Saturday evening saw a collision between two teams with opposing philosophies.

There are 32 teams in the National League. The 32 clubs want to win every game they play. But they don’t all go the same way, the same path.

On Saturday evening we were given a tough example: the Islanders and the Canadian. Patrick Roy and Martin St-Louis, Lou Lamoriello and the couple Jeff Gorton & Kent Hughes.

On Friday I suggested you take a close look at the careful work of the islanders on their territory. Compared to that of the Canadian, it is, let’s say, always clearer.

Actually, Martin is right. His club could have so easily left New York with two points on Saturday night that it wouldn’t have been a steal.

Both clubs played their own game and in the end it was the Islanders who emerged victorious.

The Islanders have not had an outstanding start to the season. However, they persevere by playing many close games and often earning bonus points beyond the regular 60 minutes.

On the contrary, the Canadian did not have a brilliant start to the season. CH is involved in high-scoring games, with the exception of the narrow 1-0 win against Toronto in the opening game, a victory signed by Samuel Montembeault.

The nuance between the two teams that we saw on Saturday night lies in the manner. Both teams want to win, but everything stands in their way.

And so we get the impression that the CH is completely lacking structure, that he is in individual skill learning mode and that the trainer has to loosen everything up to express himself as he should.

On the other hand, the Islanders have a lot of structure, they are methodical and their coach is obviously demanding in executing plans and giving his players responsibility for actions on the ice.

To sum it up stupidly: Saturday night I would have said that the Islanders were playing not to lose and that the Canadian was playing to win.

The goal is the same: collect two ranking points. The path there is completely different.

Which of the two formulas is better? Hard to decide.

It’s good to pin players down and ask them to make defensive sacrifices before they can develop in the attacking third. The case of the islanders is eloquent in this sense.

On the other hand, for the average fan, there’s something great about seeing talented young players thrive on the ice, which is the case with the Canadian.

However, I think both methods are doomed to failure. The goal of making it to the playoffs at the end of the season was not achieved.

Patrick Roy leads the Islanders the way Lou Lamoriello liked to lead his teams: with determination and the demand for full commitment. For old Lou, winning 0 to minus 1 is no problem.

Martin St-Louis has no problem winning a match 6-5, in fact I think he likes it as much as you and I do.

Is Patrick too demanding for current generation players? Is Martin too relaxed on his part?

Is the ideal somewhere between the two models? And if so, is Patrick as aware of it as Martin?

And what do your bosses in general management think? I am convinced that they think very differently on this last point. Lamoriello has always aimed for the Stanley Cup…the pairing of Gorton and Hughes has no pressure to even make the playoffs.

Does that explain that?