In the more than 125-year history of hockey, the game has changed a lot.
It began in the 1870s as a seven-a-side game, a goalie and six skaters, with no substitutions allowed. It stayed that way for the first few decades, a game played on smaller rinks with more players, just as in soccer, playing every minute of the game. That was hockey. Until somebody changed it.
For more than the first 50 years of hockey's existence, players could not pass the puck forward. Instead, they had to skate and stickhandle it forward, and if they passed it, like rugby, they had to pass it laterally or backward. In 1929, an average NHL game resulted in fewer than two goals, for both teams; George Hainsworth, goalie for the Montreal Canadiens, recorded 22 shutouts in 44 games that year; seven of the league's other nine goalies had 10 or more shutouts each. That was hockey. Until somebody changed it.
The forward pass transformed hockey.
Changes off the ice also greatly changed the way the game was played. Only in the past 25 years have players come to understand that time spent off the ice, in gyms and weight rooms, before and after practice, and in the months between seasons, could make them better players on the ice. There are now assistant and specialist coaches, and video tapes, to teach individual skills and team strategies. Teams study every tendency and pattern of their opponent, and devise strategies to shut them down, because defence, which is mostly hard work, discipline and conditioning, is far easier to teach and learn than offence.
Some other less obvious developments have also changed the game. League expansion, for example. What happens when you add new teams to a league? We know that these new teams can't be competitive with their talent. So they adopt a tight defensive style and look for a good goalie. The same for low-budget teams. They don't have the money to afford high-priced offensive players. So again, they play a defensive style, look for a good goalie and, losing by close margins, they create the illusion of competition necessary to keep fans coming.
There is also the size and speed of the players. In 1952, the average NHL player was 5 foot 103/4 inches and 175 pounds. In 2003, that same player was 6-foot-1 and 204 pounds. The extra 23/4 inches doesn't mean much. The extra 29 pounds does. And it really makes a difference when you add another change. In 1952, the average player each time he went on the ice played shifts lasting about two minutes. Today, an average shift lasts 40 seconds. Playing two minutes at a time, a player has to play a coasting/bursting style of game to save energy. You coast in the neighbourhood of the puck at most moments, then when there is an offensive chance or a defensive urgency, you burst. Playing 40 seconds at a time, you burst all the time. You play at a sprint. I remember little of high school physics, but I do remember: F = ma. Force equals mass times acceleration. So when a body that weighs 29 pounds more, moves at a sprinting speed, the force of collision is significantly, dangerously greater.
My point is that the game has not stayed static. In its more than 125 years, these changes have affected the game fundamentally. Much of it has been for the good. Some has not. In dealing with hockey's future, the point is not if change is to happen, but when change happens, what change happens — and what we do about it.
Some changes have opened up the game, some have shut it down. They have made the game faster in general, but in the critical offensive areas of the ice — in the neutral zone and near the net — because defensive players, without the puck, can move even faster than offensive players with the puck, they have made the game more congested and slower. They have also made it more dangerous.
There are now more serious injuries. Tears of knees and shoulders are more common, as are concussions. There are also not just the greater physical demands of a single game, but the more debilitating grind of a whole season, the 82 games, plus four rounds of playoffs, and the shorter off season.
We treat injuries as if they are bad luck. They are not. We think of them as a regrettable but an acceptable fact of life. After all, these are professional athletes, paid loads of money. We have better medical treatment for them. We give them better care. It's all part of the risk they accept. For owners, there are more injured players that have to be paid even if they are not playing, but that's part of the cost of doing business. Because really, we say to ourselves, what can you do?
In Pictures:
