Robert G. Anstey's Blog
4:50 pm Jun 16th 2011 UTC
Canucks Lose Game 7
Why did the top team in the regular season not win the Stanley Cup? Two reasons: no offence and inconsistent goaltending. Their big guns didn’t come out to play. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s one thing to have your top line score big all year and to have the top goal scorer in the regular season. It’s one thing to be the best team in the league over the regular season. But it’s another thing altogether to be consistently great in the playoffs and then to go on to win the Stanley Cup.
To win the Stanley Cup you have to be great in the playoffs and continually raise up your level of play from series to series. The Canucks had a really good season. Their goal scorers played great and their goaltending was very good. All that is wonderful but the playoffs are another animal altogether. They were a solid seasonal team but they could not raise up their level of play in the playoffs. The teams that have won the Stanley Cup over the decades have always been teams that could raise up their level of play with each playoff series.
Non-hockey people will always be shocked at the differences between the play in the regular season compared to the playoffs. The playoffs produce another level of hockey altogether and if your team doesn’t have the grit and the determination and the ability to dig deeper in the playoffs, they won’t go far. The Canucks went about as far as they could go with what they had. But they struggled. Against Chicago in the first round they won three games and then lost three games before finally beating Chicago in the last game to win the series. Their top goaltender was hot and cold. That kind of thing can’t happen in the playoffs. The team that goes all the way must have the ability to dig deeper than they ever have before. They have to have the ability to give blood. They have to have team depth and above all, their big guns have to come out to play.
Much has been said about the Sedin twins. Well, they won back-to-back goal scoring awards during the last two regular seasons. But when it came to this series they were asleep and you can’t have that in the playoffs and especially in the final series. The team has relied on them all season and they rely on them even more in the playoffs. They simply have to be great in the playoffs or the team doesn’t have a chance. (I also thought that it was disgusting in one of the games when a Boston player punched Henrik in the face four times without any response from him. What kind of a message does that send to the team? Where is his toughness? Sure, he was looking for a penalty but come on! Stand up for yourself and be a man! You are the captain. That kind of gutlessness is not worthy of a Stanley Cup ring in my books.)
Over the last few years a lot has been said about Roberto Luongo as well. Yes, he has been inconsistent in the last few playoff series but the expectations were still high this year. But once again, he was about as inconsistent as a goalie could be and not the solid goalkeeper that a winning team needs to win the Stanley Cup. Every Stanley Cup-winning team over the years had solid and consistent goaltending. It is a must. The Canucks didn’t have it this year. (I thought it was funny that only a couple of hours after the Canucks had lost the final game to Boston, the TSN panel of commentators were talking of a possible Luongo trade. People are funny. But I suppose it is a feasible thing considering that Luongo has been so inconsistent over the past few seasons and that the Vancouver fans’ patience seems to be wearing thin concerning him. To me, it sounded like all those familiar “LUUUUU’s” were turning into “Boooo’s” this year.)
Overall, the best team won the Stanley Cup this year. No matter what even the most diehard Canucks fans have to say, the Canucks simply weren’t the best team this year. They failed to up their level of play when they needed to and when push came to shove the big guns weren’t there for them. On the other hand, the Boston team upped their level of play in every area including goaltending and offence and were at their very best throughout this series but especially in the seventh game when it really counts. That’s what you need to do to win the big prize and they did it. The Canucks’ top brass will have to go back to the drawing board once again and the Canucks’ fans will simply have to wait it out for another year.
7:30 pm Mar 26th 2011 UTC
Curried Lentils
1 can lentils
Curry powder
Dried coriander
Dried cumin
Dump the can of lentils into a strainer and rinse them to get all the gunk out of them. Put them into a pot and add about a tablespoon of curry powder, a dash each of the coriander and cumin. Mix it all together, heat it up and you’ve got a great side dish.
