Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Do We Really Need to Do This Again?
I mean, so soon after the Proteau Affair?
Alas, comrades, cliché and conformism are unresting beasts.
Today's offender is Mike Brophy of Sportsnet. He's put together a very important list of the Top 50 Best Players in the NHL, as determined by Mike Brophy. I can't help but be fascinated by this entry:
25. Ilya Kovalchuk
A one-dimensional scoring ace on an otherwise awful team needs both support and a better understanding of how to play a more complete game to reach his potential. Otherwise he'll remain a novelty act.
Really, I mean really, what's the point of becoming a writer if your entire raison d'être is to think other people's thoughts, type other people's words, and pull out reliable stock phrases and thought-clichés every time you greet your keyboard?
There must be a hockey journalist's thesaurus somewhere, where the entries ILYA KOVALCHUK and ATLANTA THRASHERS handily include synonyms like "otherwise awful team," "needs support," and "more complete game."
Which brings us to another quarrel I have with Planet Hockey Writer. I've talked about this before, but why in the hell do people write as if there are only two options under the sun: either a hockey player is Super OMFG Complete or just "one dimensional?" There are some complete players in the NHL. There are also some one dimensional players. Kovalchuk is neither. He's a dude with a lot of hockey skills, the greatest of which is goal-scoring, but he's not a complete player. But "not complete" doesn't automatically equal "one dimensional," for goodness' sake.
And finally, how the hell does anyone "remain a novelty act?" Isn't the whole point of a "novelty act" that its novelty expires after a short while?
These people, these people...