It started with a paragraph far down in this post of MetroGnome's back in June.
There's a famous SNL skit about the Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper", featuring Christopher Walken and Will Ferrell. In it, Walken plays producer Bruce Dickinson who "has a fever for the cowbell". No doubt a fair measure of the skit's comedic value comes from the juxtaposition between Ferrel's typical obnoxious flailing and Walken's now iconic flat stare and wooden delivery. However, the underlying joke the skit is predicated upon is Dickinson's (Walken's) manic and nonsensical obsession with the cowbell, which is a relatively inconsequential aspect of the track.
In a way, I think a lot of fans and even coaches or GM's have their own "cowbells": those factors they foreground and elevate above and beyond their true values. Personally, when I played hockey myself, I was under-sized and I survived via speed and agility. Now, the smaller, quicker players are the ones that elicit my sympathies (which likely explains my continued quest to insulate Lombardi from criticism). One of the reasons the above inquiry was interesting to me is I consider "experience" to be one of Darryl Sutter's cowbells: he seems to have a fever for it, even though it's contributions to the tune may be minimal.
Please have a look at 'Ferrel's typical obnoxious flailing and Walken's now iconic flat stare and wooden delivery'. It's a classic bit of comedy and if you're having a bit of a bad day, I dare you to watch it and not smile, anyway I'll wait till you see it...
Okay, you're back. Now, MG used this sense of 'cowbell' to explain some of Sutter's choices and decisions, but as he noted we all have our 'cowbells', or issues that seem the height of importance but may not actually be as important as we think. Now, this blog is just the authors' opinions (with some data thrown in) that are more or less informed, more or less accurate, more or less significant, and as such it is our duty to unload our 'cowbells' on you, the reader! One of my cowbells, and the one which I'll begin this series is the:
Weak Backhanded Clearance Attempt
If and when I do finally go crazy, and they find me muttering and drooling in my TV chair, it'll probably be after I witness the Flames give up a goal because of a weak backhanded clearance attempt (WBCA). I'm not sure exactly what it is about the WBCA that somehow goes straight to my limbic brain- I'm sure it has something to do with the awful inevitability of an opponent's scoring chance resulting from the ridiculously poor decision on the part of my defender, maybe its just the frustration of knowing that simply putting the damn puck on your damn forehand and frickin' firing the stupid thing through some open ice would have saved me the aggro. Sigh. Even just writing about it, I can feel my heart rate rise. An example from Game 7 against the Sharks in last year's SCQF here , click through the NHL portal thingy. Langkow either should have put the puck on his forehand, or better yet circled behind the net the other way. Sigh.
More than once I've noticed that new or casual Hockey fans mention that they have a hard time following the puck when they're watching a game on TV. I've routinely put this criticism down as just a lack of concentration, but I think its something different. When you watch a lot of hockey, you stop watching the puck as much, what you're really 'seeing' is the patterns of offence and defence, the openings and chances that are generated. Like any knowledgeable fans of any team sport, you begin to be able to predict when your team is in danger and when your team has an opportunity. Like Chess, there are millions of patterns in Hockey but not an infinite number of them. If you watch long enough you begin to see patterns repeat, patterns string together, some patterns increasing the chances of other dependent patterns following.
Thats what kills me about the WBCA, I can see it coming. I can see the defender skate toward the puck, I can see him select an attack angle to the puck that is going to bring it to his backhand, I can see him look over his (usually) left shoulder and SEE THE DANGER AND CONTINUE ON ANYWAY, I can see him load his backhand attempt, I can see the resulting backhand weakly rise and flutter, I can see the opposing defenceman easily glove down or block or simply direct his stick to the puck, and then after winning possession I see the opponents surge to the counter attack and create a chance on goal. Its this horrible Cassandra like clarity to my hockey viewing, Its the 'no, no, NO, NOO' voice in my head (and at times out loud!) that transforms the WBCA from just the normal frustrating 'bad event' in a hockey game to the threat to my mental health. In fact, this event is so traumatizing to me, that even in neutral games, games in which I have no rooting interest, the sight of the WBCA can still get me to emit a frustrated howl.
But it isn't just the horrible foresight that the WBCA imposes upon me that churns my guts about it, there are some technical and technique issues as well.
The WBCA in its purest form is not only apt to be intercepted and converted into a scoring chance, its also dangerous even if it succeeds. There is a high risk of the puck rising to the top of the side glass and above, exiting the playing surface and resulting in a delay of game penalty. So its ineffective AND dangerous. Another thing about the WBCA that bugs me: The rink is 85 feet wide or (85x12) 1020 inches wide. The hockey puck is 3 inches wide. Thus the rink is 340 times as wide as the puck, ergo you should be able to find a hole without having to weakly shovel it up the edge.
So in conclusion, unless you're Dave frickin' Keon (for you young kids; he had a wicked backhand) instead of the WBCA try the 'get the damn thing on your forehand and fire the sucker' or attempt to maintain possession of the puck by freezing it against the boards. So please, please Calgary Flames if you don't want to see one of your loyal fan's descent into idiocy try and limit the WBCA.
