The Winning Formula: How Scotty Bowman Became the Greatest Coach in NHL History!

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2024
  • Welcome back to NHL Area, the home of hockey culture! Today, we're diving deep into the unmatched success of Scotty Bowman, the most successful coach in NHL history. With nine Stanley Cup championships to his name, Bowman's impact on the game of hockey is truly undeniable. In this video, we'll uncover the secrets behind Bowman's legendary coaching career, exploring the strategies and tactics that made him such a successful coach. From his early days behind the bench to his record-breaking achievements with the Montreal Canadiens, Detroit Red Wings, and Pittsburgh Penguins, we'll examine the key moments that defined his career. Join us as we analyze Bowman's ability to adapt to different teams and eras, and his lasting impact on the game of hockey. Whether you're a fan of Scotty Bowman or just love hockey history, don't forget to hit that like button and subscribe to NHL Area for more in-depth analysis and fun facts about the game we all love. So drop a comment below and let us know your thoughts on Scotty Bowman's incredible career, and who you think could be the next great NHL coach. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you in the next video!

ความคิดเห็น • 12

  • @broadstreet21
    @broadstreet21 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Bowman is quite the stark contrast from Blake though, the latter was known as a player's coach, very much loved and respected by all his players, almost considered "one of the guys." I imagine it's because he happened to have Richard and Beliveau, around whom the rest of the team coalesced, making it easier to coach. Bowman never had such a leader of that stature on the ice, plus his game plan always changes, making him a bit of a feared character.

    • @csmith1298
      @csmith1298 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Good post, but gotta disagree with your contention about player leadership. 2 reasons would be Cournoyer and especially Yzerman. This is assuming that I understood your post correctly. Cheers.

    • @broadstreet21
      @broadstreet21 8 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@csmith1298 Cournoyer and Yzerman were leaders, but not on the same caliber as Beliveau. A good evidence of this is how their teams actually had multiple factions, which, left to themselves without a strong coach like Bowman, would have led to locker room division and not playing as a team. Bowman, like Herb Brooks, deliberately provoked and antagonized them into uniting against him.
      Beliveau, much like Gretzky, was another level. They were the kind of guys whom even opponents can't help respecting, never mind locker room factions. They make any coach's job easy.

    • @v4v819
      @v4v819 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      He had one of the greatest leaders and captains of all time for any sport in the form of Steve Yzerman!

    • @v4v819
      @v4v819 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@broadstreet21 Factions?

    • @broadstreet21
      @broadstreet21 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@v4v819 Like I said earlier, Yzerman is a great leader, but not on the same level as Beliveau or Richard. Besides, by the 90s, Bowman mellowed his style considerably - probably in part because he had Yzerman, whom he did clash with early on, pressuring him to be more of a two-way player.
      Factions, you heard that right. Notwithstanding Yzerman's leadership, the Red Wings had a few natural factions, given the players' ethnic origins, a chunk from Russia, another chunk from Sweden, another from Canada. Bowman had to prevent these natural divisions from actually dividing the locker room. His 70s Habs had more personal factions, as there was no single locker room leader who could command the respect of the WHOLE team. Sure, they had Cournoyer, but they also had LaFleur and Robinson. It was too easy for all three of these guys (and others) to pull in their own respective direction, and rift the team. Yes, they were leaders, but not like Beliveau and Richard, and put all three on one team, rift. Even if they want to work together, they couldn't, not without a Bowman.