5:11 pm Mar 18th 2011 UTC
The Value Of A Song
There was a time when a song had great value. Folk songs in the 40’s and 50’s meant a lot to people. Songs (and especially song lyrics) were used as instruments to reach people and to touch their emotions just as a poem or a painting or some other artistic statement was used to make an important statement. Songwriters like Woody Guthrie used songs to reach people and inspire people on union picket lines and to touch people in regards to world events, poverty, wars or to world calamities such as the Dust Bowl or mine disasters, etc. The important news of the day was often put into song and those songs touched people and made them think. Woody wrote songs for every occasion and in similar fashion people have often asked me to write a song for their wedding or for an anniversary, for Christmas or a birthday, etc. because they wanted something personal to connect them to the event. A song has value and a place in life but it seems that in this modern day “the song” has lost its relevance. Today it seems that a song has no value at all.
Recently my mother died and I wrote several songs for her as I had done for my father, my brother, my aunt, my uncle, etc. after they all passed away. It seemed like a natural thing to do seeing as I am a “natural” songwriter anyway. Writing songs for people and for occasions is just a natural thing that I do and have always done. But when I suggested playing the songs at the funerals I was met with some confusion, scepticism and a certain amount of resentment by a few people. Why, they wondered, would I want to sing a song for the deceased person at their funeral? What was my motive and was it really relevant and appropriate? Was I doing it merely for myself and my own ego? Or was I doing it for the family of the deceased? I surely couldn’t be doing it for the deceased because (I was reminded) they were no longer here. So what would be my motive and purpose for wanting to sing a song at the funeral?
I was a bit miffed by this line of thinking and I realized that “the song” simply has no place in our society anymore. Certainly not as a vehicle or messenger of condolence or inspiration. Maybe I’m from the old school. I certainly worried that some might take it as an ego boost for myself but my motive was the opposite of that. I always think that at a time like that the family would really appreciate warm thoughts of their loved one expressed in a song or a poem, a eulogy or just someone talking simply and poignantly about them. But I guess times have changed in some circles regarding these things. I guess a song really has no value anymore and, to me, that’s a real shame and a real loss. I think a song does have value and should be considered the powerful tool that it used to be. It should be able to touch emotions and move people to tears. It should be able to inspire them and encourage them and raise them up at a time like that. It should be able to lift their spirits when they are down, etc. but it seems that some people don’t see life that way. They simply see it as an opportunity for someone to show off his abilities and gain some accolades for themselves. Or they see it as an indulgence to be simply tolerated. But to me that’s a very short-sighted way of looking at life and a very narrow way of thinking.
I guess gone are the days of “the song” and its value. But what are we left with? What will replace it? If “the song” doesn’t move us or inspire us anymore, what does? And, maybe more importantly, what use does “the song” have anymore? What’s the point of it? If “the song” has no use and no value anymore, why bother even writing them? To me, that’s a great loss; maybe the greatest loss.
8:42 pm Mar 11th 2011 UTC
The Chara Hit
Watching the Chara hit on Pacioretty many times over on the TV news channels it seems to me that what really happened was this: Both men were chasing the puck at high speeds. Chara edged Pacioretty towards the boards and gave him a push before skating away. In any other part of the rink Pacioretty would merely have bounced off the boards and continued the play. But because the glass was missing at that point because of the players’ benches, Pacioretty hit the metal stanction.
Because Pacioretty did not have the puck in his possession Chara’s hit was interference and he was penalized for that. But was it his fault that Pacioretty hit the metal stanchion? One could argue all day that Chara meant to harm him but there is no proof of that. One could argue that he knew where the benches were and therefore shouldn’t have pushed Pacioretty at the last minute. But these kinds of situations happen every night in every hockey game and are a part of the game.
It seems to me that if the stanction hadn’t been there, this wouldn’t be an issue at all. In any high speed game collisions will happen and I’m not sure that people should be calling for Chara’s head in this instance. It seems to me that even though he obviously interfered with Pacioretty, he had nothing to do with him hitting the stanction. Therefore, to penalize Chara more (by suspension or whatever) seems unnecessary to me. (You have to keep in mind too that everyone is on high alert these days in regards to the NHL and the huge number of concussions, headshots, etc. that are happening these days.)
8:51 pm Feb 28th 2011 UTC
Cultural Malnutrition
Generally speaking, the younger generation are brought up on junk food. The same seems to be true of their musical and cultural diet. They are brought up on music that has no nutrition, no soul and nothing to sustain them. It’s cultural malnutrition.
About Robert G Anstey