Toronto Star writer upset over treatment of Martin Brodeur
February 23, 2010 · 73 Comments
I was going to take a break today, just to shake off the terrible depression that set in after learning about the contemptible way Martin Brodeur had been treated by the Olympic men’s hockey coach.
Everything would have been fine if only I hadn’t read Damien Cox’s column in The Toronto Star informing me that Marty had been (a) “lied to,” (b) “blamed unfairly” for Canada’s loss to United States on Sunday and (c) just generally “disrespected” by Mike Babcock. The real trauma came when I read the sub-head to the column. The coach had “alienated” and treated like dog waste (my term), not just a proud member of the Canadian men’s hockey team, but a bona fide legend.
My heart broke. How could they do this to an icon?
Okay, back to reality.
Look, maybe Cox has a man crush on Brodeur, I don’t know. But Brodeur played poorly in Canada’s 5-3 loss to the Americans and, arguably, should have been pulled the first period, when he gave up the puck in a goofy baseball attempt to clear it, which led to a goal, and also let in a softy.
To bring him back against Germany tonight would have been ridiculous and irresponsible. Of course, you make a change. I would have gone with Marc-Andre Fleury, but Luongo is certainly a better choice than Brodeur.
Let’s not get carried away with Brodeur’s “legendary” status. He’s a future Hockey Hall of Famer and, yes, he surpassed Terry Sawchuk’s career shutout record (103) in December. But Brodeur, 37, has been wildly inconsistent this season and has been chased from the net several times. His best years are behind him. I don’t believe he even deserved the Olympic team No.1 goalie designation.
But here’s Cox, not only wringing his hands over the despicable treatment of Brodeur, but suggesting Luongo is a choker. He suggests Babcock has burned his bridges with Marty and will be unable to use him in goal again because of the way he’s treated him.
Cox warns ominously, “Babcock had better be right on this or he deserves to be roasted on the spit of Canadian hockey opinion for all the unhelpful waffling he’s done on this issue.”
Waffling? He decided to make a change and, yes, probably should have told Brodeur sooner than he did. If Luongo plays poorly, you pull him quickly and go with somebody else. Brodeur would be happy to get the call. And he would do his best.
NOTE: Readers point out (I’d forgotten) that Cox is co-author of a Brodeur autobiography titled Brodeur: Beyond The Crease. The 2006 book was co-authored by Cox, who, of course, would have written it. So, Cox has a relationship with Brodeur that extends well past the usual one between a journalist and a hockey player.
WHERE TEAM CANADA HAS GONE WRONG
A few thoughts on tonight’s Canada-Russia game:
If Canada loses, it will be because (a) they can’t finish (Canadian teams rarely do finish well at the highest level of competition) (b) goaltending is weak (c) and defensemen Chris Pronger gives up the puck.
My guess is Pronger will be too slow for the pace of tonight’s game. It may be too much for the other veteran defenseman, Scott Niedermayer.
One of the great mysteries of the Olympic men’s hockey tournament is the Canadian brain trust’s decision not to play goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury. Yes, he’s fairly young (25), but he’s played in plenty of pressure situations including a Stanley Cup Game 7, which he won.
That Mike Babcock, Steve Yzerman et al decided that the two old guys, Martin Brodeur and Roberto Luongo, both struggling through mediocre seasons, would be the starting goalies could be their biggest mistake. Brodeur was inconsistent against the United States. Luongo had virtually nothing to do against the Germans, but looked bad on the first goal by Germany, awkward and out of position.
So, here’s a first guess – not a second guess – Fleury should start tonight. He won’t. Luongo will get the call.
If the Canadians don’t come out of the gate pounding the Russians, particularly Alex Ovechkin, they’re done. They’ll also need great goaltending.
ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser ridicules Hannah Storm — and gets suspended. Why that was a mistake.
Filed under Article Posts · · 
Email This Article
I was just going to say that 30 is hardly old, especially for a goaltender. I would argue that Luongo is in his prime for these next couple of years – enough experience to help him along, but his body is still young enough to get the job done. He is only a year older than Brodeur was in Salt Lake City in 2002.
I would say 35 or so might be the time when the clock strikes midnight for a goalie – for instance, Tim Thomas's game has just started to slip this year, and he will be 36 in April. Similarly, Patrick Roy was a dominant goalie until about age 36, but he showed some definite signs of slippage in his last couple of seasons. At 37, Brodeur is now headed down the same path. The only difference is that Brodeur can't afford to retire, what with the cost of his divorce settlement.
