Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[unknown33]

Football?

Not the game itself rather the NFL ruleset.
Old OT rules for example.

 

[unknown33]

Bad Luck or improper technique?

Well both?

 

[BSHH]

To my mind, Lidström's career value outweighs Potvins slightly better peak. Of coursem I have to admit that I am biased in many ways: I think that Lidström's development from a seemingly mediocre prospect to one of the leading players of his era by playing a more unconventional and subtle defensive style is very impressive. Leading my favourite team through an extremely successful era also helped him a lot. However, there seem to be some more objective - yet marginal - factors favouring Lidström, which might not have been mentioned yet in this discussion:

- While durability and longevity has to be considered as a plus for Lidström, we must give Potvin credit for playing in an era, where career lasted shorter due to many reasons. However, Lidström's seemingly effortless playing style certainly contributed to this durability and longevity. So while Potvin is generally (and rightfully) praised for the intimidation factor he brought, Lidström deserves some credit for playing a more sustainable style.

- For roughly a quarter of his career and a larger fraction of his prime, Lidström played in the post-lockout NHL, where the CBA was in effect. The salary cap created more parity among the league, because the richer teams were not allowed to use that advantage to full effect anymore. Thus the talent was spreaded among all the teams. As the premier shutdown defenceman, Lidström might have faced better opposition from day to day than Potvin did in his era, which was dominated by some dynasties and had a bigger talent disparity.

- Lidström lost the 2004/2005 season due to the lockout. While he had one of his poorer years before, he won the Norris trophy and 1st AST nomination in 2005/2006. Therefore, it does not seem to be a huge stretch to presume that he might have added another notable accomplishment during the 2004/2005 season.

- Canadiens1958 has pointed out that European players have a certain disadvantage in developing those hailed intangibles and leadership qualities, due to the cultural differences and the language barriers. I fully agree with this assessment. Lidström did overcome those difficulties, so his intangibles should at least be considered as something more special.

- To my mind, an additional quality to a franchise defenseman is also, how easily he could be paired with partners and adapt to their personal playing style. I do not know, what partners Potvin had and how their respective style could be characterized. Lidström at least seems to be very versatile and has been employed with different partner, yet with similar success.

Gruß,
BSHH

 

[norrisnick]

During the '09 Conference Finals Nick Lidstrom was speared and missed his first ever playoff games having emergency surgery to repair one of his testicles. That same week Jonathan Ericsson, the player tabbed to eat up many of Nick's minutes, had to have an emergency appendectomy.

Sometimes **** just happens, and there's nothing you can do about it. Like taking a shot off your skate and breaking a foot. Or having a puck deflect high off of a stick and taking some teeth or worse. There is only so much with roster limits and a salary cap that can be done to prepare and/or respond.

 

[norrisnick]

Not the game itself rather the NFL ruleset.
Old OT rules for example.

And in hockey a team can win the opening OT faceoff, dump the puck in, have it hit a stanchion, and the whole thing is over. In football, sure there is a coinflip to determine possession, but you still have the structured setting to try and get into, or prevent, field goal position.

 

[norrisnick]

To my mind, Lidström's career value outweighs Potvins slightly better peak. Of coursem I have to admit that I am biased in many ways: I think that Lidström's development from a seemingly mediocre prospect to one of the leading players of his era by playing a more unconventional and subtle defensive style is very impressive. Leading my favourite team through an extremely successful era also helped him a lot. However, there seem to be some more objective - yet marginal - factors favouring Lidström, which might not have been mentioned yet in this discussion:

- While durability and longevity has to be considered as a plus for Lidström, we must give Potvin credit for playing in an era, where career lasted shorter due to many reasons. However, Lidström's seemingly effortless playing style certainly contributed to this durability and longevity. So while Potvin is generally (and rightfully) praised for the intimidation factor he brought, Lidström deserves some credit for playing a more sustainable style.

- For roughly a quarter of his career and a larger fraction of his prime, Lidström played in the post-lockout NHL, where the CBA was in effect. The salary cap created more parity among the league, because the richer teams were not allowed to use that advantage to full effect anymore. Thus the talent was spreaded among all the teams. As the premier shutdown defenceman, Lidström might have faced better opposition from day to day than Potvin did in his era, which was dominated by some dynasties and had a bigger talent disparity.

