895
Registered User
- Jun 15, 2007
- 8,572
- 7,580
I think most people (rightly) put Ovechkin as the second best player of this era. There is a significant concrete gap between Crosby and Ovechkin.
However, what happens when people who saw both players and lived in this era get older and become the minority?
On paper, Ovechkin has a slight lead in individual awards. 3 to 2 Harts, 8 First team all stars to 4 and probably most important of all, he will probably have the goal record.
Now those of us growing up in this era know how many awards Crosby might've gotten if not for the injuries and how much centre depth is better than winger depth so the first team all stars are misleading....but when the majority of hockey fans didn't grow up in this period look up the players on wikipedia...won't Ovechkin look like he was the better player?
They'll dismiss most of the writers of this era as having anti-Russian bias or something.
I myself am a Capitals and Ovechkin fan so I don't consider this a tragedy exactly. I just think historiography is an interesting topic.
However, what happens when people who saw both players and lived in this era get older and become the minority?
On paper, Ovechkin has a slight lead in individual awards. 3 to 2 Harts, 8 First team all stars to 4 and probably most important of all, he will probably have the goal record.
Now those of us growing up in this era know how many awards Crosby might've gotten if not for the injuries and how much centre depth is better than winger depth so the first team all stars are misleading....but when the majority of hockey fans didn't grow up in this period look up the players on wikipedia...won't Ovechkin look like he was the better player?
They'll dismiss most of the writers of this era as having anti-Russian bias or something.
I myself am a Capitals and Ovechkin fan so I don't consider this a tragedy exactly. I just think historiography is an interesting topic.