-&-
I have a long summer ahead of me and the lovely ladies on this board have allowed me to get on the soapbox. The majority of this post is about the Philadelphia Flyers, yeah "Flyers suck" and Mike Richards "whiner, douche". Since I know many of you are Penguins fans, or just plain hate the Flyers, I ask that you temporarily put that hatred aside to read this with an open mind. If you can't, then just skip down to the bold questions and just read those with your favorite team in mind.
Anyway, here we go:
I'm sure all of you are celebrating the utter collapse by the Flyers. It was big. It was ugly. Now fans across Flyerland are putting on their hats to become the big GM. Trade Richards. Trade Pronger. Fire Laviolette. This stuff is really said.
Anyway, Twitter is usually a safe haven from a lot of this bullshit. But Tuesday (5/10) was one hell of an interesting day. The shit first hit the fan when Tim Panaccio, aka the Russian Mobster (he's not really Russian, and probably not a mobster), wrote this piece:
Article #1
Then, one of the better writers out of Philly posted this as a response:
Article #2
Things simmered down for awhile. Then the Flyers injury report came out with at least 5 players getting off season surgery, including Mike Richards. He tweeted about getting surgery on Wednesday. People started sending best wishes his way, then BOOM, he pulls out the big guns with this tweet directed at our friendly mobster:
(Side note: The purpose of this soapbox is not to analyze Richards tweet, that's done enough in Philly already. But I will say, the tweet strangely shows his moodiness and while it might be unprofessional, I loved it all the same).
It is no secret in Philly that Richards hates the media, and they don't like him so much either.
In round 1 last season, Richards and Sam Carchidi of the Philadelphia Inquirer nearly came to blows. Carchidi had called out the team for their excessive partying and tried to stir up unnecessary drama. What is this? TMZ?
Carchidi and Panaccio share an occasional interest in getting sauced together during out of town games and watching porn in their hotels (yes, in a TMI moment, one of them tweeted about this). Now they share a dislike for Richards.
Following Richard's tweet, all hell broke loose on Twitter. Beat reporters battling it out with bloggers. If you care for a peak, this site screen capped some of the madness:
Article #3
Anyway, it was awesome.
At the heart of the battle seems to be whether someone reporting a story, should also offer an opinion. Does this muddy the waters?
Group question #1: What I want to know, is when a sports reporter throws an opinion in what should be a fact based article, does it sway other peoples opinions on the matter? Specifically, in writing an article that clearly shows dislike for Richards, is the reporter swaying readers to dislike him as well?
With the quick fall of this team through the second half of the season and collapse in the Bruins series, everyone is looking for someone to blame. The Captain is one of the obvious choices, and many fans are demanding that Richards be stripped of the C. Part of their reasoning has to do with his poor relationship with the media.
Group question #2: What is the role of the team Captain? Is it to be media spokesman? Lead the team on the ice and in the locker room? Both? Can you have one without the other?
In general, I'm curious what female fans in other cities think, not about the Flyers, but their team and their role with the media.
That's all for now - thanks for your time.
6 comments:
I don't think it's necessarily a captain's job to be a rockstar with the media. Sure, it helps to project a happy-no-matter-what personality to them for the fan's sake but why should he be forced to go against who he is as a person. Mike Richards is often noted for being a quiet guy. He's no Chris Pronger. But clearly there's respect for him in the locker room for he leadership capabilities or else everyone wouldn't be defending him so adamantly. The hockey locker room is a sort of inner sanctum for the organization and far be it for ANYONE including the media to question what goes on in there on a daily basis. In some cases, captaincy shows more on the ice than in the newspaper, as is the case with Richie. It's just not his personality. Most captains in the league, I don't think, particularly like the media. Every interview I see with Sidney Crosby is him just being polite and answering the question but never really engaging, if you know what I mean. And he's the NHL's darling.
So basically what I'm trying to say is that nowhere in the job description of an NHL captain does it say he has to be a media darling. Some other guys in the locker room fill that role a lot of the time. It's just a necessary evil as the face of the team.
First, thank you Grace for assembling all the pieces of this hot mess scrambled egg jigsaw puzzle together for everybody so we can kinda sorta connect the dots. :) Very well done!
Second, this is exactly why I am bummed the Flyers didn't go farther in the playoffs. They are a train wreck from top to bottom. Fascinating. Revolting. Fun. Tragic. Unhinged. Hollywood should get on this.
