WJC: 2016 WJC Division I Group A (Dec. 13-19)

[Namejs]

Austria had today the luck as Latvia yesterday, nothing more nothing less. The big game will be against Germany.

I think you're a little confused. When your defense sucks and the opposing team weaves through your players like a warm knife through butter, luck is not the reason why you get lit up. When your forwards can't manage to make a single successful pass during a 2on1 breakout and you end up without even making a shot on goal, that's not being unlucky, that's what happens when you're not very skilled.

 

[Maverick41]

I'm as big an Austria fan as they come but I'd never pick them to get second and promotion in this tournament. We're missing a USHL/NCAA player in Marco Richter so that's one blow and also the CHL Draft Pick Christof Kromp, but the pretty names at Forward really don't hide the fact that Austria is chronically horrible at producing defenders and the coaches of these teams are fairly inept too. Games with Austria's U20 are always high scoring, the question is just do both teams score high or just the team that isn't Austria. I get that with Mario Huber, Florian Baltram, Dominic Zwerger, Lukas Haudum, and Dario Winkler this team should have a lot of firepower but a few star forwards doesn't make a team and there are no names on the backline that you do know, or should know. I'd say probably a 4th or 5th place finish, maybe 3rd if they play well, but I'm secretly not so secretly hoping for better.

I thought only the 1st place team get promoted.

 

[kaiser matias]

I thought only the 1st place team get promoted.

It is. They used to promote two teams, but it's been nearly 5 years since that was changed. One of the better choices by the IIHF was that reorganization.

 

[Namejs]

One of the better choices by the IIHF was that reorganization.

How do you figure?

 

[Canada4Gold]

How do you figure?

because now you have teams 11-16, 17-22, etc facing each other instead of 6 teams in the 10-22 group, 23-34 group, etc? More competitive competition.

It's also a change I'm sure Slovakia and Switzerland liked, they're pretty much 7 and 8 usually, gives them a little breathing room where they can finish 9 and can still avoid relegation. Not that other teams should really care but I think both teams being in the top division pretty much every year now is a good thing.

 

[kabidjan18]

I think you're a little confused. When your defense sucks and the opposing team weaves through your players like a warm knife through butter, luck is not the reason why you get lit up. When your forwards can't manage to make a single successful pass during a 2on1 breakout and you end up without even making a shot on goal, that's not being unlucky, that's what happens when you're not very skilled.

Aw, Namejs let's be nice it's only his second post on hfboards I'm sure we're better at welcoming people than this. There are three major problems in Austria's defense. 1. the weak side is never defended basically at all 2. the defenders backpedal far too slowly giving up the edge more than half the time and 3. the players go down to block shots too often too fast which causes opponents to skate right past them. One 2 on 1 breakout means nothing let's be real I've seen 2 on 0 breakouts botched or stopped by the goalie in the NHL plenty of times. Latvia is the only team with Forwards that are the same caliber or better than Austria's top 5-ish forwards. When they can match your greatest strength and are strong where you are weak that usually means they're a better team and 6-2 is a decent indicator of that. Not very skilled is a pretty rushed statement though, some of these are almost ppg players in the CHL and SuperElit, they simply don't have a defender to point guard the offense and control the puck.

 

[GX]

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPVigxjQjRk&feature=youtu.be

 

[kaiser matias]

How do you figure?

I think it does a lot better for the lower divisions to play teams that are relatively close in skill to each other, and have them advance that way. The old system was far to broad in that matter, and it simply allowed top teams to run up the score on weaker ones, which benefited no one.

For example Israel playing in Division I in 2006 against teams like Germany and France. The closest match for the Israelis was against Japan, and even then they lost by 6 goals. Or Australia in 2009, who also managed to get to Division I, where they played the likes of Kazakhstan and Slovenia. They faired marginally better, with their best result being a 5-1 loss to a pre-Cronuck Croatian team.

And granted Israel was a lot better 10 years ago than now, when they struggle to stay out of Division III, and Australia did make it back to Division IB in 2012 (where they once again lost all their matches, but were a lot closer, narrowly losing to Lithuania 3-2 and their greatest defeat 4 goal losses to both South Korea and the Netherlands), it didn't serve anyone any good to have them in those divisions at the time.

