Congratulations are due to Roberto Luongo, who has been named among the 2011 class of inductees to the Italian Walk of Fame alongside singer Bobby Curtola, contractor Alfredo Degasperis, character actor Franco Nero, actress Connie Stevens, and businessman (and Canucks’ co-owner) Luigi Aquilini. Congratulations are also due to Luongo for being the greatest goalie who ever lived, according to his induction write-up.

Wow. Again, check out that last line:

Luongo is often referred to as the greatest goalie who ever lived.

Seriously, wow. I think even Luongo would have a hard time with this one. Here’s a photo of his reaction when told of the statement while sitting on the edge of his pool in Florida.

Why he lounges poolside in full gear is beyond me.

Now, look, we love Luongo as much as the next guy, but the Italian Walk of Fame might want to back off on the superlatives. For one thing, Luongo has never won the Vezina (or the Hart, or the Pearson/Lindsay), as the sloppily worded writeup claims — he’s only been nominated. But, even if he had won a Vezina, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody refer to him as the greatest goalie who ever lived. I mean, he’s good and all, a bona fide number one and superstar, but “best ever” good? You’re going to be hard-pressed to find a single Vancouverite who would make that claim, especially in light of that Stanley Cup Final we just witnessed. You’ve got to admire that Italian braggadocio, though.

Wild theory: Tim Thomas wrote the induction paragraph. The circle of pumped tires is complete.

Edit: Commenter Chris points out that most of the information in the writeup is taken from Luongo’s Wikipedia page. Didn’t we learn a lesson about doing that yesterday?

 

Thanks to Jeff Paterson for bringing this crazy exaggeration to our attention.

Tags: , , ,

30 comments

  1. invisibleairwaves
    August 18, 2011

    Not only did he win the Vezina, he won the Hart and Pearson too! Did they forget about his Selke and Norris as well? I guess the article was too short to include a mention of his Cy Young Award and his Nobel Peace Prize as well. Quote the full trophy cabinet at the Luongo house.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Marda
    August 18, 2011

    I’ll probably keep laughing all day from reading this.
    PS – I want that pool.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. Chris
    August 18, 2011

    Everything is copied and pasted right off his wikipedia page, minus the talk about awards which they took out a few words. They must of had their tabs mixed up with someone else when copying the last sentence.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Lexie
    August 18, 2011

    “Why he lounges poolside in full gear is beyond me.”

    BAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    Excuse me….. *dies laughing*

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. Kyle
    August 18, 2011

    My father consistently refers to Luongo as “The best goaltender to ever breathe air”
    Though he usually says it to precede a negative comment. He agrees more with Tim Thomas’ assessment of Luongo than Luongo’s assessment of himself.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  6. alan
    August 18, 2011

    Interesting – after a pretty darn good year this is about as much ‘award’ like print Lou got. An interesting player, good and all, but needs to see a professional coach in the area of psychology. Maybe he thinks to much and lets others play peek a’boo in his head.

    He is often incredible, but when the pressure is really on, you can hurtle 6 bricks at him in net and five will hit the back of it, the sixth will go off a post.

    His contradictory play may brand him a guy who could never quite get the job done, or, he’ll overcome it and fulfill his potential. I hope he can get some advice to help him be the lattter.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Daniel Wagner
      August 18, 2011

      I don’t know if it’s pressure that gets to Luongo. He did have two shutouts in the Stanley Cup Final, after all, and also shut the door in overtime of game 7 against Chicago in the first round. He’s performed well under pressure on many occasions.

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • alan
        August 18, 2011

        Yes, good point Danile. That is the contradictory nature of his play, as on the other hand he collapsed in the two seasons prior to this one against Chicago and in games 3,4 and 6 in Boston seemed to have lost his mental nerve – and so didn’t last long in the net.

        I guess that is hard when 20,000 fans are taunting him.

        The other factor on his side I suppose is that he didn’t have very much help from his team mates – scoring goals in those games to help him out.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • DanD
        August 18, 2011

        Yeah I agree with Daniel. I get the impression that he has some kind of “pressure floodgate.” He performs well under the pressure, but a couple of goals can seriously crack the dam, and then it gets really shaky.

        That’s in my completely unprofessional opinion however. It’s hard for me to judge “the greatest goalie who ever lived.”

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  7. Emily
    August 18, 2011

    Over paid and a poor goal tender when under pressure with a Huge ego

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. Tom 1040
    August 18, 2011

    Well, he is the best goalie that the Canucks have ever had. I have zero argument about that.

    However, and unfortunately, the comment means absolutely zero as well.

