World Cup: 2016 World Cup Part II: All fans and nations welcome

[xxxx]

But this World Cup is not about level of play.....it's about showcasing as much NHL talent as possible.

Nearly half of Slovakia's 2010 roster was non-NHLers. Considering as such, I highly doubt that team would have been invited to this World Cup.

Somehow, believe it or not, these things are connected.

Of course it's about the level of play.


Playing "what if" games is meaningless. I believe this, you believe that. That's about it.

 

[Zine]

Somehow, believe it or not, these things are connected.

Of course it's about the level of play.


Playing "what if" games is meaningless. I believe this, you believe that. That's about it.

It's about entertainment while showcasing as much NHLers as possible, not level of play.

If it was about level of play, just the top 6 would have been invited; and that would have been acceptable. But unfortunately, the NHL instead chose to significantly weakened USA's roster, and McDavid can't play for Canada in the name of 'entertainment'.

 

[xxxx]

Who is in the top 7 now? Why is that seventh team not invited? To justify the NHL's moronic decision?

The term of top7, top8, or top6 has always represented a group of the teams that are able to beat each other, not always, but not rarely, rather more often than not. And of course the teams that rarely have problems with the weaker teams. Slovakia were in that group at that time. They are hardly in that group now, and the same goes for Switzerland. No team is in the TOP7, because the top7 doesn't exist. Switerland can beat someone from time to time, but they also can lose to Norway, France, and other teams, and pretty regularly, and the same goes for Slovakia now.

 

[xxxx]

It's about entertainment while showcasing as much NHLers as possible, not level of play.

If it was about level of play, just the top 6 would have been invited; and that would have been acceptable. But unfortunately, the NHL instead chose to significantly weakened USA's roster, and McDavid can't play for Canada in the name of 'entertainment'.

And the number of NHLers is responsible for the level of play.

Yes, it's also about entertainment, but also about the level of play. If it wasn't, they wouldn't create two teams that can possibly make it to the WC finals, so, one would say that the term "level of play" is directly connected with quality of hockey, which is certainly higher with those two teams, by the way.

The North American team certainly doesn't weaken the US roster "significantly", that's just simply isn't true. It's extremely exaggerated or rather simply false. If someone told me that the US best roster is significantly weakened, I would imagine they were without their best goaltender, their 2-4 of the best defensemen, and perhaps 5-6 forwards. What is happening in reality? They lost ONE forward, possibly maybe two. Nothing else.

 

[jj cale]

And the number of NHLers is responsible for the level of play.

Yes, it's also about entertainment, but also about the level of play. If it wasn't, they wouldn't create two teams that can possibly make it to the WC finals, so, one would say that the term "level of play" is directly connected with quality of hockey, which is certainly higher with those two teams, by the way.

The North American team certainly doesn't weaken the US roster "significantly", that's just simply isn't true. It's extremely exaggerated or rather simply false. If someone told me that the US best roster is significantly weakened, I would imagine they were without their best goaltender, their 2-4 of the best defensemen, and perhaps 5-6 forwards. What is happening in reality? They lost ONE forward, possibly maybe two. Nothing else.

Yeah, it is a bit exaggerated.

They lost Eichel and Gaudreau up front, not sure how big of a role Eichel would even have played, Gaudreau is the bigger blow.

On defense I think maybe Jones? But he is no world beater yet and losing him is not a big deal, they were never going to win or lose on the back of Seth Jones.



So, it is not quite their optimum team in all fairness but they are not heavily handicapped.

The most you can say is mildly handicapped.

 

[PNWKingsFan]

And the number of NHLers is responsible for the level of play.

Yes, it's also about entertainment, but also about the level of play. If it wasn't, they wouldn't create two teams that can possibly make it to the WC finals, so, one would say that the term "level of play" is directly connected with quality of hockey, which is certainly higher with those two teams, by the way.

The North American team certainly doesn't weaken the US roster "significantly", that's just simply isn't true. It's extremely exaggerated or rather simply false. If someone told me that the US best roster is significantly weakened, I would imagine they were without their best goaltender, their 2-4 of the best defensemen, and perhaps 5-6 forwards. What is happening in reality? They lost ONE forward, possibly maybe two. Nothing else.

Without getting into the rather pointless speculation game of whether "more NHL players" = "better," I've made the argument in a number of threads about this subject that a domestic league running an "international tournament" (if you can call this that) is almost inherently a conflict of interest, because, say, including more KHL players in Russia's tournament roster will not make the NHL any better off, even if those players might be the right fit to optimize Russia's chances in the tournament.