Oh, and how about Canada's intensity in the first ten minutes last night? THAT is how you come out of the gate. They attacked the Russians like a pack of wild dogs, and the Russians simply couldn't handle the pace. If you sit back and try to trap the Russians, they will eat you alive. Playing a pressure game is the only way to go, and Canada did it perfectly.
Bench the Getzlaf line. This line (with or without Nash) has been completely ineffective. I would use the Towes line more frequently and only use Getzlaf’s line if the game gets out of hand.
And no, Fleury should not start. Luongo has the experience, the talent but is not ancient like Brodeur.
Having said that, Russsia will win 3-2. As usual Canada will have problems scoring.
Great call!
bill,
usually you're spot on, or at least close to the mark, but to suggest that marc-andré fleury is having a great season and roberto luongo and martin brodeur are mediocre is just plain wrong. their numbers:
fleury: 50gp, 29-16-4, 2.65 gaa, .908 save %, 0 shutouts
brodeur: 58gp, 34-20-3, 2.32 gaa, .915 save %, 7 shutouts
luongo: 52gp, 31-17-2, 2.35gaa, .919 save %, 4 shutouts.
so, it is fleury having the mediocre season. his .908 save percentage has him ranked 25th overall in the nhl, brodeur's 15th, luongo, 11th. even the much maligned carey price has better numbers than fleury. and, finally, luongo's not "old", he's 30.
Russia 6
Khanada 3
Nyet, nyet comrade…
I bealive,perhaps a sidebar might be in order with Mr. Bettman.
What happened to my Billy Houston fix today? I'm starting to scratch…
Seeming as how we love stats. Look at Goalie's World daily rankings as of 2/14/10
http://www.goaliesworld.com/english1.html
Interesting:
#9 Brodeur
#10 Luongo
#17 Marc André Fleury
Of course, mind the number of games played, but stats, like the weather, change, therefore aren't exactly reliable but only reflect a particular trend – till it changes again. You go with whom is playing well.
I agree 100% with Bill on his update to his latest article about tonight's game and Fleury.
Fleury should be the one playing.
Birt,
I don't think the blame is "soley" on Broduer, but I think he is way better than how he played in that game. My issue, really, is with the people, like Cox, who are totally biased and trying to put the hate on Luongo for now taking over for Broduer. He may have a greater longer legacy than Luongo and it may not seem fair, but it has nothing to do with anything. It bothers me that people seem to think that legacy and entitlement of a player is more important than winning.
"Fact is Broduer hasn't been playing great for a while"
This statement is demonstrably false. Almost hilariously so.
Reader101 I have my name on the Stanley Cup — 1969/709 season. Do some research about that incredible team. And you were born when? This is why I say GROW UP!
That is why you don't want to be the grammar police on the interwebs.
Please describe the year 1969/709 for us.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Birt Sampson, are you for real? Nothing you have said has made any sense. Plus, you seem unable to spell or write a sentence, so it's funny to see you telling someone else to grow up and correct his grammar. For the record, Brodeur played very poorly against the US on Sunday–he needs to take the blame along with some other culprits (Pronger, Boyle, etc.).
Wow, I usually agree with you Mr Houston, but your characterization of M. Brodeur this season is way off.
I don't know about you, but I would think that a goalie that currently sits 2nd in Wins, 2nd in Goals Against, 9th in GAA, 1st in Shutouts (with 7) and 16th in Save % would be good enough to be considered a Number One. Factor in his experience with the short tournament format and I'd say the argument is even stronger.
I realize it's fashionable to dump all over Brodeur of late – but really, it's completely and utterly unwarranted.
"I realize it's fashionable to dump all over Brodeur of late – but really, it's completely and utterly unwarranted. "
Sure it is. He played badly in his last game.
"He played badly in his last game" says Reader 101. Your terrible grammar not withstanding, please fill in the holes with facts of why Martin Broduer was "awful" in his last game. Maybe he was supposed anticipate that Sidney Crosby was going to make a defensive pas faux and try to block a shot. Since his teammates could not score, do you figure he should have done a Gary Suitcase Smith and go end to end in an attempt to score himself? Did Broduer decide not take a time out in te last minute, or did he tell Corey Perry to give up on a loose puck with an empty net?
It is so easy to criticize by sitting in a chair quaffing beer and espousing absolute nonsense. By the way, what is your pedigree as a hockey player to come up with such an analysis?
