And then the guy who worked the hardest - taking not just his own shifts, but also those of Hossa; it's called double-shifting and damn stupid because he got slower the more exhausted he got and his greatest strength is is his speed along with his stick handling ability and yeah, it wasn't wise of him - but that's not his fault, because it's Coach who decides who gets how long on the ice.
Anyway, in his post-game interview he said. "I obviously wasn't good enough out there and I'm the reason we lost" (verbatim - wörtlich!!!), which prompted me to write the following (and I was complimented on my articulation for it, which kinda - no, definitely - made my night):
This is probably a horribly unpopular opinion, but I was watching the Patrick Kane post-game interview and it makes me kinda mad to hear him spout off things like “Obviously I wasn’t good enough and that’s the reason we lost the game,” because no, hockey is a team sport for a reason and one guy doesn’t win or loose a game.
He might make a difference either way, but it’s never his fault alone.
There are goalies and other players who contribute, also either way; to winning or to loosing, and saying stuff like that feels to me like looking down on those other players.
Because what does it say when Patrick Kane, who spent more time on the ice than any other forward, who has an assist and skated his life out for his team, says what he did wasn’t enough?
How can what any other player did just approach being enough?
And when he says he is the reason they lost - would he say, if they won, he was the reason they won? No, he would say it was a team effort.
So how and why does loosing become his fault and winning a team effort?
He may be a PART of the reason they lost - maybe even a large part, if it settles his mind, because I think I remember a turnover of his leading to the first goal and he was on ice for three of the four goals, but in what universe is that enough to make him the one at fault to loose the game?
There is a goalie, and Crow usually posts higher numbers, so maybe Kaner is part of the reason they lost, but he certainly isn’t the reason he lost, and I’m pretty sure he would be severely unhappy with anybody else suggesting they were at fault.
Bourdreau was right, he is becoming more and more like Toews, because that was the attitude Toews had when he got the C, and we all know how much that weighed him down until he settled in it.
If Kane starts with this responsibility and thinking he’s more important than he is (and I don’t mean that in a mean or bad way, but he kinda makes himself pretty important stating so matter of factly that he’s the reason they lost) and manages to tamp down on his scoring, then I don’t see the Hawks getting very far in the playoffs.
Anyway, that was my rant.
I mean, I think it is kinda great that he’s starting to take responsibility, but it’s not his job to carry the team on his back and he shouldn’t try and break doing exactly that - trying to carry the team - because he’s not putting enough faith into the rest of the team.
If he says he was not good enough out there, I hope he means he wasn’t good enough in gauging his stamina, because he looked pretty tired a couple of times - but maybe that’s just me. Let’s hope he hasn’t exhausted himself too much and that he will use the next four days to rest up.
And let’s face it, the first period was pretty bad, especially the beginning. Plus, the Ducks are a bloody strong team, otherwise they wouldn’t have posted these numbers they have.
So, responsibility is fine, but not too much.
There are a lot of capable players on this team.
Okay, so after reading impertinence’s post I do realize that he might really just have been spouting off the usual media platitudes.
So yeah... good to have that off my chest...
Other than that, I didn't do a lot - tidied my room and wrote my interim report for kulturLife ... Just waiting for input from Dorothea and my mother and then I'mma send that thing off.
That was my day, pretty much :) For my 200th post after 200 days, look below!