This current system I think also allows for a better reflection of how good teams are progressing. You can see them slowly move up (or down, as may be the case) the ladder, playing teams or relatively equal skill, and when they are promoted or relegated it gives a better idea, rather than a fluke upset. It also means the days of 20-0 blowouts are over (except for Division III, which is an exception to all this), and better hockey is played and viewed, the scores resembling more realistic games. It also means that every team in their respective division can go in knowing that they actually stand a chance at being promoted, or even relegated, and they can't coast through until the final day. Every game matters now, and that only further makes things better.

 

[Namejs]

because now you have teams 11-16, 17-22, etc facing each other instead of 6 teams in the 10-22 group, 23-34 group, etc? More competitive competition.

I re-read this 4 times and I still don't quite get your point. The turnover has been halved and the teams that are very similar in quality (Belarus, Denmark, Latvia, Germany, Norway) are split up into 2 groups. Once you get relegated, it becomes twice as hard to get back up, while it's twice as easy to stay up. It's not good for the sport at all. The WJC is a unique opportunity for young players to get some exposure that they wouldn't otherwise get, but now the WJC has been turned into a stagnant pool.

And, no, it doesn't make the competition more competitive at all for the 1st and 2nd tier countries.

And he didn't say that it was one of the better choices the IIHF has made in favor of Slovakia or Switzerland. It was more of a general statement.

 

[Namejs]

I think it does a lot better for the lower divisions to play teams that are relatively close in skill to each other, and have them advance that way. The old system was far to broad in that matter, and it simply allowed top teams to run up the score on weaker ones, which benefited no one.

I agree if we're talking about DI B/D2 and the lower tiers, but we're not discussing Israel, Australia or Lithuania here, are we?

They could've easily reduced the turnover in the lower tiers, while maintaining the previous system in the Elite tier/D1A. And it would actually make a lot of sense given that there's almost twice as many teams in the Elite tier.

 

[brito]

I think that tomorrow kazakstan beat italia ---- latvia beat norwey --- deutchland beat austria

 

[kabidjan18]

Kazakhstan beats Italy, Latvia LOSES to Norway (in my dreams, not in real life), Austria beats Germany (30% probability).

I don't think more turnover at the top is necessary but I would absolutely love it because it would give Austria more of a chance to get in front of Canadian scouts.

 

[Canada4Gold]

I re-read this 4 times and I still don't quite get your point. The turnover has been halved and the teams that are very similar in quality (Belarus, Denmark, Latvia, Germany, Norway) are split up into 2 groups. Once you get relegated, it becomes twice as hard to get back up, while it's twice as easy to stay up. It's not good for the sport at all. The WJC is a unique opportunity for young players to get some exposure that they wouldn't otherwise get, but now the WJC has been turned into a stagnant pool.

And, no, it doesn't make the competition more competitive at all for the 1st and 2nd tier countries.

And he didn't say that it was one of the better choices the IIHF has made in favor of Slovakia or Switzerland. It was more of a general statement.

I'm not really talking about the 1 team up 1 team down instead of the 2 teams up/down. They could still do that under the current system if they wanted to and have the top 2 teams in D1A up and 9/10 down. I meant the teams facing each other are closer which is better. No longer will the 11th best team play the 22nd best in a system where the 11-22 are divided into 2 groups at the same level, it's now 11-16 and 17-22, same for the 23-34 group, it's now 2 closer groups instead of 2 separate groups at the same level.

As for the Swiss and Slovakia, I find the top level is better with them in it, they often challenge the top teams more than a 2nd team coming up from division 1 would. I know as a fan of Latvia you're going to prefer 2 teams coming up because that helps Latvia but as a whole the top level is better with 1 up 1 down regardless of if that helps or hurts the lower teams ability to move up or down. It's not all about Switzerland and Slovakia, but it's not all about how we can help the lower teams the most by giving them the best chance to promote either.

