Well done good sir, well done

Great article. I’m a Cherry fan, not because I think everything he says is gospel, but because he entertains me.

This is a well put together, polished, piece but it doesn’t address two very important issues when it comes to Cherry: intent and rhetorical style.

Sure Cherry may get Iginla’s name wrong or mispronounce where a late Canadian soldier is from, but it’s not quite the same as his willful mispronunciations of foreign names and disregard for foreign players. There’s a giant chasm between an honest mistake and an intentional slight. Can you imagine anyone affiliated with the NBA, MLB or NFL taking a similar approach to Yao Ming, Ichiro or Palomalu? Is there another professional league that would allow their showcase broadcast to take this approach?

Just as bad, and rarely raised, is Cherry’s use of limp-wrists and a lisp when quoting his critics. How he hasn’t been called out for this amazes me. I think we can all agree that there is no place for this on the airwaves, never mind from a public broadcaster.

He also uses the most simplistic rhetorical approach that is simply nonsense: you either played the game and lived in the trenches (and therefore agree with him) or you’re a know-nothing (and a likely recipient of the limp wrists and a lisp).

This is a huge dis-service to so many people who love hockey. Hell, I’ll take the input of a David Branch, Scotty Bowman, Lou Lamoriello, or Father David Bauer (none of whom played the game professionally) ahead of Don Cherry any day.

He is an easy target for the over-sensitive and easy-to-enrage but I think he still has a part to play on Coach’s Corner.

I wouldn’t count myself among the over-sensitive or easy-to-enrage, I just think Cherry’s time has passed. I’d love to know what part you think Cherry has to play on Coach’s Corner. More importantly, given his logorrhea, mild xenophobia and increasing senility, I wonder if he can make a positive contribution without all the negative elements that are increasingly part of his shtick.

I’m sorry PPP, while Cherry does sometimes make good points (for instance I am in 100% agreement with his no touch icing stance) I just can’t get past his other hang ups.

I have friends from university from around the globe, and that type of racism and blatant ignorance of other cultures irks me to no end. How he makes fun of players names like Poni and Antropov while he was here was just rude, short-sighted and whatever other rude adjective you want to fill in.

It is too bad because as you point out he can make great points, I remember another time he was in favour of this soft rubber corner on the edge of the boards for safety, Again great idea. But because the way he presents it no one is going to listen.

The whole thing is ironic, isn’t it? You’ve got Capitals fans essentially saying, “Well, screw it, we don’t need to listen to Cherry because he’s racist and xenophobic and because of that he’s just going to hate Ovechkin no matter what and therefor his opinion is irrelevant!” Essentially it’s a prejudice against Cherry because he has a perceived prejudice. As for Leonsis, I think he should defend his star player, but he doesn’t need to resort to name calling and such, especially given that Leonsis is publishing on his site on his time while Cherry gets less than ten minutes a week. It distracts from debating on the points, which is what I think we all ought to aim for – Leonsis and Grapes included.

Does Cherry have a fair point on Ovechkin’s celebrations? I think so. Even as a Capitals fan I’ve found myself thinking they’re over the top at times, but I will say this: Ovechkin doesn’t generally go wild when he scores a meaningless goal but he does go wild when his teammates score. It’s about winning, not showing up the other team. Whether it is still unsportsmanlike is a matter of opinion.

The issue of the IceDogs is an interesting one and while I think it would be downright stupid to say “Hey his OHL team failed at its outset, he must not know anything!” I think the experience has some bearing here. First off, it demonstrates that anyone, even someone as experienced as Cherry, can make mistakes at the outset in a highly competitive field like the OHL or the NHL and ergo it’s unfair to say that Leonsis doesn’t know hockey because of the bad contract he gave Jagr.

The comparison with Burke is interesting, but I’m not sure it’s completely appropriate. My understanding (and if I am incorrect, please let me know) is that Cherry declined to play European players on the IceDogs and declined to participate in the CHL Import Draft. It’s hard to imagine someone like that doing something like giving Selanne or Pahlsson a a major role or drafting the Sedins; there’s a world of difference between favoring a traditionally North American style of play and North American-born players and refusing to have Europeans on the roster.

None of them good. He’s right about no-touch icing; he’s right about dangerous “protective” equipment; he’s right about checking from behind (although that’s an easy one).

