Ron MacLean (left) sits beside Don Cherry as Rogers TV unveils their team for the station's NHL coverage in Toronto on March 10, 2014.Chris Young/The Canadian Press
In 2012, Don Cherry started a feud with then-Leafs general manager Brian Burke. Cherry was still hockey’s greatest influencer, and ‘Coach’s Corner’ was still the must-see portion of Hockey Night in Canada.
One night, Cherry berated Burke for being a carpetbagger who hated Canada. Ontario, specifically.
He ran through the top teams in the NHL, noting how many Ontarians each team had on its roster. Then his voice jumped to 11 and he began banging the desk.
“Yes, every team in the National Hockey League has a guy from Ontario. EXCEPT ONE. GUESS WHO IT IS?”
Thirteen years is not so long ago, so this segment doesn’t look like a time capsule. It could have been broadcast last night. But vis-a-vis the current Sportsnet hockey offering, one thing about it stands out – it’s interesting.
It produces a feeling in you, pro or con. You would like to hear more about it, which in turn might lead you to watch or read something else hockey related, which in turn compels you to watch more hockey.
This is how a hockey broadcast is supposed to work. Rogers – who assumed control of hockey’s flagship broadcast shortly after this eruption – has never bought into that idea.
It is a point of general agreement in this country that the current version of Hockey Night in Canada is not great.
No one hates it. The individuals who work on it are expert and articulate and likeable. But the sum of the parts is no one’s favourite whole. Most viewers would agree that Hockey Night in Canada is somewhere between a little dull and a sleep-aid.
Headed into their second Twelve Year Plan, there are a lot of little things Rogers could fiddle with to make the broadcast better. But the main problem is Cherry. Not the individual, but his function. Sportsnet fired their only slapper and never replaced him.
All compelling sports journalism needs slappers and ticklers, which is what it sounds like.
The tickler praises the league and sees the promise in every losing team.
The slapper goes in two-footed after a defeat and picks fights with everyone.
Back when newspapers were going great guns, every beat had a slapper and a tickler. One reporter massaged the contacts, another tossed grenades. Angry fans had their outlet, but the flow of information was uninterrupted.
The tickler and the slapper were usually great friends, but they would sometimes spar in print. Thus the illusion of two separate world views was maintained.
This division of labour is even more important on television. Ron MacLean became famous for tickling while Cherry slapped. That interplay was the reason the bit worked for so long. But as broadcasters become team owners and billion-dollar business partners of leagues, this combo is fading away.
Who’s the slapper on Hockey Night in Canada now? Kevin Bieksa is the closest thing, but he can’t find any room to swing. Whenever he gets headed on an interesting line of attack, the rest of the panel shushes him. Some nights, you can actually see Bieksa shrinking as the others chide him for being mean. MacLean’s role used to be reeling people in. Nowadays, he’s tugging on a line with nothing but give.
Instead, everyone spends 10 minutes agreeing that, yeah, sure, the Lightning need to try a little harder in the next period and what is it with the Leafs? Cut to a gambling ad.
None of these discussions have the feel of authenticity. When experts of anything get together, they don’t seek bland consensus. They gossip. They disagree. They tell bawdy back-in-the-day stories. None of that happens on Sportsnet. Instead, it’s a three-hour corporate Zoom catch-up.
In a world where the people talking about hockey and the people playing hockey work for the same boss, this may be good for corporate harmony. But, man, it can be dreary.
The litmus test for the success or failure of any broadcast is news. As in, are you making any?
Cherry was involved in headlines so often that he could have been a backdesk editor. When was the last time something someone said on Hockey Night in Canada made the papers?
The current gold standard is the NBA on TNT panel. It has two epic slappers – Charles Barkley and Shaquille O’Neal – and two great ticklers – Ernie Johnson and Kenny Smith.
Barkley can tickle and Smith can slap, but that’s neither man’s role. The slappers don’t slap the ticklers, but the ticklers sometimes slap the slappers. The result is a lively on-air conversation that never seems contrived. Sometimes they go too far, but that’s the risk you take when you are making ambitious live TV.
When Barkley & Co. laugh, they are actually laughing. When hockey broadcasters laugh, they are TV laughing. It’s more of a mirthless chortle.
During this recent surge of national feeling, one is struck by how small a role Canada’s key hockey broadcast is playing in the fight. Hockey Night in Canada should be in the cultural vanguard. Instead, it’s hiding in the back, worrying about becoming the story.
Fixing the problem is easy – find another Cherry. One who is just as aggressive and agitated, but less out of tune with the rest of the country.
Fixing the problem is also impossible, because a new Cherry would inevitably turn his sights on the teams, the league, and then his own bosses. The three things are of a piece.
Barkley and Shaq get away with it because they don’t work for the people running the game. On one level or another, every top hockey broadcaster in this country does.
Cherry is an instructive lesson to all of them – that the broadcast graveyard is full of indispensable men. You can’t blame people for wanting to keep their jobs.
In the end, it must be this way because this is what Rogers wants. A straight-down-the-middle-of-the-road production. Something that does decent numbers, says only nice things and never causes any trouble.
It is an irony of Rogers’s Hockey Night in Canada that it took a great Canadian cultural product, made it even more Canadian, and thus rendered it featureless. This show could be made anywhere, by anyone, and speak to no one in particular.