I don't exactly see the need for 2 teams up/down anyway, I mean that's the way it always was but why does the 2nd best team in the 2nd division(D1A) deserve to be up more than the 9th place team in the top tier? You need promotion/relegation to give teams a chance to move up but I don't really see the argument why you need to have multiple promotions/relegations, what makes the 12 team(finishing 2nd in the 11-16 group, D1A) any more deserving than the 9 team(2nd last in the 1-10 top tier)? Had the 9th team been in D1A they probably would have finished 1st or 2nd too. I mean if you're going 2 why not do 3 up 3 down? Or 4 up 4 down? What exactly is the argument for exactly 2 other than that's what they used to do?

How is it not more competitive when you're say the 13th best team, and instead of playing the 11th, 16th, 17th, 20th and 22nd countries in D1 split between A and B groups you're playing the 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, and 16th countries in D1A. They're closer to your level, thus way more competitive games. That was pretty much the entire basis of my post. Except the little part at the end where I also said 1 up 1 down was better because it keeps the better teams in Swiss and Slovakia up for more competitive top tier games while still giving opportunities for the D1 teams to promote.

I can understand why some would prefer to go back to 2 promitions and relegations, while I like the current way better, that's a reasonable preference. I don't get how someone can say splitting D1 into a higher D1A and a lower D1B, and doing the same to D2 doesn't make it more competitive. It does exactly that.

and just in case it's the group numbering lingo you're not getting...

current system
1-10 : top tier
11-16 : D1A
17-22 : D1B
23-28 : D2A
...

old system
1-10 : top tier
11-22 : separate D1A, D1B
23-34 : separte D2A, D2B
...

On a related note I ramble on way too much

 

[brito]

Kazakhstan beats ItalyI agree and Italy in my opinion a certain procedure and is the weakest team in this group, Latvia LOSES to Norway (in my dreams, not in real life)It's not to dream too Latvians performs nothing extra, Austria beats Germany (30% probability)Austria and thinks he has a chance to win it will be important to capture Muller or Stroj because the goal certainly is a strong offensive give Baltram Haudum Zwerger Huber Winkler have the potential sorry for my englisch

 

[Namejs]

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPVigxjQjRk&feature=youtu.be

And here's the Dzierkals goal for the lazy out there:

Holy **** is all I can say.

 

[Namejs]

I'm not really talking about the 1 team up 1 team down instead of the 2 teams up/down. They could still do that under the current system if they wanted to and have the top 2 teams in D1A up and 9/10 down. I meant the teams facing each other are closer which is better. No longer will the 11th best team play the 22nd best in a system where the 11-22 are divided into 2 groups at the same level, it's now 11-16 and 17-22, same for the 23-34 group, it's now 2 closer groups instead of 2 separate groups at the same level.

So we're talking about 2 entirely different things then. I wasn't discussing the D1 and D2 split into 2 groups each, that's all fine and dandy and I've got no quarrel with that. I merely meant that the turnover from WJC to D1a has been halved, which doesn't increase competitiveness and doesn't help grow the sport in any way, shape or form.

And do tell me - how does this benefit the Big 6 teams in any way? Latvia alone has 5 NHL draftees since 2014, Slovakia has 6. We just beat Denmark 5-1 in an exhibition game, Slovakia lost to Germany a week ago. There's a lot of parity between all of these teams and it doesn't seem like you realize that.

 

[kabidjan18]

(Long namejs quote) A few teams, Latvia and Germany having parity doesn't mean all else is equal. The system is set up so a sneaky team trying to steal it's way into the elite level won't be able to. For instance, if Austria wins it's rivalry game tomorrow against Germany and Latvia beats Germany, under your format Austria would advance, which would make me super happy and jumping up (and not coming down, I'm superman actually) for maybe 5 seconds. However looking ahead, Austria isn't producing elite level talent every year. We lose Mario Huber, Dominic Zwerger, but we're not bringing in newer talent (talent drought until current u17s) so next year's team will be worse but playing better competition against elite teams. Honestly it would be a waste of nhl scout's time and we'd probably lose out. Now I wish that could change and I wish a bunch of players I haven't heard of yet could just appear on our radar and start starring but that's not the case. Austria is the best case example, Norway or Italy or Kazakhstan would be even larger wastes of time, and even Germany doesn't provide elite level talent every year. Only promoting one team ensures the team rising isn't a fluke and tries to weed out weaker talent pools and production grounds. That being said I'm rooting for Austria tomorrow, excited, this is a great rivalry game, in every aspect a border war and winning will mean a lot to both teams. Osterreich vor!