- Lidström lost the 2004/2005 season due to the lockout. While he had one of his poorer years before, he won the Norris trophy and 1st AST nomination in 2005/2006. Therefore, it does not seem to be a huge stretch to presume that he might have added another notable accomplishment during the 2004/2005 season.

- Canadiens1958 has pointed out that European players have a certain disadvantage in developing those hailed intangibles and leadership qualities, due to the cultural differences and the language barriers. I fully agree with this assessment. Lidström did overcome those difficulties, so his intangibles should at least be considered as something more special.

- To my mind, an additional quality to a franchise defenseman is also, how easily he could be paired with partners and adapt to their personal playing style. I do not know, what partners Potvin had and how their respective style could be characterized. Lidström at least seems to be very versatile and has been employed with different partner, yet with similar success.

Gruß,
BSHH

Funny story about that. I believe it was this past season leading up to the Olympics, Nick was giving an interview in the lockerroom to a Swedish media outlet, in swedish naturally. Kirk Maltby walks by, does a double take, and I believe in his own words said something to the effect "What the ...? Oh right!" Lidstrom has adapted so well that players on his own team, that he's played with coming up on 15 years, have forgotten that he's Swedish.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Or

During the '09 Conference Finals Nick Lidstrom was speared and missed his first ever playoff games having emergency surgery to repair one of his testicles. That same week Jonathan Ericsson, the player tabbed to eat up many of Nick's minutes, had to have an emergency appendectomy.

Sometimes **** just happens, and there's nothing you can do about it. Like taking a shot off your skate and breaking a foot. Or having a puck deflect high off of a stick and taking some teeth or worse. There is only so much with roster limits and a salary cap that can be done to prepare and/or respond.

Doesn't happen if you establish the appropriate ice presence.

For every choice there is a price that has to be paid sometime, somewhere. A fact that has to be recognized and prepared for. Not luck.

 

[norrisnick]

Doesn't happen if you establish the appropriate ice presence.

For every choice there is a price that has to be paid sometime, somewhere. A fact that has to be recognized and prepared for. Not luck.

Do you comprehend the levels of insanity the above is reaching? Appropriate ice presence? It's not like he got on his knees in the crease and had a slapshot go off his forehead. He was speared in the testicles. Apart from staying off the ice, what pray tell is the appropriate ice presence to avoid that?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Do you comprehend the levels of insanity the above is reaching? Appropriate ice presence? It's not like he got on his knees in the crease and had a slapshot go off his forehead. He was speared in the testicles. Apart from staying off the ice, what pray tell is the appropriate ice presence to avoid that?

I could be wrong here but I think what he's saying is if that was a Pronger, Stevens or even a Chelios for example, those 3 players would be much less...forgiving, shall we say

If that's not what he's saying, then I'm as lost as you are

In relation to Lidstrom vs Potvin...it goes without saying that spearing Potvin in the nuts would of likely gotten you your head taken off and prolly more than just once. Potvin was quite simply not someone you wanted pissed off and gunning for you.
Big Bird was the same way, he played physically but neither were mean...until you pissed 'em off and then you're screwed.
Just ask Dave "The Hammer" Schultz what happens when Robinson had enough, Dave was lucky to make it off the ice on his power.

 

[Hawksfan12*]

OT

But I can't start knew threads so I thought I would ask in here;

Who is the best team in the history of Hockey in your opinion

Why?

And the Best Dynasty?

Why?


Thanks

Asked this in another thread but want as many responses as possible

Maybe someone can even start the thread on it for me?

 

[Hawksfan12*]

OK, and replace Mark Messier on the '94 Cup winning Rangers with the guy for whom he was traded, Bernie Nichols, and NYR is going on its 71st straight year without a championship.

Again, I do not see where that makes Messier lucky, especially considering his remarkable (except to a few here) legacy of success. If anything, his team was lucky to have him "put" on their roster.



Absolutely not. Luck is, of course, an element...but not nearly to the exaggerated extent portrayed by some here.

People and teams of accomplish don't just "happen to have things fall their way". The successful pursuit of the Cup is not a surrendipitous occurence. A great player, performing as such on a great team, is not just happenstance.

Per Canadiens58, things that some people love to attribute to luck or randomness inevitably are explainable. (Read: not luck.) And often accomplishment is mischaracterized as such by those who are unfamiliar with it. Heck, I'm reading a post on this very page that implies the more a team wins, the luckier they are! Champions are are overrated, apparently...nothing more than simply random, fortunate events. Dynasties even moreso!