Domestic leagues by their nature have very narrow interests (make $$$, market to local fans) and international tournaments by their nature have broad ones (crown the best country champion, broaden the scope of the game). The imaginary teams thing is kind of a symptom of this, really. Take out potential teams that would have showcased a lot of non-NHL talent (two of Slovakia, Switzerland, Latvia, Germany, Austria) and put in teams that are basically glorified all-star teams with arbitrary eligibility rules, set up to maximize the count of NHL players.

It's a symptom of the poor state of the international game that (some) fans put up with that kind of thing. Taking a like scenario in soccer, a "big 4" European league trying to establish its own rogue world championship would be absolutely laughed at.

 

[Jablkon]

Another is probably that hockey participation is much more expensive for a kid than soccer. I remember reading somewhere that in Canada, soccer was the #1 participation sport for children. If hockey is behind soccer even in Canada ...

Hockey, unlike soccer, also has the image of being a violent sport (and it is violent to some degree). I know for a fact some parents who wouldn't let their kids play for that reason.

it is violent. But this is natural, let's say positive violence. If anybody consider it as a violent sport in negative way, its a prejudice imo. Any fighting sport is more violent. Soccer is definetely more accessible for kids. You can go outside everywhere and play football with friends since your childhood (+ unlike in ice skating, everybody can somehow run and kick) In most countries you can play hockey just in paid indoor ice rinks. This is unfortunately also case in Czech republic nowadays. 20 years ago, soccer was a summer sport and all the kids played hockey on frozen lakes during the winter. Probably because of global warming winters are so soft here right now that playing outside is practically impossible, except 3-5 days.

 

[JackSlater]

I just looked up the IIHF rankings (for the first time ever I believe, link below) and found it interesting that the gap between the 6th team Czech Rebublic) and the 7th team (Switzerland) is 300 points. That is the largest gap between any two teams in the top 50 (the next biggest gap is between and United Arab Emirates 47th and Ireland 48th) and is also bigger then the gap between 1st and 6th. This is likely part of the reason the NHL decided on these gimmick teams and perhaps if there wasn't such a big gap this never would have happened.

Disclaimer: I don't like the gimmick teams and am not trying to justify them, just thinking about how this happened.

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/championships/world-ranking/mens-world-ranking/2016-ranking/

I know which specific country is ranked seventh by the IIHF. Not the point. The point is the idiotic logic of saying that Slovakia deserved to be there because it was part of the "top 7", but now saying that only six national teams belong in the tournament. There is always a top 7, a top 8, a top 100. Saying that the top six is the cutoff is arbitrary opinion.

The term of top7, top8, or top6 has always represented a group of the teams that are able to beat each other, not always, but not rarely, rather more often than not. And of course the teams that rarely have problems with the weaker teams. Slovakia were in that group at that time. They are hardly in that group now, and the same goes for Switzerland. No team is in the TOP7, because the top7 doesn't exist. Switerland can beat someone from time to time, but they also can lose to Norway, France, and other teams, and pretty regularly, and the same goes for Slovakia now.

So... opinion. That's it. I wasn't expecting much given your past justifications, but I remain optimistic that you can come up with something other than simply trying to blindly push what the NHL is selling. Slovakia was a huge underdog in 2010, just like they would be now. Not so different from Switzerland today. The Czechs are a huge underdog now as well. That's the nature of hockey. There will always be underdogs, whether in a tournament or some league. Only an idiot would remove the weakest teams and combine them to artificially boost parity. There is a reason that the NHL doesn't put combined teams in the playoffs... yet.

Yeah, it is a bit exaggerated.

They lost Eichel and Gaudreau up front, not sure how big of a role Eichel would even have played, Gaudreau is the bigger blow.

On defense I think maybe Jones? But he is no world beater yet and losing him is not a big deal, they were never going to win or lose on the back of Seth Jones.

So, it is not quite their optimum team in all fairness but they are not heavily handicapped.

The most you can say is mildly handicapped.

You have no idea if what you are saying is true. I could easily apply the same logic to the 2010 Olympics and Canada's seventh defenceman and 13th forward to start the tournament, Doughty and Toews. Before the tournament started most people would have said about them just what you're saying about the American players, and they ended up being huge factors.