 

[brito]

my predictions for today https://www.nike.sk/ulozeny/tiket/Nzk2NzA5Nzg1ODU4NTMwMTI5MzY0NQ/-1172415194

 

[kaiser matias]

So we're talking about 2 entirely different things then. I wasn't discussing the D1 and D2 split into 2 groups each, that's all fine and dandy and I've got no quarrel with that. I merely meant that the turnover from WJC to D1a has been halved, which doesn't increase competitiveness and doesn't help grow the sport in any way, shape or form.

And do tell me - how does this benefit the Big 6 teams in any way? Latvia alone has 5 NHL draftees since 2014, Slovakia has 6. We just beat Denmark 5-1 in an exhibition game, Slovakia lost to Germany a week ago. There's a lot of parity between all of these teams and it doesn't seem like you realize that.

If it was simply promotion/relegation between the top division and the next, then I'm a little more uncertain about how it is. On the one hand I do like seeing different teams given the chance to play the top teams, and like that in the senior tournament they are finally getting a different team in there this year (Hungary, which should be neat). However at the same time I do like the uniformity of having one team promoted/relegated all the way through, and it also kind of makes it that much more important for the relevant team to win their games. Though as a fan/citizen of one of those nations, I can see how that would be aggravating, as it doesn't really help Latvia's case at all.

 

[kabidjan18]

Hello hello let's get this thread buzzing for Norway vs. that country south of Estonia since the Estonia vs. Hungary game is so bad as to basically be unwatchable (for an Estonia fan, or potentially for a hockey fan in general). Predictions? I think Norway loses. I'll go 4-1 Latvia.

 

[Namejs]

Hello hello let's get this thread buzzing for Norway vs. that country south of Estonia since the Estonia vs. Hungary game is so bad as to basically be unwatchable (for an Estonia fan, or potentially for a hockey fan in general). Predictions? I think Norway loses. I'll go 4-1 Latvia.

I think it's going to be a high scoring game. We'll definitely let in more than 1 goal. Something like 7-5 wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Namejs]

Only promoting one team ensures the team rising isn't a fluke and tries to weed out weaker talent pools and production grounds.

This would make sense if Belarus and Denmark weren't as bad as they are. And the fastest we'll see a WJC taking place without the both of these teams is 2017. When pretty much their entire roster will be different when compared to now. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It doesn't weed out anything.

 

[GX]

Nice first goal by Norway. Positional power play didn't work out for them, so they started cycling, and our defense fell apart.

 

[Canada4Gold]

So we're talking about 2 entirely different things then. I wasn't discussing the D1 and D2 split into 2 groups each, that's all fine and dandy and I've got no quarrel with that. I merely meant that the turnover from WJC to D1a has been halved, which doesn't increase competitiveness and doesn't help grow the sport in any way, shape or form.

And do tell me - how does this benefit the Big 6 teams in any way? Latvia alone has 5 NHL draftees since 2014, Slovakia has 6. We just beat Denmark 5-1 in an exhibition game, Slovakia lost to Germany a week ago. There's a lot of parity between all of these teams and it doesn't seem like you realize that.

I realize that the Latvia's and Germany's, and Denmark's, etc, etc can compete with the Slovakia's and Swiss and on occasion even the top 6 too, but the Swiss and Slovakia are more consistent with it, it makes for a more competitive top tournament when they're always in it in my opinion. That's my point on that part.

Also if you promote and relegate 2 teams while it makes it easier for one of those D1A teams to get up here it makes it that much tougher to stay up here. the last time Latvia was up they stayed up a year when they finished 9th, under the old system they would have been relegated. I'd imagine having a better chance to stay up when you do get promoted is a good thing, you're not forcing them to beat a Switzerland or a Slovakia to stay up.

I can see the argument for both sides of 1 or 2 promotions/relegations, personally I prefer just 1, but can understand why someone would rather the older system of 2.

 

[kabidjan18]

Looks like Latvia fans will be rooting for Austria again today.