Just thought I would post that this really reminds me of people on the mains degrading Toews because he was "Lucky Enough" to play on the Hawks; a Championship calibre team, and that its just "Bad luck" the Sedins and Backstroms arent on championship calibre teams (ie they cant lead their teams to the promised land). A little OT, but almost like De Ja Vu.

 

[Rhiessan71]

OT

But I can't start knew threads so I thought I would ask in here;

Who is the best team in the history of Hockey in your opinion

'77 Habs

Why?

They dominated like no other team in history.
Scored 64 more goals than anyone else, allowed 22 less goals than anyone else and lost a grand total of only 8 games.

And the Best Dynasty?

'76-'79 Habs

Why?

No other Dynasty imo dominated both ends of the ice like those Habs teams did.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ask Patrick Sharp

Do you comprehend the levels of insanity the above is reaching? Appropriate ice presence? It's not like he got on his knees in the crease and had a slapshot go off his forehead. He was speared in the testicles. Apart from staying off the ice, what pray tell is the appropriate ice presence to avoid that?

Ask Patrick Sharp why he didn't or doesn't try to spear Chris Pronger, Zdeno Chara, Brooks Orpik, Dion Phaneuf or other d-men or forwards with similar established ice presence.

Throughout NHL history would a player of Patrick Sharp's caliber have tried to spear a Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe, Denis Potvin, Scott Stevens, Doug Harvey, Mark Messier, Eddie Shore, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Clarke, Bryan Trottier or others amongst hockey's elite?

The player or the team has to establish an ice presence making sure that certain things do not happen because lambs are embolded.

 

[Trottier]

Sometimes **** just happens, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Indeed. Like when Peter Forsberg, easily one of the very best players in the world at the time, ruptured his spleen two series into the 2001 Stanley Cup playoffs.

Nothing the Avs could do about it, other than roll over. Just chalk it up to bad luck.

Oh wait.

***

Reality is, there is always something you can do about it when faced with obstacles. Just as the Avs, sans Forsberg, went on and won the Cup that spring of '01, just as the Wings "responded" to the aforementioned injuries to two dmen and won the WCF in '09. (Of course, some would suggest that those teams were just "lucky" that they overcame their "bad luck". )

 

[norrisnick]

Ask Patrick Sharp why he didn't or doesn't try to spear Chris Pronger, Zdeno Chara, Brooks Orpik, Dion Phaneuf or other d-men or forwards with similar established ice presence.

Throughout NHL history would a player of Patrick Sharp's caliber have tried to spear a Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe, Denis Potvin, Scott Stevens, Doug Harvey, Mark Messier, Eddie Shore, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Clarke, Bryan Trottier or others amongst hockey's elite?

The player or the team has to establish an ice presence making sure that certain things do not happen because lambs are embolded.

Ok... spear was used as the verb to indicate that it was the toe of the blade that caught Lidstrom. Far as I'm aware, the incident in question was precisely that, incidental. Had it been a malicious hatchet job, we'd have heard a bit more about the matter at the time.

That covered, to answer the question in that middle bit... all the time.

 

[VMBM]

Was in the 1981 Canada Cup where Perreault went down with injury to be replaced by Dionne on the line, which then promptly became much less effective?

At least they were pretty ineffective in the final game

In the 1976 CC, he was 'ok' when playing as a winger on a line with Perreault (C) and Bobby Hull - but still clearly in Perreault's shadow...

It is also interesting that Scotty Bowman didn't have use for him in the deciding 3rd game of the Challenge Cup.

Maybe the case of "Little Beaver" deserves its own thread?

 

[seventieslord]

We're not going to convince each other otherwise.

I do not consider winning a Stanley Cup to be luck, in any way, shape or form.

I agree with you that a great player is a great player, period.

However, I also think that a great player who has led a team to success deserves special credit. Otherwise, we can diminish all success.

Since we're drowning in hypotheticials, I'll leave you with this one:

Let's suppose that AO and Crosby continue on their career trajectories, AO becomes a career 600+ goal scorer, wins several more scoring titles and Hart Trophies. Crosby, too, wins his share of scoring titles, additional Harts, finishes among the top 10 in alltime career points, ya-da-ya-da. In other words, they further burnish their legacies as the two top players of their era.