Why is it when people get upset with someone's opinion's they go straight for grammar on the internet forum? Quite petty, Mr. Simpson. We're not in grade school.
His teammates could not score? Excuse me, I guess you weren't watching the same game, because they were scoring. It was the goalie who couldn't keep the buck out of the net, my friend. Don't get me wrong, I think Broduer is still a great goalie, in his prime, but he wasn't on during that game.
And for people, like Cox, to turn the tables around and put the hate onto Luongo is pure nonesense. Broduer is fortunate, in my opinion, that Babcock didn't embarrass Broduer by taking him out of net during the game, although he probably should have to had a chance to maybe win.
@Reader101: Two words… GROW UP!
Obviously you are young, very sensitive, crying out for attention and don't have a handle on reality based upon posts in this thread as you inferred blame for the Team Canadian loss on Martin Broduer shoulders and not on a team as a whole.
Don't know that I'd quite equate Luongo's effort against Germany as a "great" game; I certainly wouldn't compare it to Brodeur's game against the much, much more talented US team. I think the jury is still out on the decision to switch goalies and the verdict won't be handed down until we see how Luongo does against Russia.
The fact is there isn't a clear choice #1. 2006 Brodeur would be, but he isn't as consistent. Luongo is as good as anyone when he is on, but he has his ups and downs. It is pretty much a coin toss between them.
Remember when all the Euro countries couldn't come up with a decent goalie to save their lives? Canada used to have a huge advantage in goal, but no longer.
If you're going to criticize someone's grammar, make sure you get it right yourself: "notwithstanding" is a single word.
He also used the term "pas faux". This has to be a troll – nobody is honest to goodness this much of a knob.
Joanne Gerstner of the New York Times reports that “Ratings for NBC affiliates in Seattle, Detroit and Buffalo have risen in the first week of the Vancouver Games. Detroit’s affiliate, WDIV, had a 55 percent rating increase for the first few days of coverage over the same period of the 2006 Turin Games.”
Gerstner attributes this to Americans in border communities, who in other Olympic years preferred the CBC coverage to the U.S. broadcaster, now forced to watch NBC because in most markets the Consortium’s signals are not available on cable.
Though I respect Ms Gerstner’s explanation, it is at least as plausible that NBC’s ratings increase can be attributed to Canadian border residents escaping the coverage by the Consortium. The latter can also be supported by Mr. Houston’s report in his Yahoo column regarding the Consortium’s ratings drop in the desirable demos.
As always an insightful post from the Insider. That is an entirely plausible scenario. Full disclosure here, I am just an average sports viewer- who watches alot. I've never tuned in more to NBC than I have this year. Not sure why.
It's not. Those ratings don't account for Canadian viewers.
You guy's do realize Bill's blog is ON SPORTS & THE MEDIA. Not just THE MEDIA.
Sorry Reader101, this blog IS about Sports Media… not sports and the media — two greatly different things. Maybe Mr. Houston can confirm to us all his intentions for this forum, which seems clearly a continuation from his many years of Sports Media commentary at the Globe & Mail.
I'm just going by what Bill himself has written at the top of this page, on everypage, above the graphic logo for his website.
Why don't you read Houston's posts – he doesn't seem to shrink from making substantive comments on the teams themselves – so why should the commenters?
God! Here we are again debating Brodeur vs Luongo and/or other 'game-day' arguments. Isn't this an argument for your local FAN station (assuming everyone in Canada is now entitled to a FAN station). I visit Houston's blog to get insight on media coverage of sports, NOT the usual phone-in shit I can get from listening to the FAN 590. PLEASE – can we talk about SPORTS MEDIA!!!!!
Well said Roy … seems that there are many fat 20-something know-it-all couch potatoes on this blog, who don't understand that sports media is not texting to their buds in the same room about "how they know how to run Team Canada."
On that note, the FAN590 has become almost unlistenable now for any knowledgeable sports fan… yet ratings are still high for most time slots. Maybe this dichotomy could be a topic for Mr. Houston to explore once the Olympics have concluded in a few days.
<quote>"seems that there are many fat 20-something know-it-all couch potatoes on this blog, who don't understand that sports media is not texting to their buds in the same room about "how they know how to run Team Canada.""</quote>
Great sweeping generalization. fap. fap. fap.
Roy Green, you may want to do your own research elsewhere then, just statistics on viewer rating numbers has a rather limited appeal, frankly. If that's what you mean by "to get insight on media coverage of sports".
