Five Final Thoughts on Olympic Hockey

How many fans appreciate the magnitude of what Finland accomplished? Is the NHL-Olympic relationship over after 2010? Would Canada have been any better off with younger players like Sidney Crosby, as so many seem to think?

1. The Myth of Youth

   In the fallout from the quarterfinals - disgust in the USA; hysteria in Canada - many opined that North American dreams were sunk by old, tired legs. (These folks choose not to notice that over half the forwards and defensemen on Sweden's gold medal team are over 30.)

   After beating Canada, the Russians were hailed as visionaries for trusting in enthusiastic young sprites like 20-year-old Alexander Ovechkin and 19-year-old Evgeni Malkin. But in the semifinal and bronze medal games Russia didn't score a single goal, and the kids badly let down the team. Malkin missed the semifinal altogether - suspended for kicking a guy. 22-year-old Ilya Kovalchuk was ejected from the bronze medal game after pile-driving a Czech into the boards.

   As for Ovechkin, he fully deserves his place on the Olympic all-star team. But before we annoint him the most exciting player in hockey - or even the best player in hockey, as some are already claiming - let's see him score a few goals in a few more games that really count.

2. Finland's Near Miracle

   No disrespect to the Swedish champions, but the Finns are Torino's great hockey story. The numbers - a 7-1 record; just eight goals allowed against the world's best - tell only part of the story.

   No team had worse injury luck. From its original roster, Finland lost goaltenders Miikka Kiprusoff and Kari Lehtonen, forwards Tuomo Ruutu, Sami Kapanen, and Antti Miettinen, and defensemen Ossi Vaananen and Joni Pitkanen. A third defenseman, Sami Salo, was injured in the quarterfinals.

   And they still came within a single goal of ruling the world.

3. The Vancouver Factor

   Apart from the players themselves, it seems everyone wants the NHL to abandon the Olympics after the 2010 Games, to which the league is already committed. Various arguments are put forth: the injury risk is unfair to NHL teams (So let's put an end to all international hockey?); NHL players are busy enough (check the itinerary of an international soccer star); the league doesn't get much of a marketing bump from its Olympic exposure (as if putting more money in the pockets of barons like Jeremy Jacobs and Craig Leopold was the point of the whole exercise).

   But unlike Torino, where the game appeared to stir little excitement, Vancouver will provide a spectacular stage for hockey. Rabid crowds will fill a 17,000 arena and the marquee games will be back in prime time. It could be the biggest hockey tournament ever held. If Canada and the USA do well, it will be a lot harder to make anti-Olympic argument four years from now.

4. The Scheduling Mess

   There's no reason why the NHL can't do the Olympics and do it right. Giving each team two days to prepare, squeezing 38 games into 12 days and forcing an entire 82-game schedule into the same season does not seem an enlightened approach. But when did anyone ever use the word "enlightened" to describe the NHL braintrust?

5. And on a Personal Note...

   I'm pleased to report that my forecast for the 2004 World Cup proved to be dead-on, just a couple of years premature. As for my Olympic prediction? I conveniently neglected to make one of those.