Third, just because Mike RIchards is one of those "love him or hate him" types doesn't mean it's ever right to blame him for his team's playoff collapse or for any other craptacular ailment affecting the Flyers organization. He's a fantastic player and cares deeply about what he does - so deeply, in fact, that his passion/frustration can be interpreted as moody and contrary. If he's a tad bipolar, there are medications for that and there is now plenty of time for him to determine if there might be systemic factors to his mood swings. I appreciate that he doesn't dance the robot with the press. He says it like he sees it in the moment. He's a hockey player, after all - not a PR representative or an algebra professor. This is a media wet dream, basically. He gives everybody something to talk about all the time. In a city that loves to talk as it is - like Philly - this is clearly a recipe for success or disaster. But at least people give a shit and they're talking. Holmgren already talked Richie into keeping his "C" last season when he apparently wanted nothing more of it, so it seems clear that the GM has every confidence in him as a leader.
Wearing the "C" means you have a special responsibility to motivate and support your teammates and liaise to a certain degree with the franchise but again, you're not the de facto scapegoat whenever things go south or the hero when everything goes according to plan. It's different today from how it used to be. Captains - and players in general - used to be able to speak freely and candidly to the media without a ton of furor. Today, franchises today want it both ways. They want for their players to be vanilla with the media, to avoid scandal with the family-focused fans and corporate sponsors at all costs. Yet they also want team stars who will attract a wider cross-section of fans and will further promote the game. Players are in an awkward position, and the PA should provide better guidance on how to juggle the balls at once. Ultimately, the "C" should mean you are a leader in the locker room and on the ice first and foremost. The media relations part of the gig should always take a backseat to that and I will never fault guys for being snarky with the press or blowing them off if necessary. Being a professional hockey player means you're an elite athlete playing the game for a living with the best players in the world. You need to bring your best game, show up for practice, games and travel timely and have your fucking shit together. End of story. The formulaic ill-fitting suits/ties, the ridiculous hair gel, the cheesy veneers and the monosyllabic robot quotes for the fans and the media are bullshit and have nothing to do with being "professional." Sorry, but that's how I feel. I think these guys should just be allowed to be themselves, already. Most of them won't be able to play for very long at this level anyway so would this be so wrong?
Finally, it is the responsibility of the sports media to be professional and ask the questions that need to be asked instead of reminding us of the obvious and writing uninspired, amateurish rehashed tripe barely worthy of a high school newspaper. The NHL keeps avoiding dealing with the new media v. "professional journalists" locker room accreditation issue but really this can't go on for much longer. Everybody knows "professional" journalists are mostly hacks now. Even if they can write, they're not exploring the issues that matter or asking the right questions. What is "professional" journalism today, anyway?
Sorry for the long response, but again I'm glad Grace brought this up and I hope people back off Richie soon so he can heal his injury and lead his team fresh next season.
In Vancouver, where we just changed captains this year, I would say that it's the captain's job to lead the team and talk to the media. In that order.
But leading the team doesn't mean you have to put them on your back and win every game. It means you need to inspire them and create an atmosphere where the team can rely on each other and work together. For example, Henrik Sedin has come under criticism for not having a huge playoffs, spurring talk that playoff superstar Ryan Kesler would have been a better captain. I would disagree completely, since it's been clear from day one that Kesler prefers to do his talking on the ice and often seems edgy or even hostile in interviews.
I think the fact is that Henrik, who is always courteous and even-tempered with reporters, and gives intelligent answers, has taken the pressure off Luongo and Kesler in a way that enables them to play better. And giving either of them the captaincy, makes the room less calm and professional, just by their more emotional personalities.
The captaincy is a lot of responsibility and the trend to give it to the team's superstar, rather than someone mature and able to handle media pressure, can be a problem.
In answer to your 1st question - if any article has what is obviously an opinion or bias slant to it (which most everything does these days) then the writer becomes a "blogger" to me. I think there are very few true journalists left. Facts don't attract nearly as much attention as inflammatory comments do. And, sadly, it's all about the "eyeballs" these days.
As for your 2nd question, well, it depends on the team. I know it's a total waffle to say that, but just as teams have different "identities" they also have different leadership "needs". But, in general, I think a capatin is (or should be) the guy who inspires the rest of the team to train and practice and play at the highest level each individual can. He's the guy who can carry the rest of the team on his shoulders through the really tough patches every team hits during the season. The best capatins (see Beliveau, Sakic, Yzerman, Crosby, Toews, etc) are able to provide their teammates with confidence, courage, grit and fierce determination. As for how they handle the media, well, not everyone can be as skilled as Sidney in saying nothing with a thousand words, but they shouldn't make teammates wince either. Ultimately it is has to be about the guys in the locker room and what they need. Not about the media and what they want.
If you can believe it, the media thing has gotten worse in Philly over the past week, with every old hack coming out of the woodwork and professing why Richards is such a horrible captain. I feel bad for him, and think any day now he's going to give the middle finger and say, "fuck off Philly". (before or after requesting a trade)
Post a Comment