Clemmensen and the team player approach

Sometimes a comment made in frustration can taint a player’s reputation.

A couple of weeks ago, Florida Panthers goaltender Scott Clemmensen was quoted as saying something to reporters that hundreds of goalies before him at various levels of hockey have probably thought. The comment: he described his team’s defensive zone coverage when the puck was in the slot as “total chaos”.

By all accounts Clemmensen has been a respected player. He has largely been a back-up goalie at the NHL level, but last season was thrust into the number one job when New Jersey all-star Martin Broduer was felled by a serious injury. Clemmensen stepped up and played well, landing a free agent contract this past off-season.

But in his first 4 games this season, he gave up 16 goals, and his comments were likely not welcomed by the coaching staff (who establish the team’s system”) or teammates.

Florida Head coach Peter DeBoer , not amused, didn’t even mention Clemmensen by name when he was quoted the in the newspaper in a story I saw circulated by the National Post.

“I understand where a goaltender who has let in (12) goals in his last two starts would be frustrated, but it’s misdirected,” DeBoer is quoted as telling the Florida Sun Sentinel. “When things aren’t going well, I think it’s important we all self-reflect and see what we can do better in order to help the situation. I don’t think finger-pointing is real productive at this point.”

Being a team player is easy to talk about but hard to be sometimes when things aren’t going your way.

But just like credibility is something that takes a long time to earn but can be thrown away in an instant, having a reputation as a team guy can be lost quickly, too.

It’s a lesson for young athletes to keep in mind.

It’s past the time to take a step back

Credit should go to Ryan Pyette of the London Free Press for his recent thoughtful piece on serious hockey injuries as an issue leaders in the sport simply have to look at.

The column came on the heels of an incident in which a young 16 year-old Ontario Hockey League player was seriously injured when checked, arguably from behind, by a 20 year-old player.

The league has now suspended the aggressor for the rest of the season.

As Pyette points out, hockey is a fast, skilled and physically tough sport. Injuries will happen, many without any intent on the part of the person who caused the injury.

Toughness and hard-hits have always been a part of the game, and applauded by almost everyone. No one wants to see a hockey game without physical contact. It’s part of why millions love NFL football, and professional hockey.

But we have reached a point where the physical nature of the sport –fueled by how those in the sport still think about toughness - may well have pushed the envelope too far for the good of the players and the game itself.

Pyette raises the issue of whether parents will now –more than ever- consider college hockey as a better and safer alternative for their sons.

Here’s the reality: As I mentioned above, the history of Canadian hockey is that we like our skill, we like a fast game, but we seem to love that hard-hitting, tough style.

It leads to a macho mentality. You have to finish your checks, and hit hard. Very hard. I’ve had hockey parents come up to me and talk about their son playing youth hockey, “You should have seen my son drill that guy”. It’s a source of pride to be tough.

“Toughness” can be a great quality in life. Mental toughness is important. Many sports do demand a kind of physical toughness.

But like most “good” things, taken too far, it’s a problem.

Players can say they don’t hit to injure, but they certainly hit to hurt, and given the reality of the human body, that’s really no distinction at all.

Players are bigger and skate faster than ever before. The huge equipment players wear is a big problem. It makes players feel they aren’t vulnerable, yet they are, in part because of the equipment they wear.

Football and hockey were both probably safer (still “hard-hitting” but safer) when players dressed more like rugby players than gladiators.

Think about: fans -and the media - have spent countless hours in recent years discussing the apparent epidemic of serious injuries—head shots (many still “legal” in hockey terms); hitting from behind situations; concussions; knee injuries and more.

It really does have to stop.

When you have 16 year-old playing against men, the risks are already there. Unless hockey authorities begin to absolutely, once and for all, outlaw hitting from behind or even the side, this problem will continue.

NHL GM’s met this week, and reports suggest movement was made about creating new rules to reduce dangerous hits. Too often in the past the league talked around the real issues. They can’t seem to decide what types of hits should be “legal”.

To me, the question is not what is legal in hockey terms, but what is dangerous.

The game has changed. Rules, and what is—and isn’t—allowed, should evolve as a result.

It has taken generations to get people to recognize the problems associated with smoking, for example, and to change behaviour. And still, probably 20% or more of people smoke in Canada and the United States.

Changing the mentality around hockey won’t be easy. You don’t want to lose the great parts of the action, but surely protecting the basic safety of vulnerable athletes—especially at the younger ages—must be a priority.

