Signing of toughness

[Neil]

There is a lot of divide on the possible signing of someone like Westgarth, so a simple question.

Would you rather sign a Westgarth (or similar) or see players control us (Nickerson last season)

Yes, ideally we'd have the worlds greatest player that is also a proper enforcer however lets be realistic, so the question is Westgarth or risk being dominated?

Having seen what Nickerson did to us last season, its a no brainer for me.

[nate24]

That's a very leading question giving you the option to say 'yeah, I like being intimidated on the ice' which is ludicrous. I understand your opinion as it glaringly obvious through your question but we get this thread four or five times a year. To be fair, I may of even started one myself.

To get any kind of worthwhile discussion on this topic we need to open up the question more and allow for a more balanced point of view.

Do we need a tough guy like Westgarth or is it possible to drawer together a team with a 'team toughness' across the bench or just forget about it and focus on capitalising on power plays? What other approaches could we take?

The latter in my opinion doesn't work as the guys are either shook up or there are several pretenders to tough guy throne to keep the intimidation factor on.

The signing a tough guy approach does work IF you get the right kinda guy. In my limited experience as a Panters fan Ryan Shmyr was the last guy I saw do this role well as I missed a few seasons when he left. I remember Payette ducking a fight with him and taking a two for roughing, Shmyr then did the chicken gesture past the penalty box and then sat on the door when the penalty was over to finish the job. It was a classic enforcer style action and one you don't see often any more but it works. It obviously carries risks as they pick up bans and such quite frequently. It is something that is being phased out of the game internationally which is why Westgarth style players are now attainable to us.

Team toughness worked several times last season. A few games we really ramped it up and you could hardly believe there was a question of our ability to stick up for ourselves. The biggest drawer back was that you needed everyone to toe the line every night and that just didn't happen. Also having 3/4 of your power play number one unit in the box for roughing was an issue more than once or twice. When it works though it is a sight to behold and very effective it's just getting the right combination of guys with the stand up for each other no matter what chemistry.

Of course there is the dual role enforcer ala Salters and that to me is the answer but those guys are getting more and more difficult to attain (for us at least it seems) but I think it will become easier to get them as more guys adopt that role to make themselves more employable in markets such as ours. This in my opinion will be the text book approach over the next five years or so.

Beyond 5 years it is predicted that fighting will be seriously reduced in the NHL, partly down to the amount of concussions and such and the leagues duty of care to the players. It still will happen but a couple of analysts discussed that the next CBA would put forward that one fight would result in ejection from the game for both parties however the refs would not be expected to risk personal injury breaking it up so it would still go down. Whatever happens in the NHL will spread across the globe as the players the world over are predominantly developed to fit the NHL as that's the big show.

To summarise my own thinking. The EIHL is built on an old school North American model. That is high impact and gritty. A lot of fans have come to the sport for the fights and grittiness and then found they enjoyed the sport in general and those conditions have been allowed to dominate the game through the rules surrounding roughing and fighting. For the time being that will not change and if we want success over the next few years we need to build a team that suits the rule book and that means having the grit to protect the skill otherwise we won't get the puck in the net.

[Shorty]

Sheffield won the league without an enforcer, and gassed Bois after a short while here.

[nate24]

May 24, 2015 16:10:21 GMT Shorty said:

Sheffield won the league without an enforcer, and gassed Bois after a short while here.

We destroyed Coventry on the scoreboard and physically without once last season, it can be done. Sheffield got the mix right and and they were consistent.

[Kovalchuk17]

You need a Lepine type player, it's the key role that won us the title (along with Wilson) and it's the role we've been missing.

Someone who can play well and solidly, but acts as the deterrent so our skilled guys can flourish without always keeping an eye out for trouble.

Tyson Marsh is the best example of such player from last season... And compare how Cardiff's forwards did against ours!

[Shaggy]

'Toughness' is also a much-abused word. There is a small but extremely vocal minority that obsesses over the capacity to punch the living daylights out of anyone & everyone (and, in the view of a more extreme few, to just cheapshot at will as well) and call it 'toughness'.

