[net.sport.hockey] Injuries: reason or excuse?

jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (05/22/85)

There's been a lot of talk in this news group lately about injuries in
the playoffs and about the Oilers being the only team lucky enough not
to have any.  It seems to me that injuries are always going to happen,
and that they often separate the truly great teams (the legitimate
contenders) from the also-rans.  What I mean by that is when most teams
have a key player or a couple of players injured, it has a crippling and
possibly demoralising effect on the team.  As a result, they start losing,
and although they won't say it, their general attitude is "if we had had
so-and-so in our lineup, we probably would have won."  On the other hand,
when championship calibre teams have key injuries, it's not a problem.
Instead of saying, "there goes our chances," the other players will make
sure the missing players' jobs get done by working a little harder
themselves, so injuries can even be a positive factor.  Sure, depth is a
factor, but it's only a small factor compared with the attitude of the team.
The Flyers aren't very deep on defence, but with McCrimmon (this year's
winner of the Barry Ashbee trophy as Flyers' top defenseman) out of the
lineup, Howe, Marsh and Crossman are playing some of the best hockey of
their careers.  So although I'm not an Oilers fan, you'll never catch me
whining about injuries to their opponents.
-- 
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto  (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff