Short answer? They didn't.
Long answer? Your entire decision on who and who isn't a good leader is based on what you think you see on the ice from someone, but leadership is far more complex than your eye test. When it comes to the historical names you have mentioned, we mostly "know" (and I use that loosely) because we have more than anecdotal evidence. We have stories from teammates and entire body of work over full (or almost full) careers.
Let's take a specific example that you pointed out, Steve Yzerman. You notably put him into a collection of leaders that you think Auston Matthews is not and won't ever be, but until the mid to late 90s, he was not considered in the group you mentioned. He was often talked about as not having it, not being able to lead a team to the Cup, and that he should be traded and Detroit should go use that money on players that could win. That sounds incredibly familiar, doesn't it?
Then something happened, Detroit won. All of the sudden Yzerman was a warrior, a true leader, the epitome of what it means to be a hockey player. Did Yzerman change overnight? No, obviously he didn't. He was likely a very similar leader in 1993-94 when they lost to a lesser team in the first round as he was in 1994-95 when they made the Cup Finals. Likely similar to the leader he was in 1995-96 when they lost to Colorado and "would never be able to beat a team like that." Until, of course, they did. Now we trumpet him as incredible leader. FWIW, I'm not suggesting he isn't, there are enough stories about his leadership that I would suggest he likely is, but at the time, when they were losing to worse teams in the first round of back to back years, people were not suggesting he was a good leader. They were trying to trade him. Again, sounds incredibly familiar, doesn't it?
Further, you are using past leaders to determine if Auston Matthews is a good leader, but what leadership looks like today is far different than the mid to late 90s. More than half our roster wasn't alive in 1995. Comparing Matthews to Yzerman or Clark or whomever from days gone by is fine, but what motivates the average 25 year old teammate in 1995 is not the same as what motivates the average 25 year old teammate today. Leadership is different to different people and what you see from the barstool or the stands, isn't what the guys in the room see.
Leadership isn't something that you are going to be able to tell from how someone responds to getting jumped in a hockey game. It's something you are going to have to take other player's words for. Even though Spezza's opinion is tossed aside, his is more valid than yours because he has lived experience with Matthews' leadership. Heck, even Matthew Tkachuk, who you say is someone everyone loves, loves Matthews.
So no, you don't know and those people didn't know either. If Matthews leads this team to the Cup next year or the year after or the year after that, the narrative will completely change on his leadership, even though his leadership style and abilities would be very similar to what they are today.
We simply see this completely different. Sure, digging into the nuance of
"what a leader is" can be layered and complex, especially when dealing with hierarchical organizations and corporations. But with sports, especially a game like hockey, there are visual clues that start connecting dots.
As
@Stephen said -- it's body language, a big check when needed, a fight to sway momentum, putting a team on your back and winning a series. Anyone paying attention can observe this in real time. When Messier guaranteed a win then came out and scored a hatty to force Game 7, everyone on the planet recognized his elite leadership. It didn't take his induction into the HHOF and campfire stories to sell us.
To me, it's even more easy to spot in this day and age due to social media, extensive coverage, and celebrity worship. Outside of a couple big goals in a playoff game or two, Matthews has done nothing on or off the ice to display leadership qualities. And the way he handles contracts cannot be understated. Especially after another disappointing playoff loss, you'd think Matthews (as a leader) would set the tone, and immediately commit to a team-friendly deal to reset the culture. We're still waiting. And, by all indications, it appears Matthews will once again command a short-term deal for max money. I'm sorry, this is not leadership.
As for the Yzerman thing, you do bring up a valid point, which is:
Can players change and grow into leaders? And, I believe some absolutely can. However, let's really dissect young Stevie Yzerman. As a pup, Yzerman was considered a flashy, lone wolf, who didn't play much defense. This is true. However, the Wings were a clown show and Yzerman was their draw -- his job was to score and perform, not mimic Bob Gainey. But Yzerman already had the leader gene in him. He was named captain at 19 and, at the time, was the youngest captain ever in NHL history. His teammates also loved him and he was the person who got everyone together after games, etc.
As the Wings improved and grew into an emerging powerhouse, Scotty challenged Yzerman to focus more on the defensive side of the game and limit the shortcuts. But he could do that with a supporting cast who could light the lamp at will. To Yzerman's credit, he followed Bowman's request to the letter and the legend of
"Yzerman the leader" was born.
Do I think Matthews could become a good leader? Sure, anything is possible. But he would have to do things completely different than he has for the last 7 years, mainly:
1. Commit long-term to the Leafs without milking them dry
2. Up his game in the playoffs (he's currently scoring at a 0.88 PPG pace)
3. Get angry with losing and show it. Be it on the bench, on the ice, in a post game presser
4. Take charge and publicly challenge yourself or your team then back it up on the ice
5. Engage when confronted physically and never appear extra soft -- battle for your team
6. Stop prioritizing nonsense like odd fashion, dress code, and pop culture, and focus more on
team success
These are all tangible things that Matthews
can do immediately. Leaders do them all the time and they are visible. As for the age thing, Matt Tkachuk is the same age as Matthews, how does anyone already recognize Tkachuk's leadership qualities vs. Matthews? They're there for the world to see.