When a Dad goes too far

I recently came across a story out of the United States, which indicated that a “football dad” in the Boston area actually slugged his son’s coach.

As the story goes, the coach of the 12 year-old youth team apparently had disciplined the boy, who had arrived a few minutes ‘late’ for practice.

Given what occurred afterwards, it’s hard to imagine this was anything other than a situation that had been brewing for some time. Surely no father, no matter how over-invested they might be, would react to an isolated situation where their son may have had to do laps, or whatever the ‘punishment’ might have been for being late to practice. There seemingly had to be something more to this situation.

While youth coaches often try to instill a kind of overall team discipline, the focus in this instance may have been misdirected.

Clearly, like most youth involved in sports, a 12 year-old relies on busy parents to get to practices at all, much less, “on time”.

Perhaps there were fully discussed “rules” in place that all families had agreed upon. Maybe not. I don’t know the details.

Setting aside this particular circumstance, and speaking in general terms, there are steps a youth coach can take to at least try to prevent disappointment, misunderstanding, bitterness—or worse, on the part of families involved in his or her Club program

For example, the youth coach should host meetings with parents as a group at the beginning of a season, and then individually with parents and their son/daughter.

The objective is to establish the coach’s priorities, as well as those of that particular ‘team’ and the Club in general, so all parties understand and are on the same page. From there, he/she works toward, if it is possible, agreement on mutual expectations when it comes to discipline, attitude, punctuality and all the other things that make up being part of a youth team, whether house-league or “all-star”.

If the family can’t abide by the coach’s program, then it is likely the wrong program for that child and family. There is then time to look for options elsewhere.

But again, it’s important to establish priorities and expectations early on, so everyone is understands specific expectations and individual family limitations and hostile feelings don’t build and build.

There is no way to defend punching a youth coach, even if the coach was off-base in handling a particular situation – whether it was about playing time, foul language, unfair disciplinary methods, whatever.

It’s difficult enough to find good role models to work with other people’s children.

Now, it’s easy for us to make judgments from hundreds of miles away, but some questions come to mind:

1. If a coach has made it clear a player must arrive on time, is that actually reasonable, given the age of the children?

2. Is punctuality more important than the attitude and work ethic of a young player when they are at practice?

3. What were the actions on both “sides” in this situation that preceded the punch-up?

4. How will that 12 year-old look at his dad in future? What has he “learned” about handling disagreements?

5. How will the rest of the team look at the coach? What have they “learned” about handling disputes?

Youth sports organizations exist to give young people outlets and opportunities for healthy activity. They aim to “hire” volunteers with the best approach and skill set to act as positive role models.

They don’t always bring in the right people, and mistakes will inevitably be made.

The more the sports association, local clubs, individual coaches, players themselves and parents communicate their mutual objectives together, very early on, the better off everyone is.

All the parties may not agree, and if they don’t, thankfully parents have the freedom to protest, ask for change, and ultimately leave a ‘club” if it’s obviously not the right club or team for them.

Punishing a kid for being late- and punching out a coach, is never healthy, much less a solution.

It’s difficult but you have to deal with it

Reports out of Philadelphia (I viewed a story by the Toronto Sun) suggest there is a bit of a freeze in place between Flyers captain Mike Richards and the local media that covers the hockey club.

According to reports, some of the team’s young players have been mentioned in the context of allowing their social activities to affect their play. (Evidently a number of them moved "downtown" last season, away from the where the club trains in New Jersey.)

In any event, I certainly don’t know the details, but if media reports are accurate, Richards asked the team’s media folks to ensure that reporters didn’t question Flyer players about this particular matter.

When related questions were asked anyway, Richards apparently subsequently tried a media “boycott” and then resorted to providing only short, clipped answers to questions about a game that had just been played.

It would seem the Flyers captain was trying to send a message to the local media, but it may not have been effective.

Based on various reports, club management is not only aware of but is monitoring the “situation”. This gives the impression, to the public at least, that this is of at least modest concern to the club. (One of the players in the “group” that moved downtown last season, Scottie Upshall, has since been traded to Aanheim.)

Here’s a thought for young athletes: It is understandable that you will feel that your “personal” life is no one’s business but your own. But if/when your performance fades in any way, reporters will look for reasons why.

You will always face what I call “performance criticism”. It’s part of the job. If you can’t handle that, professional sports will be a tough field for you.