    Here are some more superlatives for the stallion (rhymes with Italian):

    He is the highest paid goalie the Canucks have ever had.

    He is the most (publicly) egotistical/self-centered goalie the Canucks have ever had.

    He is the biggest 2-cent head goalie (even surpassing goalie of the future kidnap victim Kevin Weekes) the Canucks have ever had.

    He is the biggest choke-in-a-clutch situation goalie that Canucks have ever had (yes, Cloutier included – I mean, he only choked 1 year).

    He is the biggest reason why the Canucks lost the 2011 Stanley Cup (in Boston GAA 8.05; SVPCT .773; Wins 0).

    Yep, he’s a star, all right. In fact, the is the star-iest star of all the stars.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Daniel Wagner
      August 18, 2011

      *sigh*

      Would I be right in assuming that you will never change your mind about Roberto Luongo no matter what I say? I’d just like to know so I don’t waste my time…

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • Tom 1040
        August 18, 2011

        If he gives me reason to change my mind, I will.

        Still waiting…

        Sorry, no offense. Just my opinion.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • Zach Morris
          August 18, 2011

          this particular horse was dead a long time ago.
          I am a diehard Luongo and Canucks fan, and I agree he let us down in Boston, but so did the rest of the team.
          look forward to the upcoming season and hope he meets your expectations

          VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • Tom 1040
            August 18, 2011

            Yeah, true enough re: dead horse.

            But, I disagree that the rest of the team let ‘us’ down.

            My sense was that the Canucks took it to Boston in the 1st periods of the games, but Luongo failed and took the wind out of the sails.

            For example, in the 8-1 loss in Game 3 – which team had more shots on goal?

            I also blame AV for not pulling sooner in Game 4 or starting Schneider. I honestly think that the team and city could be celebrating a Cup if that had happened.

            In closing, Canucks are the team I root for; what’s more, I used to be a huge Luongo fan.

            Not now, obviously.

            VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
            • invisibleairwaves
              August 18, 2011

              I just can’t understand how Luongo deserves so much blame for a series in which the Vancouver skaters combined for eight goals in seven games. That stat alone should almost entirely absolve Luongo. Inconsistent goaltending can be overcome, but a consistent lack of offense cannot.

              When you invoke the “took the wind out of the sails” cliche, I can’t help but think that you’re looking for excuses to rationalize your opinion rather than changing your opinion to suit the facts. But even that cliche is highly illogical- if the rest of the team quit because they had shaky goaltending, doesn’t that speak to the rest of the team’s mental toughness, rather than Luongo’s? After all, a good team should be able to win games even when their goalie isn’t standing on his head the whole time- why else would Chris Osgood have 3 cup rings?

              The stats show that the Canucks failed miserably in categories that Luongo has no control over. This should be enough to convince people that the series was a failure on the part of the whole team, and not just the goaltender. But that will never be enough for Luongo’s detractors, and I believe that in all honesty Luongo could win the Cup and still be accused of not being “clutch” for the rest of his career. Once a negative opinion of a player is formed, that opinion becomes next to impossible to change no matter how much or how little truth it contains, and this is exactly why poorly-constructed media narratives are so damaging.

              VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
              Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
              • Harrison Mooney
                August 18, 2011

                I just can’t — oh. You already said exactly what I was going to say. Carry on, then.

                VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
                Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
              • Tom 1040
                August 18, 2011

                First, Luongo’s epic fails (which in total form my opinion) have not been limited to just one series.

                Next, in a sense, you are arguing my point when you discuss the fact the only 7 goals were scored by the Canucks in the finals.

                Ahem, enter Tim Thomas. Keep the teams and switch the goalies and the Canucks are the champs.

                Goaltending was the difference.

                They (the Canucks) were the better team, IMO, but were ‘failed’ in Boston by their goalie – look at the stats including shots on goal and scoring chances among other other stats presented.

                The team is all-too-familiar with 2-cent head Luongo’s collapses and is indeed very deflating.

                Haven’t you ever played competitive hockey? You would know this is the case for teams whose goalies crumble.

                As for your Osgood example, you again are in a sense supporting my argument.

                Osgood was not incredible, but was incredibly solid when needed by his team. You are simply regurgitating media rhetoric, and I should say media rhetoric outside of Detroit.

                I followed Detroit closely on all of their modern era Cup runs (Konstantinov is my all-time favorite D-man) because the Canucks were already done.

                Not only did he (Osgood) play well (consistently solid), he was lauded by Detroit media and his teammates and coaches all the way through.