And let's say both players continue to be surrounded by solid teammates and lead successful teams who are rightly considered contenders annually (or nearly annually.)

Finally, let's say Sid's Pens win three or more Cups over the reaminder of his career...and AO's Caps win one or none.

Now, fast forward to the end of their careers, say, 2025 or so.

Think history should/will view them "equal"? Think they'd consider Crosby simply luckier?

Last word is yours....

Hilarious. Somehow you took what I said and construed it as me thinking that winning a Stanley Cup is luck. I thought more of you. Let's try again:

Suppose the Atlanta Flames drafted Larry Robinson instead. He's as good as he ever was (I'm not going to pretend I have some magical higher level of understanding and claim his coaches made him a star) but his team never goes anywhere. I'm guessing he ends up ranked, oh, about 60th on an all-time list. But he's in the 30 range right now, because he was on the Habs and won all those cups. Did luck win him the cups? No, his skills and the skills of his teammates did. But luck put him in Montreal in the first place. He could control his skills, but not what team he ended up on. Luck was probably worth about 30 spots on an all-time list for him.

Seriously, he might have meant an extra cup to Boston, or to Philly. Maybe another finals run for Buffalo or the Rangers. He's just one player though. He wouldn't have magically driven Vancouver, Atlanta, Minnesota or Washington to a cup. Do YOU think he would have?

To answer your question, of course Crosby would be more highly regarded. You described very similar resumes of offensive exploits and awards, then gave Crosby much better team accomplishments. Of course that's going to "break the tie" and give him at least a couple of spots on Ovechkin. Now take away a scoring title or a hart or two, then suddenly he doesn't look like as great an individual player. maybe then his team success that he drove only makes him about even with Ovechkin. Yeah, we're drowning in hypotheticals here, I know...

To play Devil's advocate:

Where was Denis Potvin's luck? He was drafted into a bottom feeder in 1973...and then they improved immediately. Seems to me they were "lucky", not the player.

Ditto the Wings. For all the great players they've had over the last couple of decades, no Cups until Lidstrom arrived. Luck? Coincidence?

Hardly.

More like cause/effect if you ask me. Because truly great players have that disproportionate an impact.

That is why they are exceptional. They are able to do more than achieve personal success. They are capable of translating it into team success. Not suggesting they are the solitary reason. But they are the catalyst.

Man we're good at diminishing accomplishment and true success around here!

New York also acquired Mike Bossy, Bryan Trottier, Billy Smith, Butch Goring, John Tonelli and Clark Gillies. Potvin played his part, just like the rest. And yes, it was a huge part. That team didn't win the cup by luck. But Potvin was fortunate to end up where a winner was being built. Like Robinson, he would not have made a contender out of a bottom feeder, all other things being equal.

 

[seventieslord]

Classic backward reasoning. Forward reasoning from the start of of a player's career changes the various perceptions of randomness and luck.Observe.

Larry Robinson was drafted 20th overall in the 1971NHL Amateur Draft, the fourth player chosen by the Montreal Canadiens passed over at least once by all the existing NHL teams.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/draft/NHL_1971_amateur.html

Why? Larry Robinson was a forward converted to defense playing Jr. A who until his only Major Junior season was barely on the NHL track. The only reason that he played for Kitchener that season, the OHA was because they were a non-playoff team lacking players. Kitchener did not make the playoffs but Larry Robinson performed well enough to get noticed. Last year players getting a major junior chance with a weak team was fairly common based on the recommendation of respected coaches or scouts. Taking advantage of such an opportunity was not.

Why did every team pass on Larry Robinson? He was a project and teams were not willing to risk a 1st round pick nor did they have experienced support coaching in place. The Canadiens did - Sam Pollock, Claude Ruel and the new coach Scotty Bowman had been part of the organization when J.C. Tremblay was converted from forward to defence. The Canadiens drafted him, developed Larry Robinson properly to the benefit of the player and team. Just a convergence of factors, not luck and randomness, if the situation is reasoned going forward as it actually happened.

Reason the Nicklas Lidstrom situation forward - how and when he was drafted and you will also see that luck and randomness disappear as factors.

True for other situations as well.Luck and randomness are attractive explanations for success only if a situation is reasoned backwards.

Can't really read it out of your postings ...
Would you say that there is no luck at all involved in sports?