And reporters can get too personal. No question. You need to be aware of effective and appropriate ways to try and guard your privacy.

But in the above situation (again, I don’t know all the circumstances), it seems that, rather than asking the media relations department to tell reporters not to ask certain questions (that only makes them want to ask those questions all the more), it would have been better to address the issue head on.

It the captain had simply said, “Here’s your chance. If you want to talk about the issue, let’s deal with it openly. After this, I’m not going to address this going forward”, it may have helped.

Would it have helped for sure? Who knows? Nothing is guaranteed.

But trying to hide, or trying to avoid dealing with a sensitive issue, rarely if ever really works.

I’ve often told professional coaches who are clients of mine that the “local media beat reporter or columnist generally will last a lot longer in that market than you will.” In other words, they best better figure out an effective way to interact in a professional and mature manner with those individuals.

Handled poorly, a situation like that which is apparently facing the Flyers can sometimes worsen, much to everyone’s discomfort. The issue becomes bigger, and “lasts” longer, than it otherwise might.

And, as an athlete, if it gets into your head and affects your play on the ice, then you have a real problem.

The media is doing their job, whether the players like it or not.

The players have to do their jobs effectively on the ice – and off.

Pete Rose and the Hall

A media report from the New York Daily News in late July suggested baseball Commissioner Bud Selig may finally lift the lifetime ban on former Cincinnati Reds star (and disgraced manager) Pete Rose.

It is an injustice that is long overdue being rectified.

This is not to suggest for a moment that Rose should not have been punished severely for his alleged–and now proven–involvement in betting on sporting events while he was manager of the Reds. That he also bet on baseball, and perhaps his own team, had the potential to damage the integrity of the game, and should have been harshly dealt with.

It was, by the former, late Commissioner Bart Giamatti.

Since the initial allegations, investigations and suspension, Rose has not been allowed to be involved officially in baseball at any level. He was present when his son, Pete Junior, earned his first major league hit many years ago, but his formal appearances, other than at non-MLB-sponsored autograph shows, were few and far between.

Rose denied many times he bet on baseball. But that story changed as the years went by, as the possibility of his ever being enshrined in the Hall-of-Fame diminished year-by-year while he continued to deny the obvious.

Rose may not have been the most humble or likeable guy in baseball, but he is not alone in that regard in his baseball, or professional sports for that matter.

At the end of the day, there are many reasons Rose should be allowed some standing, at least, in the baseball community:

- He made a mistake. Not a small one, to be sure, and one that was repeated, clearly. But baseball is filled with individuals who made mistakes and were forgiven. Steve Howe, the former pitcher, was suspended half a dozen times by major league baseball and was always allowed to return to play the game.

- Many see gambling as a disease, a compulsive illness not unlike other kinds of addiction. Surely if it is an illness and can be treated, dealt with and potentially cured, the former athlete can be forgiven.

- Baseball has a history of cheaters prospering. Gaylord Perry acknowledged he threw an illegal pitch (for most of his 20+ year career), and yet he is enshrined in the Hall-of-Fame. Why not Rose?

- Speaking of cheaters prospering, it is inconceivable at best that Selig and the powers-that-be in baseball were unaware that players were using steroids throughout the 90’s and to the present. The late Ken Caminiti, National league MVP in 1996, admitted his own dependence years before his death. That baseball owners and general managers looked the other way when players suddenly bulked up as never before–and when 15-home-run-guys started hitting 40 and 50 home runs a season–is indisputable. It was good business for baseball to ignore the obvious, just as it is now good public relations to have a deathbed-style repentance in an effort to supposedly rid the game of performance-enhancing substances.

- If lying is a reason to keep him out, then every player who has denied using steroids over the past 15 years should be forever off the Hall-of-Fame ballot, given the obvious reliance on various banned or inappropriate substances by so many players over the past 15 or more years.

- To re-state the historical facts, Rose’s error in judgment/illness that caused his suspension occurred after his playing career was over, and when he was managing the Reds. It would be hard to argue he should be in the Hall in the “builder” category, for sure. But as the all-time leader in hits, he clearly deserves induction.

The above does not even include the fact that O.J. Simpson remains a member in good standing in the football Hall-of-Fame, presumably because that league does not judge his actions after his career was over.

History, the social convention of a call to forgiveness–and baseball simply looking at itself in the mirror–should compel Selig to do the right thing.

Maybe Rose will finally end up where he belongs, as a player, in Cooperstown, in 2010.