                My cliche is much more appropriate than your ‘once a negative opinion is formed’ supposition, which is absolutely garbage. I could just as easily respond that ‘once a positive opinion is formed’ it takes a long time and a lot of epic fails for people to change their mind.

                In closing, my ‘poorly-constructed narrative’ seems to be much better constructed than whatever it is that you trot out.

                In fact, you have provided me with additional supporting evidence: goalies don’t have to be great necessarily for a team to win the Cup.

                But they can’t have multiple epic fails – 3 years consecutive, to boot.

                Thanks for the support.

                VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
                Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  9. invisibleairwaves
    August 18, 2011

    Apparently we’ve hit the maximum length for a string of replies, so I’ll start over here.

    On whether switching goalies would make the difference: well, for one thing, if your argument was that Tim Thomas played better, my reply would be “yes and so what?” He had the best season in the history of NHL goaltending. Blaming Luongo because he failed to match that performance is unreasonable to say the least. And he shouldn’t have needed to match that performance, because the team in front of Luongo was, by any standard, better than the team in front of Tim Thomas…until it wasn’t.

    Boston simply could not have won the Stanley Cup if their skaters did not outplay Vancouver’s skaters. You can have the best goalie in the world in your net, but if he’s behind a shaky, injured defense and an offense that is failing miserably at possession, he isn’t going to win anything. You say “Goaltending was the difference”… but imagine if instead of Hamhuis, Ehrhoff, and Kesler being injured to varying degrees of uselessness, it had been Seidenberg, Kaberle, and Bergeron? Do the Bruins still win the Cup in that scenario? If your answer is “no”, then it’s clear that factors beyond Luongo’s control played a huge role and it’s a gross oversimplification to say that goaltending was the difference in the series.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Tom 1040
      August 18, 2011

      I disagree.

      Rather than argue would you do me an epic kindness? Please, so I can’t understand in more detail, you mentioned two things in your first reply:

      1. “The stats show that the Canucks failed miserably in categories that Luongo has no control over.”

      Q: What categories? Details? I assume that you mean more than just the PP (which is an easy stat for me to argue)? Please elaborate with substance.

      2. Re: my cliche ‘wind out of the sails’. I never said that the team quit. That was your creation and an incorrect inferred conclusion to the cliche; hence, your entire paragraph is invalid.

      The team never quit, but their intensity level fell as did their confidence. For example, how many times have you heard players say that they can play with confidence because they know that if they make a mistake their goalie (not Luongo) is there to bail them out?

      That is the meaning of the cliche – you said quit, not me.

      Oversimplification? Really? You use the cliche of it being a team game, but that is all too simple. All it takes in competitive hockey is the ability to exploit the weak link on a team. When it is the goalie, then it is very, very easy to do. Simple, if you will.

      If Luongo does not implode in Game 3, 4 or 6 or if Scheider was in – Cup is theirs.

      Luongo is the one player if changed – different outcome is highly possible if not likely.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • dandonkers
        August 19, 2011

        I don’t think you really grasp the meaning of the word “epic.”

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • Tom 1040
          August 20, 2011

          Ummm, it was used jokingly.

          Perhaps, over time, you can cultivate a more subtle sense of humour.

          Good luck with that.

          VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • invisibleairwaves
        August 19, 2011

        1. Well, goal-scoring in general, for one thing. Eight goals in seven games is an insane figure and I’d be very surprised if any NHL team has ever won a playoff series with those kinds of numbers. But yes, the weak PP was part of that failure to score goals, and no team should be allowing that many shorthanded rushes, let alone one with the special teams track record that the Canucks had going into the Final.

        Some other things Luongo has no control over:
        -The top line’s awful Corsi stats in the playoffs
        -Injuries to three of the top 4 D’s, and to the team’s best two-way centre
        -A dreadful faceoff performance. Henrik was destroyed in the circle, Malhotra barely managed to be over 50% but was incredibly inconsistent night-to-night, and Kesler was the only one with numbers to write home about at 52.3%
        -Refereeing! (hey, we’re Canuck fans, we’ve got a reputation to uphold)
        -Claude Julien’s smothering defensive system
        -Tim Thomas’s unprecedented performance at the other end of the ice

        These are all things that were not affected by Luongo’s performance, and they played a tremendous role in the Bruins winning the Cup.

        2. Fine, replace “quit” with “lost their confidence” or whatever. My point remains: if the team couldn’t do their jobs simply because Luongo was shaky, that reflects poorly on the team. The specific wording I used doesn’t change that point.