You can't win the Cup without luck on your side. Patently impossible. You have to be a good team, but you also have to be luckier than the other 15 teams that qualified. Injuries, bounces, key calls, etc... They all factor in. There is more luck and randomness in hockey than any other of the major sports.

There is an old adage in sport and in life.

"Failing to prepare is preparing to fail."

Effectively what is referred to as luck or randomness is simply the failure to prepare for all the possible situations and opportunities.

Combined with the unwillingness to do so(prepare) and you have the shortest possible route to disaster.

Things that people try to attribute to luck or randomness inevitably are explainable.

Heck, I'm reading a post on this very page that implies the more a team wins, the luckier they are! Champions are are overrated, apparently...nothing more than simply random, fortunate events. Dynasties even moreso!

Sidenote: I wonder which team is going to be "the luckiest" next season and happen to be standing around when they hand out the Cup next June.

The common rationale for misfortune as opposed to good fortune is the

"It can happen to anybody," explanation. While true it also fails at answering the follow-up question which is "Then why did it happen to you?" after all depending on the type of event there may be a very great number of possible targets that "anybody" describes.

The lucky bounce, deflection etc. Matter of execution. Simply a question of getting or taking away position so that one eventaulity is favoured over the other or all the other elements that comprise favourable execution.

Somehow Trottier has turned this conversation in a direction that no one ever intended it to go and caused many of you to miss the point. Hockey has elements of luck to a degree, but that is not what I was referring to at all. My reference to luck was simply in regards to being drafted by or traded to a team destined to win a number of championships. This is random and the player has little to no control over it. And a player who wins gets more highly regarded than a player who doesn't, all other things being equal. Therefore, my question to Trottier, "doesn't this mean that a player's ranking in an all-time context is to a certain degree based on luck, as in, being fortunate enough to be reserved or drafted by a great team, or the opposite?" should have just been answered with a "yes" and a lot of your time would have been saved.

I think this disagreement on luck may be one of terminology.

A few posters are getting hung up on the term "luck" because it implies that a player's or the teams skill, work, etc had nothing to do with the success, which is what "luck" implies.

A better term may be "fortuitous."

Was Messier fortuitous in going to a team that had a supporting cast to potentially win a cup versus going to Ottawa? Absolutely.

Did luck play anything more that a very small role in Messier and the Rangers winning the Cup? I don't think so.

Someone gets it.

 

[matnor]

Hilarious. Somehow you took what I said and construed it as me thinking that winning a Stanley Cup is luck. I thought more of you. Let's try again:

Suppose the Atlanta Flames drafted Larry Robinson instead. He's as good as he ever was (I'm not going to pretend I have some magical higher level of understanding and claim his coaches made him a star) but his team never goes anywhere. I'm guessing he ends up ranked, oh, about 60th on an all-time list. But he's in the 30 range right now, because he was on the Habs and won all those cups. Did luck win him the cups? No, his skills and the skills of his teammates did. But luck put him in Montreal in the first place. He could control his skills, but not what team he ended up on. Luck was probably worth about 30 spots on an all-time list for him.

Seriously, he might have meant an extra cup to Boston, or to Philly. Maybe another finals run for Buffalo or the Rangers. He's just one player though. He wouldn't have magically driven Vancouver, Atlanta, Minnesota or Washington to a cup. Do YOU think he would have?

To answer your question, of course Crosby would be more highly regarded. You described very similar resumes of offensive exploits and awards, then gave Crosby much better team accomplishments. Of course that's going to "break the tie" and give him at least a couple of spots on Ovechkin. Now take away a scoring title or a hart or two, then suddenly he doesn't look like as great an individual player. maybe then his team success that he drove only makes him about even with Ovechkin. Yeah, we're drowning in hypotheticals here, I know...

Couldn't agree more, well done.

As for the Sharp-Lidström incident. As far as I know Sharp didn't even know that he speared Lidström and I don't think anyone else in Detroit realized it either. Lidström could have been the most feared player ever and it would be unlikely to make a difference.

 

[matnor]

Indeed. Like when Peter Forsberg, easily one of the very best players in the world at the time, ruptured his spleen two series into the 2001 Stanley Cup playoffs.

Nothing the Avs could do about it, other than roll over. Just chalk it up to bad luck.

Oh wait.