As has been proven many times (including, as Shorty & nate24 correctly point out, last season) you can win the league without an enforcer/goon/meathead <delete according to taste>. That's not to say that fighting is never required... sometimes it is. Quite frankly, I doubt it will ever disappear, nor do I want to see it banned - but it is, at the end of the day, a very small part of the sport. For me, ditch the oversized meatheads whose only contribution is their fists, ditch the pantomime staged fights, pre-arranged "let's see who is the big dog" fights, the utterly ridiculous concept that is 'fight cards', etc. But keep the occasional fight borne of passion, spur-of-the-moment stuff... hell, some of the best fights I've seen have been from 'non-fighters' who just lost it completely when an opponent went too far!

'Toughness' to me is the attribute of playing the game in a physical manner and being able to do so in the face of the opposition being physical. That means the grinding along the boards, winning (or keeping the puck), crowding the crease despite opposition attempts to clear the area... and checking. Hard hitting - again and again... against the boards, open-ice, even the occasional (and joyful to watch when delivered properly) hip-check. We have a sport here which can be massively physical without once needing to break the rules... you don't need fists, head-shots, cheapshots or whatever. Just a team that is prepared to launch check after check on any opponent with the puck... hit them hard (but legally), hit them often, hit them again and again... hit them so much they go back home aching all over. I absolutely love a physical game like that... to me, playing in a game like that - dishing it out and receiving it (without doing the mardy every time someone dares to touch one of the team) - THAT is toughness.

And I think we're a damned sight more like to win trophies with that kind of 'toughness' rather than the meathead kind.

[Yotes]

I'd like us to sign a Lepine/Salters type. I think you need to give yourself as many options as possible during a game, and on occasion that can mean looking to the big guy. As an example last year, in Cardiff we were getting tonked and Farmer fought Clarkson to try and change the momentum, you don't really want Farmer doing that (not much cop at it and more use on the ice) but he did because we needed to try something.

Corey has some form in signing the wrong big guy though (Henley, Penner even more so), guys without the self control needed, so whether Westgarth is a wise choice or not I don't know, he didn't seem like a loose cannon but whether he'd contribute enough elsewhere?

[bruinspanthers]

May 24, 2015 20:46:48 GMT Shaggy said:

'Toughness' is also a much-abused word. There is a small but extremely vocal minority that obsesses over the capacity to punch the living daylights out of anyone & everyone (and, in the view of a more extreme few, to just cheapshot at will as well) and call it 'toughness'.

As has been proven many times (including, as Shorty & nate24 correctly point out, last season) you can win the league without an enforcer/goon/meathead <delete according to taste>. That's not to say that fighting is never required... sometimes it is. Quite frankly, I doubt it will ever disappear, nor do I want to see it banned - but it is, at the end of the day, a very small part of the sport. For me, ditch the oversized meatheads whose only contribution is their fists, ditch the pantomime staged fights, pre-arranged "let's see who is the big dog" fights, the utterly ridiculous concept that is 'fight cards', etc. But keep the occasional fight borne of passion, spur-of-the-moment stuff... hell, some of the best fights I've seen have been from 'non-fighters' who just lost it completely when an opponent went too far!

'Toughness' to me is the attribute of playing the game in a physical manner and being able to do so in the face of the opposition being physical. That means the grinding along the boards, winning (or keeping the puck), crowding the crease despite opposition attempts to clear the area... and checking. Hard hitting - again and again... against the boards, open-ice, even the occasional (and joyful to watch when delivered properly) hip-check. We have a sport here which can be massively physical without once needing to break the rules... you don't need fists, head-shots, cheapshots or whatever. Just a team that is prepared to launch check after check on any opponent with the puck... hit them hard (but legally), hit them often, hit them again and again... hit them so much they go back home aching all over. I absolutely love a physical game like that... to me, playing in a game like that - dishing it out and receiving it (without doing the mardy every time someone dares to touch one of the team) - THAT is toughness.

And I think we're a damned sight more like to win trophies with that kind of 'toughness' rather than the meathead kind.

This is exactly how I view the whole fighting/enforcer situation in hockey

Nail hit on head here for me