I got something for you Roy- the Star's media column today. Is this guy Z on consortium payroll? He writes that it's so rosy there, but Bill's got the real scoop on Yahoo. I'm sure the Star will have it a week or so from now; that this thing is losing millions.
Cox responds: http://thestar.blogs.com/thespin/2010/02/sticking...
I don't think it's a particularly great response, mind you, just throwin' it out there.
You're right. Its a terrible response.
The problem he has, and which why most think he is bias on the issue is, he isn't giving zero reason as to why Brodeur should stay and Luongo shouldn't be given a chance.
His only reasoning, he says, that Brodeur should still play is because he "earned". Sorry, that doesn't mean shit if you are playing bad right now. You're only as good as your last win, and Team Canada lost a match they were suppose to win.
Yup. And it's not even like Team Canada needed Brodeur to stand on his head to have a shot at winning – all they needed was someone to not lose the game, and Marty didn't do it.
It doesn't mean he'll never be a money goalie again, it doesn't mean that he didn't do great things in the past and it doesn't even mean that he wouldn't be great in the rest of the Olympic tournament if for some reason Babcock decided to stick with him. All it means is that going with Luongo or even Fleury right now is the right decision.
And Cox can't seem to admit that.
I replied to Cox's post, but unlike Mr. Houston, Cox approves or disapproves who gets a voice on his website.
—————————————————————–
A poor response, IMHO. The problem you are having Damien is, first off you never pointed out your past with Brodeur. And this is why most think you are bias on the issue is. And also, you're reaonsing doesn't make much sense either. Brodeur earned his place and Luongo didn't? Lets make it clear, everyone on that team earned it, not just certain players. So thats just bull right there.
But if you still want to think Brodeur earned it and Luongo didn't, fine. But the fact is you're only as good as your last game, and Brodeur wasn't up to it. So don't go attacking Luongo with reasons of him not earning taking over Brodeur's position, because of Brodeur's past good deeds. You're attack on Luongo's past because you're friend Brodeur didn't play a good game is totaly unjustified.
Now Team Canada has to play Germany, hopefully win, but then have to play Russia the very next day. Not an ideal position at all.
He wouldn't publish my comment either. Gutless.
Too Hard? I live in Nashville and I thought Brodeur had changed his citizenship! Canada can't win with two goalies on the ice against them!
If I recall correctly in last year's playoff, the two goals that Carolina scored in the last minute were softies. And Brodeur brushed over that fact after the game, downplaying that it was his fault. I say Marty has been trending down the past couple of years. This isn't a popularity contest and he's no longer the best goalie on Team Canada, let alone the league.
Brodeur's one pad down saves aren't cutting it. Even if his bad pass bounced off someone…why wasn't he ready for the shot? He gave up, his frustration got the better of him. He wasn't square to the puck and I didn't seen a full butterfly save in the USA game. He was too distracted [pissed off] by the screeners and instead of pushing the player, needed to focus on the puck, come out, commanded his space and not be pushed on his ass and be ready for the 2nd and 3rd shot – not sprawling out in a hail mary. That isn't modern day goaltending. He totally lost it in that game. Can Canada afford a bad game from their goalie? Nope.
As for Cox, pfffft, don't read his 'columns', he said something? Yeah, right, didn't think so.
Brodeur is just too old and worn out. Should have never been picked. His last game proved that.
Brodeur is a pro, and he will understand what is happening here. After all, he was on the other end of it eight years ago, when Cujo struggled out of the gate and he got the call to take over. My impression is that pro players are generally less upset about ice time and perceived slights than their cheerleaders in the media or the fans might be. (Especially those who wrote a book about the player in question.)
On a larger scale, is anyone else as disappointed in the Toronto Media, both written and electronic as I am becoming? There is so much useless product and reporting being produced on radio, TV and print, at least in this market. Way to many people trying to report on the same mundane issues with little or new creativity to hold a viewers or readers interest. Damien Cox is really full of himself, thinks he is above all his peers and produces the same thoughtless dribble as all the rest. I read the Globe on-line, like most of their reporters, but are there any other Canadian writers that are worth reading regularly?
Here is a link to other sportspages around the world wwwussportspages.com
Conflict or not conflict Coxie is getting soft…i don't think he accorded the same props to Cujo when to everyone's relief he was yanked by his own team coach at the time. Remember Tikanov yanked Tretiak against the Americans in that famous game – now that was a mistake.