        It’s not an oversimplified cliche to say that hockey is a team game, it’s an obvious fact. Why else would stat heads spend so much time trying to find ways to separate individual performances from those of the players around them? There is simply too much going on in any given NHL game, let alone an entire series, to hang the entire result on a single player.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • Tom 1040
          August 20, 2011

          Sorry for the delay in reply.

          I am familiar with the stats you have presented and remain steadfast in my argument; hence, not convinced in the least.

          Hockey as a team game is indeed an oversimplification and a cliche. At one superficial level hockey is a team game, but when you peel back that superficial layer, the most important player is the goalie. Anyone who has played the game knows this. It is a fact.

          More than any other sport the goalie in hockey can be the difference good or bad. A perfect example is the series that we argue. As you say, ‘Thomas’ unprecedented performance at the other end’ (you are supporting my argument with this statement) is truly a factor in the series as was Luongo’s collapse in Boston. Absolutely, the result can be because of the goalie. And, I stated that Luongo was ‘the biggest reason’ for the loss (see my original post).

          If Luongo had played in Boston like he did in Vancouver (or if Schneider was in), the Canucks very likely could have won the series and Cup. What’s more, if he had played well in Boston and the Canucks still lost, then I would accept your argument completely.

          My presented stats are far more stirring than yours. Again, in Boston GAA 8.05, SVPCT .773 – including 3 goals on 8 shots in Game 4. Your stats don’t account for this monumental goaltending collapse. I still remember Luongo’s teary post-game interview after his collapse in Game 6 in Chicago in 2009 lamenting letting in 7.

          Well, at least you admit that Luongo was ‘shaky’, which is the understatement of the year. If shaky is represented by the stats above, then what do you consider a collapse? Chris Osgood never had stats like that.

          Mental toughness is also a cliche when your goalie can’t stop a beach ball and the coach leaves him in. Even if the Sedins scored 6 goals in Game 3, they still would have lost. The word ‘futile’ comes to mind.

          At $10M (yeah, I know cap hit at 5.33) the team and everyone else who supports the Canucks (like me) need better than that.

          In closing, we must agree to disagree (though I know you must reply to my latest email). I likely won’t respond further because we will just be repeating what has already been stated.

          I will say that you are polite in your replies and did not get personal. I hope the same can be said for me.

          Go Canucks.

          VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  10. Eric Christensen
    August 19, 2011

    Ah Roberta…and the Sedin twinkies…the stuff of chumps! Gee here we are almost at the end of August and VanLoser is still harbouring resentment over the debacle of last June.Get over it and suck it up! Roberta is an average goalie who does not deal well with pressure and needs to focus on combating the ravages of excessive adrenalization.This guy is a choker…pure and simple.I won`t condemn him for that because it is very human to endure this condition of acute adrenalization under pressure.”Greatest goalie that ever lived”…c`mon who ever wrote that nonsense…what are you smokin`? There are at least four or five goalies in the present day N.H.L. that are superior to Roberta and Roberta couldn`t hold a candle to the likes of Glenn Hall,Johnny Bower,Jacques Plante or Terry Sawchuk who were many times his superior and didn`t wear all that protective face gear that is standard in today`s candy ass version of the game.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • John in Marpole
      August 19, 2011

      Really? Plante and Sawchuck “didn’t wear all that protective face gear…”? You might want to re-think that part of your post. Regardless of that small but glaring inaccuracy, you’re correct about Luongo being inferior to the goaltenders you listed. He’s in the bottom half of the top 10 goaltenders in the NHL today, at best.

      The “greatest goalie in the world” laugher was taken from a Wikipedia posting that was clearly intended to be sarcastic. In fact, based upon what you’ve written here, it could well have been you responsible for that Wiki entry…

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Daniel Wagner
      August 19, 2011

      By the way: it looks like your keyboard is set on Canadian French judging by your apostrophes. Might want to check that.

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  11. LuongoSucks
    August 21, 2011

    Loser Luongo is the greatest ice hockey goaltender of Italian heritage to play professionally. He is barely top 10 in the NHL. He has shown time and time again that he is mentally weak and is fond of collapsing when the Casucks need him most. We all know this but it should be said from time to time. Loser is the best goaltender the Casucks have had in their 40 years of epic fail.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  12. Tom 1040
    August 26, 2011

    Well, that was fun.

    I like discussions on Luongo, AV, MGGM, Ballard, Samuelsson, and Raymond (not second line quality for goal-scoring though good on PP and puck possession).

    I have similar thoughts on all presented in accordance with my level of disdain.

    I look forward to those topics.

    Take care all and a “Well done” to those responsible for this blog.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Tom 1040
      August 26, 2011

      Sorry, I meant ‘PK’ (not PP) for Raymond.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)