Hypocrisy Night in Canada
Cats: CBC Radio, Canada|What a difference a year makes and a gender makes in the Canadian sport of hockey.
In Torino 2006, Canadians were tut-tutting the Canadian women’s hockey team, telling them to tone it down and stop scoring so many goals. It didn’t look good. It lacked class. It wasn’t Canadian to dominate like that.
Then this week the junior-aged Canadians rolled over the Russians with a score of 8-1. And the sports commentators are falling over themselves to heap praise on the talent, the skill and the dominance of Canadian hockey.
There’s no finger-wagging at the boys. There’s no telling them to tone it down. And there’s no shame in their dominance or victory. No, it’s nothing but praise for the boys.
So, what does that tell you about the Canadian sport of hockey?
September 5th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Ron MacLean wouldn’t stand for this.
What are your thoughts on Ron, by the way?
September 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
He makes a great straight man beside Don Cherry.
It would be very like Ron MacLean to ask the question of male vs. female hockey achievements, and the Canadian response.
It would be interesting to hear Don’s Cherry’s response, too.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Don, for all his many faults, has always been a big booster of women’s hockey, from what I recall.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Yes, he is a fan. That’s why I’d be interested to know what he thinks.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Me thinks it’s a question of popularizing the womens sport.
In a sense it is in it’s infancy. Close games are more exciting than slaughters. If the Canadian women’s team slaughtered every team they met people would stop watching.
In conrast a slaughter by the men’s team is exciting because it’s unanticipated. Also it already has a following, so people are watching to see their favorite players perform.
I’ve been there. We played rugby in high school against a really poor team and were slaughtering them early in the first half (38-0, ou simla). We layed off and let them get some tries, and let them practice their scrums and tackles (without telling them). So it was a better game, more interactive / less one sided, and more enjoyable for the spectators.
The key is not to look like you are not even trying. You go for the tackle…but you slip, or lose your grip…you don’t run as fast as you can, etc… It’s a good opportunity to try some ‘low percentage’ manouvers too…but no showing off.
A means to an end I suppose. In the short term it means that we are performing below our potential, but the hope is that as it grows in popularity it will be better financed and attract and produce better players.
It is ‘sport’ as well as ‘competition’. It’s just sitting closer to the ‘sport’ end of the scale right now.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Let me get this straight. Girl players get dumped on when they win big in the Olympics because they don’t have the decency to orchestrate a closer game which will be more interesting to watch.
Boy players are praised when they win big because that’s exciting and we don’t expect it. And we’re used to watching boy players perform well so it’s OK if the game isn’t close.
And athletes are supposed to win, but not win too big and not look too much like they they want to win because that’s showing off and athletes don’t show off.
Is that the explanation? Because if it is, then the double standard is even more spectacular than I first thought.
One thing’s for sure, when I see NZ rugby squad doing the Hakka, they are showing off and telling the other team that they are going out there to kick as much butt as humanly possible. The last thing on their mind is a close score and not looking like they want to win.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Well, it’s my theory anyway.
My point is that no one wants to watch the same team win every event and a slaughter to boot.
With well established sports (men’s soccer, rugby, football,…) it’s not an issue. The teams are well financed, have comparable stats, and a reasonable chance of beating the other team. These teams can win big, because they might not next year.
Unfortunately the Canadian women’s hockey team are to hockey what Andre the Giant was to wrestling. No one wanted to fight him because the result was a foregone conclusion. Andre the Giant eventually wasn’t getting any contracts (if my memory serves me correctly).
An exciting game is a close game. Exciting sports draw in deep pocketed investors which, in turn, raises the profile, which generates more interest, which generates more players, which generates more competition, which generates better competition, which generates more interest, which generates more revenue, which attracts more people…voila, you have a high profile sport with world class athletes on every team.
September 7th, 2007 at 2:09 am
I hear you Dick and I agree with close-game theory. It is more exciting. But that theory doesn’t really get to the heart of the double standard applied to men and women.
Neither does the new-sport theory. Women’s hockey is not a new sport Women have been playing it for a long time – in the 20s 30s, 40s, there were national leagues of women’s hockey with trophies and major interest. I read a book on it last year.
The writer Andrew Cohen (in his book the Unfinished Canadian) put forth the theory of Tall Poppy Syndrome to explain the way the Canadian women’s hockey team was treated. He says that Canada, unlike the US, likes to slap down those who do too well and stand out from the crowd.
But that theory falls apart when when applied to male hockey. Canadians don’t slap down the men hockey players when they score high against a team.
I think it boils down to the fact that Canada regards hockey as a men’s game and the predominantly male sports writing/commenting establishment didn’t like to see women’s hockey stealing the men’s thunder, especially during those Olympics when the Canadian men’s hockey team weren’t performing so well.
September 7th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Even if I agreed with Dick, I would still suggest that the Olympics is hardly the occasion in which to “tone it down”.
Nicely put, GT! I’m with you on this one.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:14 am
I think there are a few things at work here, including the double standard, but I think it needs to be recognized that if the other countries women’s teams were of the same calibre as the Canadian women, they (Canadian women) would have the freedom to kick ass without the finger wagging.
I think we have identified two contributing factors, both unfortunate for Canadian women’s hockey.
I know women’s isn’t new, but it is in it’s infancy regarding air time / popularity.