Friday, December 08, 2006

12-7-06: Avalanche 5, Sharks 2

I have absolutely no coherent thoughts on this one. However, I have miscellaneous brain-flotsam, and isn’t that what blogging is really all about? Anyway, I’ve skipped typing about far too many of the non-Habs games I’ve seen recently, so here goes:

1. I like the Sharks, but here’s the thing: I know sharks are supposed to be scary animals, and you’d think that calling your team ‘The Sharks’ would sound, you know, tougher than ‘The Ducks’ or ‘The Penguins’, but I can’t help picturing actual sharks flopping around on a hockey rink: dull grey, barely mobile, waving their fins ineffectually in the air as they slowly suffocate on the ice. Sushi! It makes it difficult for me to imagine them as threatening. Also, I do hate that their stadium is affectionately called ‘The Shark Tank.’ ‘The Avalanche’ is a little bit better as a name, since it manages the dual themes of ‘cold’ and ‘potentially lethal,’ and reminds you that they're from a mountainous region, but it does have a pile-of-rocks sort of connotation which is maybe a tad Old NHL.

2. The Sharks are still hella fast and unusually sophisticated, but it seems (from what little I see of them) that they need to be able to get a bit of momentum going to show off their finer points. I suppose having a distinctive team style, as the Sharks do, can be in some sense a liability: what do you do when you can’t play it, when you can’t get that rhythm going? Evidently, you make a few slick plays, and then more or less crumble like a box of stale Cheez-Its.

3. The Avs struck me as very well-organized desperation, which seemed entirely appropriate. Way to go, high-altitude hockey people.

4. I tend to pay a little extra attention to Theodore, as he is one of those ex-Canadiens for whom I hear occasional whimpers of nostalgia. Apparently he was popular, at least in certain circles, but that’s before my time. Anyway, he spent a lot of this game lying down and getting beaten with sticks. An interesting strategy, and it clearly worked for him in this case, but not enough to make me want him back.

5. In honor of another game watched on the NHL Network (Motto: Now with Four Commercials!):

Things Sidney Crosby™ Does Not Control:

1. Bumps and Bruises

2. The Crowd

3. Who Covers Him

4. The Bounces

5. The Shootout Order

6. What Happens Outside the Rink

Things Sidney Crosby™ Does Control:

1. Plantar warts

2. What happens underneath the rink (see #4)

3. His Latin habit (no more than 2 or 3 translations a week)

4. An army of genetically-engineered emperor penguins in the Pittsburgh sewers.

5. A satellite-mounted death ray pointed at DC.

6. The agricultural policy of Uzbekistan


Tapeleg said...

Avalanche is a better name for two reasons. It bucks the plural convention. What is the plaural for Avalanche?

And you can't shorten sharks to sound more in. Avs. The Avs. See? I'm in, dawg. Woof. Sha? Shar? Sounds like you are calling someone a chinese wrinkle dog, and got stuck half way.

E said...

You have a point about the beating the plural thing, but then you lose it with the abbreviation because the abbreviation has to be pluralized- The Avs, not The Av. So I return to my earlier contention that the Wild are awesome for having an adjective for a name, since it’s neither pluralizable nor abbreviatable. That’s how you know they’re really hard core.

However, I do think the Chinese Wrinkle Dogs should be the name of some team, in some sport, somewhere…