Crosby never led by example in points. When I watch him, he seems pretty timid and shy, a bit robotic, and I don’t want to take anything away from him, but him winning “everything” is a result of teammates stepping up unrelated to him. Attributing the great performance of those players to Crosby’s “Air” or “It” factor sounds very disrespectful to the talent and ability of those players to me. He wasn’t the leader of Canada 2010, and the guys still stepped up throughout the tournament and made it to the overtime of the final, to set up Crosby. You try your best to win the cup for yourself, the fans and your teammates, then some people say that you tried hard and played well because of some guy to boost his legacy. Doesn’t sit well.
Yeah, it seems like a bit of mythification in regard to his performances.
Crosby was not particularly good in the 2010 or 2014 Olympics, way below his usual standard in fact. He was lucky he got to score the overtime goal in 2010, because now that is what he gets remembered for, not his no-show in the final up to that point, or his complete absence after the group-stage in general. If Canada had lost that game, he would have been lambasted for years for disappearing when Canada needed him the most. And that didn't really change in 2014. He once again managed to score a goal in the final, but 3 points in 6 games, only one past the group stage, was extremely lackluster for him.
The "dawg-factor" also seemed to have zero impact between 2011 and 2015, were he and the Penguins regularly fell short of expectations, before the arrival of Sullivan and the changes that came with it gave Pittsburgh a huge boost. That's what is really important: the circumstances. It doesn't matter how good you are, if the circumstances aren't right, you won't win. Did Crosby somehow have "it" between 2008-10, then lose it, before regaining it for 2016 and 17? No, of course not. One, two or even three stars aren't what make a winner. It requires the entire team to commit and work as a unit. If you don't have that, you won't win. No matter how good your stars perform, or whether you have a bunch of "dawgs". Plenty of teams had those sort of players and still didn't achieve anything. Singling out the instances were such players were important, while ignoring all the times where they failed to achieve anything, is rather odd. Those type of players don't win anything unless everything else falls into place as well. "Dawgs" don't win you a Cup if your (other) stars disappear. They won't win you a Cup if the defense falters or special teams suck too much. They don't win you the Cup when your goalie isn't giving you the necessary performance either.
Crosby is one of the best ever, about as good as you can hope a hockey player to be, and he certainly delivered on plenty of occasions when it really mattered, which makes it redundant to mystify him in such a way by proclaiming there was something uniquely special about him when it mattered. He disappeared often enough under such circumstances. And sometimes, his team was still good enough to win anyway.
It also seems odd to randomly assign style and factors to players to fit the narrative. Like describing Rantanen as a "gentleman elite player", as if he was some sort of wuss who never showed spirit. These sort of declarations way after the fact make little sense at all.
