kill the clock and ensure an important playoff victory will almost always continue to dump the puck in and hang back, almost forming a line in a potential game of "Red Rover". The games were almost always intense, though, because the significance of the game.
The problem is that this type of hockey has gone from being used solely in the last 10 minutes of playoff games to being a team's single offensive/defensive strategy from the drop of the puck on opening day of the season. In the Finals of 2003-04, the team that scored first won every game. That statistic is not restricted to last year's finals, either. When is the last time anyone remembers a stunning comeback that occurred in a playoff game, let alone any game played in the last ten years? There was a time when playoff games requiring multiple overtimes to decide their outcomes were exceedingly rare. The legendary Game 7 quadruple-OT match between the New York Islanders and Washington Capitals in 1987 is still fondly remembered by all who saw it. The game saw endless scoring opportunities. Does anyone share the same feelings of the 5-OT borefest that Anaheim and Dallas got themselves into in 2003? I think not.
The 1994-95 season may be seen to be the start of the decline of NHL hockey, but it has its roots in a slightly earlier time. The 1992-93 season was the last season to use divisional standings for its playoff seedings, selecting the top four teams of each of the four divisions. Starting in 1993-94, the league went to an NBA-style, conference based playoff setup, where the top eight teams of each of the two conferences went to the playoffs. The new system meant that a particular team would be up against half of the teams in the league for a playoff spot, as opposed to four or five teams in the old divisional set-up. With the unbalanced schedule in place, this meant that one team could expect to play most of its games against teams that it was in direct competition against to make the playoffs. In 2003-04, the Oilers, for example, played 56 of their 82 games against Western Conference opponents.
The format has altered the mentality of NHL teams. "Two points" seems to be the must commonly uttered phrase by NHL players in post game interviews, almost from the start of the season. With every game so vital to the standings, coaches are afraid to lose, and they must arrange their game plans accordingly to get as many points, through wins or overtime games, as possible, and at any cost. The result is like two Scotsmen, each with an armload of cash, wondering how best to obtain a second armload of cash on a table without having to drop the first one.
The solution would be to revert back to a divisional playoff system with four, larger divisions created out of the current sextet of divisions that currently exist. Also, the teams would play a more balanced schedule, with more games against teams in other divisions. This would put less pressure on teams in more games, and increase the intensity in games between divisional opponents. Of course, any solution for the woes of the National Hockey League are dependent on the end of the labour situation first, and who here really can see that happening anytime soon?
No comments:
Post a Comment