A professional soccer player uses how many pairs of shoes in a season? Does he pay for his shoes? My boy is in AA and soon to be AAA, at $350 a pair…
–Gerald Blouin
According to what CF Montreal tells me, players use an average of twenty pairs of shoes per season. However, the number varies from player to player, in particular because some players have agreements with equipment manufacturers (Adidas, Nike, etc.). “They have a lot of shoes and they have to wear the brand’s latest,” CFM media relations manager Arcadio Marcuzzi told me. It is often part of the contracts. A player like Victor Wanyama can have four different pairs of shoes for soft, hard, wet and all that. They have two pairs of each kind per match that they can use. »
In the case of players who don’t have a deal – often the younger ones, those fresh out of the academy or just drafted – they have to buy their shoes at their own expense. “They have fewer restrictions on what they have to use than those with brand contracts, but they have to pay,” adds Marcuzzi. Afterwards, the quantity depends on their use. Some prefer to keep them longer, a question of comfort. He points out that players generally find an agreement with a brand after having spent a season or two with the pros.
Who decides the color of the uniform the players will wear during a hockey game?
– Serge de Merlis
All teams wear the dark jersey at home and the light jersey away. This rule has been in effect since September 2003.
I would like to know how the rule of the last line change works according to the team playing at home in the NHL.
– Jacob Cossette
The answer is somewhat in the question. The home team has the privilege or advantage of making the last substitution. After a stoppage in play, the referee raises his arm to authorize the substitutions. The visiting club must comply first, and afterwards the head coach of the home team can adjust as needed. Obviously, this advantage disappears after a disallowed clearance when the offending team must keep the same squad on the ice. The head coach of the visiting team must also submit his starting line-up first to allow his opponent to choose his own.
Is the NHL considering giving up three points for regulation time instead of two? It seems to me that the spectacle would be more intense. In addition, there would really be a difference between victories on a regular basis and those acquired in overtime or in a shootout.
–Daniel Racicot
Let me tell you from the outset that we are in complete agreement. If defeats are more valuable in the standings when they are suffered in more than 60 minutes, why not devalue the victories achieved in the same way and reward teams capable of closing the books in three periods? However, we do not feel a great appetite on the part of the League on this subject. In an article he wrote last year in The Athletic, Pierre LeBrun recalled that the last real substantive discussion that took place on this subject between general managers was more than 15 years ago. The idea was raised before the 2004-2005 lockout and was buried for good in 2007. Argument made by Brian Burke at the time: the gap would widen between the teams and the portrait of the playoffs would be known at Christmas. That’s a good guess. We did the exercise with the overall NHL standings as of December 25, 2022. Under the current system, 36 points already separated the best team from the worst. With a 0-1-2-3 system, this gap increases to 53 points. The standings, however, remain much the same, with 28 of the 32 teams up or down two spots or less. It is therefore fair to believe that the system in place maintains a relatively tight race for longer. Still, as of December 25, 14 of the 16 teams in the playoff roster were the same as March 24. For the “race”, we’ll come back.
I have noted, among several journalists from La Presse, a frequent use of the expression “to do/not to do the detail”, or simply “detail”. If I understand the meaning of it (to qualify for the playoffs or not), I am puzzled by its origin and the relevance of its use. No matter how much I consult the dictionaries, nothing points to a coherent explanation. Would you be so kind as to shed some light on my passion for hockey… and the French language?
–Claude Bruneau
The phrase dates back to the early 20th century. In 2014, Ronald King launched an appeal to all, in La Presse, to discover the origin of the term. A reader found this answer, in the Glossaire de la langue française au Canada français, published in 1930. “Detail: throw the dice again when you are goal to goal, when you have brought the same number of points. Play again when you’re goal to goal, set to set. Etymology: In English, to tie is to be neck and neck. The tie must then be broken. De-tie-er. »