But that’s about it. The game has passed him by. To him, the 70’s were the golden age of hockey (I think it was an all-time low), and hockey has changed quite a bit since then. I don’t think he understands modern hockey strategy or even what makes a good team anymore. Sometimes I’m almost embarrassed for him.

Perhaps the last of his credibility was destroyed in the 90s when he decided to boost his popularity by becoming a shameless Leaf fan. I love cheering for the Leafs, but if I want to listen to a cheerleader I’ll tune in to Jim Ralph, not the lead commentator on a national hockey broadcast. How can I take him seriously when it’s logo first, hockey second?

I also think he’s bad for Canadian hockey. I think his performances and following help to keep violence alive in junior and minor leagues, driving out talented players that happen to be smaller. Players like Steve Downie get chance after chance because they play a rough “Canadian” style; but ignored are those who quit because they’re sick of the bullshit.

As to the case at hand: whenever I’ve seen an Ovechkin celebration it’s seemed more like an expression of happiness, not of gloating or sneering like Owens’s football disgrace. The NHL is chock-full of players who nurse grudges and take revenge for slights; if Ovechkin’s antics really bother other players that much they’d have started throwing fists by now.

Regardless, Cherry’s long history of xenophobia has robbed him of the ability to be taken seriously when discussing Europeans. Like the boy who cried wolf, he has no-one to blame but himself.

(and I’ll note that for Cherry, Americans are “Us”; it’s French-Canadians who are "Them")

I realize that this blog post is only looking at the Cherry – Leonsis issue, but when it comes to Cherry I don’t know that you can isolate single events. It’s like trying to dam a river with your fingers.

I think there’s a few bigger questions here:

Can Cherry still make a positive/meaning contribution – be it entertainment, insight, analysis, etc. without the G_d awful xenophobia, homophobia, and run-on sentences that seem to go nowhere?

Hockey Night in Canada is the pre-eminent hockey broadcast and Cherry’s spot is arguably the most important four or five minutes of non-game action. Is Cherry, especially in his current “the old-man’s gone crazy” state, the best the CBC can do?

Should a public broadcaster like the CBC countenance this type of repeat behaviour?

To my mind, the answer to all three of these is “no”

calling Jokinen a “Russian or whatever” is dismissive of his heritage even if the point is to highlight his abilities

That’s beyond dismissive.

Finns can’t stand Russia, for very good reason.

I’m European and I think he’s a twat.

The issue of Cherry is perception and how often you hear Don talk. Many people hate Don because of a certain comment, so they disregard everything else he says as pure idiocy.

It is kind of difficult to judge someone based on the fact you listened to a two minute spot a year and a half ago(or whatever) and now you hate everything about him.

I am not in any way agreeing with Don, and I think a great deal of the time he is blowing hot air. As a consumer of hockey and hockey-related media, it is our responsibility to take into account some basic facts about any hockey ‘personality’ and then to filter through the positives.

There are some things he does say/do that definitely will be offensive to some – and perhaps even most – viewers.

As for ‘getting him removed’ from TV/radio/print media, lets remember a few things:

Yes he can be offensive, but has anyone watched TV lately? You can’t flip once around the channels without finding something that would be offensive to somebody…

Jackass the movie – some people love it, others are sickened by it.

Lesbians – some think it is inappropriate to have it on TV shows (no problems from me!)

Borat – some thought it was hilarious – but the entire nation of Khazakstan hates Sasha Coen.

Simple solution: stop watching. Don Cherry or something else, it is up to us to filter the media we consume. You know what you are going to get from Don, like it or not.

He doesn’t pretend to be something he is not. I respect him for that. There are a lot of things I think he is totally wrong on and I feel he is completely ignorant, but I go in expecting that.

I’m going to end this by saying something Cherry-esque:

Grow a thick skin or go watch figure skating <——-talk about offensive!!!

I’m very impressed with the quality of the posts, including yours PPP. I’ve nothing against Cherry’s opinions on hockey, I may not agree but that’s not the point. My problem with Cherry is the particular brand of chauvinism that he pushes that goes beyond hockey. He has made his success by finding an audience that agrees with the idea that there is only one way to be canadian, then telling them what they want to hear each week. In his particular vision, honour is paramount, to be protected by vigilante justice where needed, and enforced according to an infinitely malleable “code”. In this way, hockey, canadianism and military glory are one. His way of being a canadian is superior, all other viewpoints are gay, socialist, environmentalist, european, or separatist, wink, wink you know what I mean. This is a little rich coming from someone who dresses in your grandma’s curtains. If I were 10 years old, I would call him gay.

