The strained relationship between Mike Matheson and Juraj Slafkovsky is once again making headlines, raising a wave of questions among fans and analysts.
Last night, Slafkovsky’s frustration was evident (before he got hit in the head): he constantly rolled his eyes after every Matheson turnover, showing an annoyance that was hard to ignore.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen signs of tension between these two players, and this tense dynamic doesn’t appear to be improving any time soon.
Beyond this last altercation, the management of the numerical advantage by Martin St-Louis adds fuel to the fire.
The latter appears determined to keep Matheson as leader of the first wave of the five-man attack, despite growing criticism from fans who are calling for Lane Hutson to be seen in that role.
This choice deeply divides CH fans, especially since St-Louis justifies its approach by highlighting the experience of Matheson, a player he considers his offensive darling, supported by Kent Hughes, who was formerly his agent .
Yet for many, this support for Matheson is becoming increasingly difficult to justify.
Last year’s incident remains etched in memories: while the Canadian was on the power play, Matheson ignored Slafkovsky, who signaled his availability by banging his stick on the ice.
This scene, worthy of a “B comedy”, had fueled discussions online, and supporters did not fail to express their discontent.
Many people see this conflictual relationship as an obstacle to the development of Slafkovsky, a young player who we want to see flourish in an environment where he feels good.
But the reality is cruel: Matheson makes him lose his mind.
St. Louis’ choice to keep Matheson at the heart of its power play also seems to be a way of minimizing expectations around Hutson, which it perhaps wants to ease before giving him heavier responsibilities.
However, fans see Hutson as an offensive prodigy capable of unlocking Slafkovsky’s full potential and injecting fluidity into a numerical advantage that struggles to convince.
Yes yes. The power play is 10th in the NHL. But without the shots of Cole Caufield who does everything on his own, where would we be?
This desire for caution could backfire in St. Louis, which finds itself facing increasing pressure to deliver results quickly.
Some analysts even question Matheson’s place in a reconstruction. While it is obvious that Matheson brings defensive stability, his inability to collaborate with young talents like Slafkovsky remains a scourge.
His inability to play in harmony with the CH’s new generation could push Kent Hughes to consider a trade, especially since Matheson’s value on the market is currently high.
This option, while controversial, is becoming increasingly tempting for those who want to build the team’s future around players like Slafkovsky and Hutson, rather than attaching themselves to a veteran who likely won’t be around when Montreal will get closer to his ultimate goal, the Stanley Cup.
Matheson continues to ignore Slafkovsky. And the latter continues to roll his eyes when Matheson makes his mistakes.
The defender has become the symbol of what is not going well at CH, which is seeking to rebuild around young talents and not around overestimated thirty-year-old defenders.
The future of Montreal depends on this ability to build around its young rising stars, players who represent the future of the club.
As the debate continues, increasingly frustrated fans wonder if Matheson, despite his talent, would not be better off elsewhere, allowing talents like Hutson to fully take over.
And it’s up to Slafkovsky to stop worrying.
