Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Colin

Kovy not accompanying the team to Washington

Recommended Posts

That's a joke right? You are talking about one of the best hockey writers ever. Not to mention, how could one line have such a negative effect?

If you were referring to Al Strachan or Bruce Garrioch your comment might make sense to me.

hehe I live in Quebec and have probably read hundreds of Red Fisher articles... After a while, he starts repeating the same old stories over and over again (often with no reason other than to brag about his friends), uses the same phrases and expressions in each of his articles, and almost always writes an entire article about absolutely nothing. For example, a long article explaining a Habs loss saying "the other team just wanted it more." I like reading his stories when they're relevant and fresh, and I like that he can provide inside information from GMs like Glen Sather and Doug Risebrough. But as a writer and as a hockey analyst, he's just obnoxious. He's well-connected but doesn't know more about hockey than any other hockey writer. His predictions are nearly always wrong and then when they are, he writes that no one could have predicted it. Always using his same recycled expressions: "Raise your hand if you thought the Blackhawks would make the playoffs this year."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The high and mighty Lafleur chimes in:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Loqu...4126/story.html

What a tool. How is this guy on the Habs payrol? First we had four fourth lines and now this.

Ya ....it's obvious he doesn't watch games or really follow the team much anymore except what he reads in the papers while he's cooking fries. His comments make that very clear.

I won't call him a loser but I will add his opinion means nothing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hehe I live in Quebec and have probably read hundreds of Red Fisher articles... After a while, he starts repeating the same old stories over and over again (often with no reason other than to brag about his friends), uses the same phrases and expressions in each of his articles, and almost always writes an entire article about absolutely nothing. For example, a long article explaining a Habs loss saying "the other team just wanted it more." I like reading his stories when they're relevant and fresh, and I like that he can provide inside information from GMs like Glen Sather and Doug Risebrough. But as a writer and as a hockey analyst, he's just obnoxious. He's well-connected but doesn't know more about hockey than any other hockey writer. His predictions are nearly always wrong and then when they are, he writes that no one could have predicted it. Always using his same recycled expressions: "Raise your hand if you thought the Blackhawks would make the playoffs this year."

I do understand your comment on the repetition of stories having read almost every Red Fisher article since the late 70's( with a bit of a gap in the Mid 90's before the Gazette was available on the Internet) but I find obnoxious a bit of a stretch. To each his own. However, who, excepting Michael Faber, would you say is better? The guys at the Globe and Mail are the only other print journalists I can really stand, but for some reason they concentrate on Toronto.

Edited by PMAC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do understand your comment on the repetition of stories having read almost every Red Fisher article since the late 70's( with a bit of a gap in the Mid 90's before the Gazette was available on the Internet) but I find obnoxious a bit of a stretch. To each his own. However, who, excepting Michael Faber, would you say is better? The guys at the Globe and Mail are the only other print journalists I can really stand, but for some reason they concentrate on Toronto.

You aren't going to agree because these guys have plenty of critics but I prefer everyone else who works at the Gazette. I like Pat Hickey, I like(d) Jack Todd, Stu Cowan. When it comes to analysis, anyone on TSN is better and I think Dreger is even more connected than he is. I don't really read other newspapers so I couldn't name many sportswriters who aren't also on TV but from the Gazette, Red Fisher's the only one I don't like. It's like he knows 20 catchphrases and just uses them over and over filling in the blanks with different names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree with BTH on this one. Red's a throw back to when newspapers were relevant. I can recall in the 80's, he refered to the habs as team "whoosh", because of their speed. Uh hello?? I know it was tongue in cheek stuff, but it was high school level at best. And the name dropping in his weekly column is tough to take. I'll say one thing though, he does go back to those simpler times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Concerned Fan was the best writer ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Concerned Fan was the best writer ever.

:lol:

very good indeed, I miss him. You are calmer when he's around. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Concerned Fan was the best writer ever.

That guy was a hack. I bet even you'd be better than him! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kovy sounded like he has a very good attitude from his interview today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You aren't going to agree because these guys have plenty of critics but I prefer everyone else who works at the Gazette. I like Pat Hickey, I like(d) Jack Todd, Stu Cowan. When it comes to analysis, anyone on TSN is better and I think Dreger is even more connected than he is. I don't really read other newspapers so I couldn't name many sportswriters who aren't also on TV but from the Gazette, Red Fisher's the only one I don't like. It's like he knows 20 catchphrases and just uses them over and over filling in the blanks with different names.

Well, I liked Jack Todd, Cowan's ok and Hickey's occaisionally relevant but Dreger???!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I liked Jack Todd, Cowan's ok and Hickey's occaisionally relevant but Dreger???!!!

I don't even consider Dreger a sportswriter but one of Fisher's only uses is his contacts; Dreger seems to be the most connected analyst on TSN.

I don't even particularly love the guys I mentioned, I just don't like Red Fisher. I finally got around to finishing that article and it was horrid. For one thing, the article had absolutely no point or thesis. It goes from Gainey giving Kovalev a break --> "Gainey is a winner, always has been, here are TWO irrelevant stories, both of which I've written about several times and will continue to write about in the future." He also boasts needlessly about how he supposedly knows Gainey as well as anyone and throws in his usual catchphrases ("the goaltending was so-so with gusts up to horrible," anyone?).

He wrote an article in today's Gazette (The Bettman Cometh) that didn't feature a single one of these things - it was actually a good article! He's much better off as a newswriter/storyteller than as an analyst of modern hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×