Quote:
Originally Posted by theoforever
...Johnny is a nice kid, one day he could become a player, and that day perhaps he will be qualified to make a judgment on Theo's ability to play the modern game.
|
I hope that Gaudreau will remain self-effacing enough to politely decline to make any such judgments.
Is Fleury right? Is he wrong about Gaudreau? I don't know, and I don't really think that anyone else does either—including Fleury. Regardless of his motivation or his opinion of Gaudreau and the Flames, Fleaury's comments sounds small and bitter. I would have a lot more respect for him if he could make comparisons to others in terms of style and differences that ensured success.
In this case, yes, Gaudreau is skilled, and yes, he is small. But he is not as gritty or as "tough" as Fleury was (I would argue that Gaudreau is actually a very tough player, but in a different sense). These are things that would have made things more difficult for him, but he is a damn tenacious kid who has succeeded at every level. Who is to say that he couldn't have found a way? By the same token, he is succeeding in an era when ALL the players are better, and the game is MUCH faster. In the end, it really is difficult to compare the two players. Why can't Fleury acknowledge this, and leave it at that?