The real question is why Canada has to rely on goaltenders that are not only incapable of stealing games on their own, but are only asked to not blow the game. If anything, we need to have a goaltending hockey summit to figure out why we are not developing top flight goaltenders. Btw, Cox was way out of line on his comments, and have done nothing but embarass himself.
Last time I checked this was the Olympics, where play time should be allocated on merit, and not house league where play time is allocated based on showing up.
hey, has anyone mentioned that Cox wrote a book with Brodeur? Just thought i'd throw that in.
And also, Cox wrote a book with Brodeur. I think that's an important point to make.
I'm not sure, but did you guys say Cox wrote a book on Brodeur or with Brodeur?
Apparently there has been a book written by Cox (with Brodeur) I'm going to investigate.
Guys, I've got some major inside 411 that Bill missed and you may have too!!!!
Did you know that Cox wrote a book with Marty a few years ago!!!!
I read, and snickered at, Cox's piece this a.m., too. It is totally biased fish wrap, and Cox's contention that Babcock has been waffling on THE GOALTENDER ISSUE since last summer is so very laughably wrong. Hell of book they wrote together, though–they'll always have Newark, M-Bro and Coxie.
Let’s not forget that Cox co-wrote Brodeur’s biography a few years back—so yea, he cannot be unbiased on this issue. Overall, Cox’s general sentiment about sticking with the tried-and-true veteran players has been the thorn in Canada’s olympic side since 02. Choosing to go with over-the-hill instead of young and untested has not proven to be a winning formula for Canada.
I laughed when I read the article this morning. The guy has zero credibility.
You state: "…Damien Cox’s column in The Toronto Star informing me that Marty had been (a) “lied to,…” when in fact Cox's column states: "Martin Brodeur doesn't feel like he was lied to." Although I agree with your general sentiments, a little closer reading of Cox's coloumn is in order.
I agree with your post. I too share the general sentiment of William Houston's piece but it is incorrect to say that Damien Cox said that Brodeur was "lied to".
Dave Hodge last night on McCown’s Olympic Prime Time Sports: “Let’s forget about (owning) The Podium and remember the per diem.” (Or words to that effect)
Way to go Hodge! Thank you for calling a spade a spade. This explains everything.
Amen frickin’ men Bill!
I read Cox’s article earlier this morning and couldn’t decide whether to laugh or cry. Broduer has always struck me as a professional with a great attitude. Somehow Cox feels he’s hurt, damaged and heartbroken over Babcock’s decision to pull him. Then again maybe Cox knows him better, more intimately perhaps…..
The change had to be done and hopefully Babcock also decides to go with 3 lines instead of using all 13 forwards. This isn’t house league, Mike, this is the Olympics. Let Canada take a 5-0 lead and then rest your stars.
The fact that Cox wrote a book about Brodeur a couple of years ago and is known to be close with him wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it? That would almost…gasp…be an indictment of Cox's objectivity as a journalist.
Brutal article. Can't believe Cox wrote it. Talk about just trying to suck up to a famous athlete you are friends with. He should be ashamed of himself. Obvious to one and all that a change was coming. I guarentee that Brodeur was not surprised. Cox needs to take his hero worship elsewhere.
Whatever happened to real journalism? Both Cox and Brunt (torch relay) have had their reputations diminished irrecoverably by their Olympic (lack of) performance.
Completely agree. There was an hour-long chat on the Star's website with Cox about this yesterday and he never mentioned the book there either. I usually like Cox's work but his writing about Brodeur has consistently proven to be an ethical blind spot.
Also Bill – I think you may have been thinking of saying that Brodeur "has been wildly [in]consistent this season."
Thanks APB. Fixed.
I have yet to see Cox disclose, in his arguments regarding Brodeur,that he co authored a book with him.A little transparency would be nice.
No frickin' kidding! By him NOT declaring his conflict of interest, Cox's observations have to be taken with a bushel basket of salt. He wrote a book with the guy and was no doubt hoping to sell a bunch more of them on the back of Brodeur helping Canada to win a gold medal, for cryin' out loud. If that's not at least worth an "…oh, by the way" then I don't know what is. Then again, Cox (like many writers, to be fair) picks his favourites. He is loathe to fire anything but rubber bullets and baby slaps towards Brian Burke and he was also pretty far up Doug Gilmour's posterior. It's a problem with Toronto media. Don't even get us started on Gord "Did I mention I know Gretz" Miller. Maybe the biggest jock sniffer in the business. He makes Cox look like Edward R. Murrow.