We all know them and we all read what they write in newspapers and without even wanting it, they influence our opinion. Ice hockey critics like Klaus Zaugg criticize, analyse and predict our league. But can somebody, who has never played in the NLA, criticize the players and coaches, when he himself never played on the same level?
The best example is Klaus Zaugg. He is one of the best know critics of Swiss ice hockey and writes for several newspapers like watson, 20 minutes etc. He is known for his aggressiv style of writing an article and has changed his mind over a numbre of subjects as soon as the circumstances have changed. Also team coaches and players are victims to his criticizm. But only thew know that he never even played hockey (practical experience with the FC Langnau)(!), so theoreticaly he hasn’t got the moral right to critizise something he has never played or coached before.
Zaugg knows his job as a journalist and knows how to convince his audience. With convincing articles he manages to influence his readers to make them support his opinion. We don’t want to argue the fact that he has a big knowledge of Swiss ice hockey, but is somebody like Klaus Zaugg allowed to criticize without practical expirience?
We think that one has to expirience something first to get the right to criticize someones work.