Yes, sometimes you are faced with obstacles that you can overcome. All credit to the avs for winning despite the adversity. However, sometimes you are faced with such bad luck that is impossible to do anything about it. To take an extreme example: In 1958 the reigning Premier League champions Manchester United was traveling home after playing Belgrade in the European Cup. The plane crashed and killed 8 players and injured several more that were forced to retire. The rest of the season United only won one game and lost the championship. That was what I would call bad luck.

 

[Reds4Life]

Yes, sometimes you are faced with obstacles that you can overcome. All credit to the avs for winning despite the adversity. However, sometimes you are faced with such bad luck that is impossible to do anything about it. To take an extreme example: In 1958 the reigning Premier League champions Manchester United was traveling home after playing Belgrade in the European Cup. The plane crashed and killed 8 players and injured several more that were forced to retire. The rest of the season United only won one game and lost the championship. That was what I would call bad luck.

If they weren't bunch of *******, but good tough Canadian guys, the plane would be afraid to crash. Then they would win the Championship easily. Who needs luck.

 

[pluppe]

Ask Patrick Sharp why he didn't or doesn't try to spear Chris Pronger, Zdeno Chara, Brooks Orpik, Dion Phaneuf or other d-men or forwards with similar established ice presence.

Throughout NHL history would a player of Patrick Sharp's caliber have tried to spear a Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe, Denis Potvin, Scott Stevens, Doug Harvey, Mark Messier, Eddie Shore, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Clarke, Bryan Trottier or others amongst hockey's elite?

The player or the team has to establish an ice presence making sure that certain things do not happen because lambs are embolded.

and yet Lidström is less injured than all of the above. so I guess they also failed at controlling their destiny to an even larger extent than Lidström.

but to a certain extent I agree with you. I think his meticulous approach and brilliant hockey sense played a big role in this injury avoidance. but even then there is an important part of bad luck. and as others have stressed. since the spear seems to have been unintentional your point in this case is moot.

I know people want to believe in self madeness. that you make your own luck. I think this is a very large part of the north american culture. and I think it actually gives them more "luck" in that it in many cases drives you harder. seems to me that americans more often has that "killer instinct" than europeans if I may be prejudice.

but I also think this leads to an overvalue of peoples own influence and this has a negative effect in that it skews the judgement of those that fail and those that win. on the other side of the spectrum you have my country (Sweden) where it´s a negative to think that you are the reason for success (jantelagen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law). this has deveoped a great system for taking care of the more unfortunate but it also has negative influences on how people percieve themselves and the world.

so you have pros and cons with both and as always the truth is somewhere in between. I think we are moving in your direction for better or worse but to deny that chance plays a huge part in all parts of life is just wrong. then if you want to call it luck or fortune or just chance and how much you weigh it is up to you. but it´s there.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If they weren't bunch of *******, but good tough Canadian guys, the plane would be afraid to crash. Then they would win the Championship easily. Who needs luck.

It is a horrible thing to laugh about but your response really made me laugh.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Never Played Hockey

Couldn't agree more, well done.

As for the Sharp-Lidström incident. As far as I know Sharp didn't even know that he speared Lidström and I don't think anyone else in Detroit realized it either. Lidström could have been the most feared player ever and it would be unlikely to make a difference.

Have you ever played hockey? Sensed the awareness that comes from the end of your stick or any other part of your stick? Players are extremely in tune with their stick - an extended part of their body.

At every level of hockey from intro on up, players are taught to control their stick and on ice awareness. All governing bodies from the local association to the NHL to the IIHF recognize that each player has to control his stick.

On the other hand even the most moderately intelligent two-three year old has mastered the "Not me" excuse. That adults use it and other adults actually believe it?

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Facts

Yes, sometimes you are faced with obstacles that you can overcome. All credit to the avs for winning despite the adversity. However, sometimes you are faced with such bad luck that is impossible to do anything about it. To take an extreme example: In 1958 the reigning Premier League champions Manchester United was traveling home after playing Belgrade in the European Cup. The plane crashed and killed 8 players and injured several more that were forced to retire. The rest of the season United only won one game and lost the championship. That was what I would call bad luck.

Tragic misinterpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_air_disaster

Third attempt to take-off from a slush covered runaway.No urgency, not as if they absolutely had to get to there destination. Many things, definitely not luck. Choices and consequences.