2005 World Rankings (Top 25)

[Canuck21t]

North AMerica does not control the IIHF.... wait.. yes they do.... caoughnashhooksrefcough

Coughjagrpusheslinesmanandeuropeansstaymutecough

 

[Canuck21t]

Why is that? NHLers played at the world championship too, so what's the difference?

You really see no difference between the World Championships and the Olympics?!? Come on, who are you trying to fool?

 

[deandebean]

That's a very insular attitude towards World Hockey. I'm glad you are not in charge. The point is to grow the game, and for the most part, participition for the 2nd tier of countries in the World Championships increases the exposure for the sport in that country, and add more potential for that country in the future.

Yes, 16 is a good number for the IHWC. If you look at the format, you will see that Super-7 teams like Canada only have to play ONE game against what you call a weakling (in this year's case, Slovenia). I'm sure you can handle 1 such game for the good of the sport.

Additionally, 8 is rediculously too low a number. You will have to choose 1 out of Switzerland, Latvia, Germany, and Belarus - EACH of which has had victories vs the Super-7 in the past 5 years.

Or wait, were you talking about Div II (the C-pool) where Iceland was playing?

Get your head out of the sand....

I could care less about the game "growing". It has grown already. I want the best teams against the best. Not losers who play the trap only because they can't open it up against the powerhouses. Keep the rest of the pack outside, please.

Was it fun watching Canada drub Slovenia 8-0 or so? I didn't like it. Good for the ego, but made for bad spectacle.

My head is not in the sand. The "growing" talk is gibberish. Give the people what they want. And the World Cup format serves that purpose more than the worlds. Because only the best get invited. Just like the Masters. Just like Wimbledon. Just like the freaking F-1 Circuit.

 

[Jazz]

I could care less about the game "growing". ...

Well, like I said - I'm glad you are not in charge.

I'll bring an analogy from a different sport - Not sure if you follow basketball, but if you do, I'm sure you said similar things in the '92 Olympics with basketball and the US-dream team. Now, 12 years later, we have US team with 3 losses in the '04 Olympics (something not imaginable in '92) and "only" a Bronze Medal.

...Was it fun watching Canada drub Slovenia 8-0 or so? I didn't like it...

1 game like this out of 9 for Canada is not a big deal to the majority here, for the sake of growing the game - you are entitled to your opinion, just realize that you are in the minority.

A little historical background for you: the World Championships started in the 1920s and it took until 1947 for a native-European team to BEAT Canada for the first time. Additionally, one year's format around that time had for ALL teams to compete in a round-robin to determine who would meet Canada in the Final Round......I shudder to think what you would have said back then...

 

[Douggy]

I could care less about the game "growing". It has grown already. I want the best teams against the best. Not losers who play the trap only because they can't open it up against the powerhouses. Keep the rest of the pack outside, please.

Was it fun watching Canada drub Slovenia 8-0 or so? I didn't like it. Good for the ego, but made for bad spectacle.

My head is not in the sand. The "growing" talk is gibberish. Give the people what they want. And the World Cup format serves that purpose more than the worlds. Because only the best get invited. Just like the Masters. Just like Wimbledon. Just like the freaking F-1 Circuit.

If you want the best to play the best, why not wait until the medal round??

 

[Mike#16*]

I think it's absolutely obvious to 90% of the people on here that the Olympics is a best on best tourney while the WC is a "bring some of your best available guys that aren't still playing with their regular teams" kind of thing.

As much as the Euros hate it the WC still means very little in NA and if it means little in NA then thats how it is with the IIHF.

You should not forget Salt Lake was the first olympic tournament in recent history where the NHL had a season break so the players could participate. But it has already decided that there will be no break for next years tournament in Torino if the NHL plays next season. And since the olympics are held in February (during NHL-regular season) there will not one NHL-Player participate.

 

[SChan*]

I fully understand that it is an NHL tournament and that it does not count towards the rankings. Its just unfortunately thats all.

Speaking of blowouts, the Czechs beating the Swedes in the World Cup was a blowout!

Fortunately we have the Olympics coming up next year. Just hope the NHL allows its players to participate.

speaking of losses, Canada lost to sweden this tournament. Give it up. btw what hockey team does South korea have?

sweden is ranked 2nd and that's a fact, you can't change it.