So who is a canadian? Is it the reformed hotdog Crosby and his junkpunching code, or Big Bert and his spine crushing enforcement. We don’t show people up on the ice, but Messier can guarantee a Stanley Cup for his team in the media, effectively saying to his opponents that resistance is futile. And how about Hockey night in Punjabi, making our game theirs as well. Are they “conforming to our traditions, or do we have to conform to theirs”. This is nothing more than a veiled shot at canadian multiculturalism. In sum, he has made a career on blurring the line between sports and proper behavior as a canadian citizen. He is basically using a hockey soapbox to spread political vitriol. I think its time that him and Ron got a room.

At first I thought the title was “Medicating Don Cherry” which to me, would make a lot more sense.

Don Cherrys major issue is the inability to adapt to the changing climate he runs in. The man was introduced to TV in an age where the game was still, for the most part a very Canadian / Northern American game and the thoughts he expressed were wildly popular within hockey culture. He blew up in popularity, and created a formula that worked within those boundaries. The same generation that thought Archie Bunker and Al Bundy were quality family programming lapped it up. Cherry was given a soap box to voice his opinions from and he was applauded for it. At first, when the complaints about him being a xenophobe or troglodyte came from a small, generally unspoken minority, and at the time I remember people laughing at this small percentage of people calling them “thin skinned” and the like. Cherry was still applauded, and in some circles given hero like status for ‘telling it like it is’. For over a decade and a half, Cherry was a media darling and bad boy all at once. He was loved by all the ‘true’ hockey fans and was pretty much the spokes person for the game, this obviously went to his head and made a stubborn old man into a Outspoken old man with enough stubborn to fill the oceans. In the past years, Cherry has become more and more loathed by hockey fans in general for his inability to filter and organize his thoughts in any sort of diplomatic way. Sure many of the things he says are most certainly not ok to be said at all let alone on national TV, but then the dude is 75 years old, and is almost certainly starting to loose his mental faculties. I don’t blame Don for what he is. Don is stuck in 1985, and it is primarily our fault (his fans, ex fans, the media) for making him what he is. We held him up as gospel for a while, but as times changed, and so did we, Don was unable. He is still told almost daily that he is awesome, and that probably gives him a reason to keep going as he is going and ignore those speaking out against him.
Should he retire? Yes, for sure. get him away from the national TV spotlight before all the good he has done this game goes out the window in some incomprehensible and offensive rant.
Should we hate him? no, not at all.
I still love Don Cherry, I love what he has done for hockey in Canada, I love what he does for charities and I love how he loves hockey and Canada unconditionally.

I’m a big fan of Cherry, even though I think he’s absolutely on the wrong side of this one. I love Ovechkin and his passion for the game, and I don’t think he’s trying to show anyone up.

That said… Cherry has been mispronouncing names for two decades. If Leonsis and Caps fans are really going to try to make some sort of cultural/racial issue out of it, then they’ll to be laughed at and they’ll deserve it.

triple P

It was a retribution game for the Sabres two years ago after Ovechkin had boarded Daniel Briere with a cheap head-hunting incident that got him a game misconduct but no suspension from the league. The Sabres were outright pissed that, once again for seemingly the umpteenth time, an opponent avoided a suspension after head-hunting a Sabre. (Anton Volchenkov got away with a similar head-hunting incident in the Saturday game against the Senators, getting only a two-minute minor for what should have been a match penalty and minimum five games)

The next time the two teams played, the Sabres came out loaded for bear and blew out the Capitals, scoring six in the first period. Ovechkin scored a meaningless but flashy goal later in the game and deliberately waved his arms at the crowd at HSBC, applauding his own ingenuity. While you might expect that in a close match, that is something that you really don’t do when your team is getting hammered. It ticks off your teammates. I always had hoped that Chris Clark had the stones to plaster AO’s face against his locker after the game but that was really far too much to hope for.

If Ovechkin had been suspended for his hit on Briere, perhaps the NHL could have nipped in the bud his future problems as a hack-and-slash me-first prima-donna. But they didn’t want to hurt their cash cow. Ovechkin is an exceptionally talented player but he will never be a team player. He is the Terrell Owens of the NHL.