 

[Sammy*]

kind of funny to see the Czech Republic still behind Canada considering they are obviously better.

Atleast Sweden lost in Sudden Death against the Czechs while Canada got blowned out.

Kinda funny you dont have a clue how they come up with the rankings.

 

[Ola]

You should not forget Salt Lake was the first olympic tournament in recent history where the NHL had a season break so the players could participate. But it has already decided that there will be no break for next years tournament in Torino if the NHL plays next season. And since the olympics are held in February (during NHL-regular season) there will not one NHL-Player participate.

1998 Nagano? Almost a insult... (towards sport fans!!! )

 

[Mike#16*]

1998 Nagano? Almost a insult... (towards sport fans!!! )

ok, you are right, i forgot nagano but torino 2006 w/o NHL players if NHL resumes

 

[Rob]

With no NHL players at the Olympics the tournament will be meaningless. Too bad.

 

[Sakaarnis]

I think it's absolutely obvious to 90% of the people on here that the Olympics is a best on best tourney while the WC is a "bring some of your best available guys that aren't still playing with their regular teams" kind of thing.

As much as the Euros hate it the WC still means very little in NA and if it means little in NA then thats how it is with the IIHF.

Just becouse canadians and americans think so, it doasnt mean that everyone else will. To me WC is more important, even tho we did take part in Salt Lake and no doubt it was huge event here (but honestly speaking, as it is for every hockey event where we take part). But, Olympics are held just once in 4 years and thats a big time gap just to decide whose who. Also, next year if NHL will be on no player will be able to take part in it. On the countrary, WC will start only on 5th of may and at that time NHL season will be long gone and even first playof round unlucky teams will be out, so they will be able to take part in WC as they did every other year.

 

[Westlander]

Just becouse canadians and americans think so, it doasnt mean that everyone else will. To me WC is more important, even tho we did take part in Salt Lake and no doubt it was huge event here (but honestly speaking, as it is for every hockey event where we take part). But, Olympics are held just once in 4 years and thats a big time gap just to decide whose who. Also, next year if NHL will be on no player will be able to take part in it. On the countrary, WC will start only on 5th of may and at that time NHL season will be long gone and even first playof round unlucky teams will be out, so they will be able to take part in WC as they did every other year.

The World championships are a world class event, the only problem is that it could never be considered a 'best on best' tournament. Not even this year. Olympic hockey with NHLers probably comes the closest to that claim, with the World Cup a fairly close second. 4 years is a big time gap, but that also makes it more special for the teams that win. Winning an olympic gold medal would not be as special if it could be done every year.
You could of course make the argument that because the World Championships are not a best on best tournament, it is better for promoting the game since there is less chance of one or two countries becoming too dominant. The fact that the teams are usually a mixed-bag of players from NHL and other leagues means that the top nations can win gold one year and finish 8th the next. Among the top 7, just about anyone can win and I can see the appeal in that. But still I prefer best on best.

 

[RorschachWJK]

Because the other nations are weaklings. No need for them. In fact, I think they should limit the countries at the World championships. There are too many bush league teams there.

Get the best 8 and go ahead. Who needs to see the freaking Iceland Comets play at the tourney? Playing the trap ad nauseam doesn't make you a powerhouse. It's makes you a boring team to watch. Just like 2/3 of the teams I saw this year.

Come again? I disagree completely. The performance of countries like Latvia, Kazakstan, Ukraine and Belorussia was surprisingly good. It's refreshing to see these teams putting up good fights against the big seven.

If you don't like the trap that's a whole different story then.

 

[RorschachWJK]

I think it's absolutely obvious to 90% of the people on here that the Olympics is a best on best tourney while the WC is a "bring some of your best available guys that aren't still playing with their regular teams" kind of thing.

As much as the Euros hate it the WC still means very little in NA and if it means little in NA then thats how it is with the IIHF.

Hate? If you don't appreciate the tournament, then that's your problem pal. Nothing more to it. Like it or not, in all the other hockey countries (outside Canada and US) it ranks way higher than NHL playoffs. Also, most people there consider World Championships to be the superior tournament when compared with the World Cup of Hockey (I don't agree with that, but people in general do).