And the number of NHLers is responsible for the level of play.

Yes, it's also about entertainment, but also about the level of play. If it wasn't, they wouldn't create two teams that can possibly make it to the WC finals, so, one would say that the term "level of play" is directly connected with quality of hockey, which is certainly higher with those two teams, by the way.

The North American team certainly doesn't weaken the US roster "significantly", that's just simply isn't true. It's extremely exaggerated or rather simply false. If someone told me that the US best roster is significantly weakened, I would imagine they were without their best goaltender, their 2-4 of the best defensemen, and perhaps 5-6 forwards. What is happening in reality? They lost ONE forward, possibly maybe two. Nothing else.

Once again, this is nothing but your opinion. For all we know the missing players would have been among the most significant players on their teams. We will never know though, because the NHL was stupid enough to ban supposedly "national" teams from selecting from the total pool of their players. The Canadian and American rosters are weakened, while the actual national teams are not. Only an idiot (like those in the NHL) would consider this evidently unfair situation acceptable for a tournament. The results become meaningless because half of the teams were held to different standards than the other half.

 

[jj cale]

You have no idea if what you are saying is true. I could easily apply the same logic to the 2010 Olympics and Canada's seventh defenceman and 13th forward to start the tournament, Doughty and Toews. Before the tournament started most people would have said about them just what you're saying about the American players, and they ended up being huge factors.



Yeah, you are right, I cannot know for sure. I don't think it happens very often where the 7th defenceman and 13th forward end up being huge factors but it can certainly happen. Odds of it happening are low however. It happened in 2010 but how often does that play out? my guess is not often. Also, by that logic, who is to say that the guys that ended up being on the team because guys like Eichel and Jones could not be there don't end up playing huge roles for them? We just don't know.

 

[PNWKingsFan]

Yeah, you are right, I cannot know for sure. I don't think it happens very often where the 7th defenceman and 13th forward end up being huge factors but it can certainly happen. Odds of it happening are low however. It happened in 2010 but how often does that play out? my guess is not often. Also, by that logic, who is to say that the guys that ended up being on the team because guys like Eichel and Jones could not be there don't end up playing huge roles for them? We just don't know.

A simpler standard, that avoids having to speculate, is that any restriction that gets in the way of a country's federation picking the best players to represent it in search of a world title is a bad one.

 

[jj cale]

A simpler standard, that avoids having to speculate, is that any restriction that gets in the way of a country's federation picking the best players to represent it in search of a world title is a bad one.

I don't disagree.

It has perhaps started to sound as if I agree with what the NHL has done with this tournament in making these two pseudo teams, I do not.

However, I have started to back up the tournament somewhat from it's detractors here because whether we like it or not the tournament is going on and some very good hockey should be played. We can whine about it for months or take it for what it is this time out. I have resigned myself to it being what it is and am trying to find the positives in it because to do otherwise to me now stands as being negative for the sake of being negative.

It is going to be played, may as well try to get some enjoyment out of it. At least that is how I see it.

 

[JackSlater]

Yeah, you are right, I cannot know for sure. I don't think it happens very often where the 7th defenceman and 13th forward end up being huge factors but it can certainly happen. Odds of it happening are low however. It happened in 2010 but how often does that play out? my guess is not often. Also, by that logic, who is to say that the guys that ended up being on the team because guys like Eichel and Jones could not be there don't end up playing huge roles for them? We just don't know.

There are more instances of seemingly inconsequential players going on to play huge roles in a tournament. Off the top of my head, Tonelli being the MVP of Canada Cup 1984. Jones might have been an inconsequential player. Saad would also fall into this kind of role. Gaudreau and Eichel would likely have been pretty prominent. You are correct that it's possible that the replacement players could be better fits, in the sense that any player can get hot for six games, however...

A simpler standard, that avoids having to speculate, is that any restriction that gets in the way of a country's federation picking the best players to represent it in search of a world title is a bad one.

Exactly.

 

[jj cale]

There are more instances of seemingly inconsequential players going on to play huge roles in a tournament. Off the top of my head, Tonelli being the MVP of Canada Cup 1984. Jones might have been an inconsequential player. Saad would also fall into this kind of role. Gaudreau and Eichel would likely have been pretty prominent. You are correct that it's possible that the replacement players could be better fits, in the sense that any player can get hot for six games, however...



Exactly.

In the end, I think most of us agree that an international tournament should just include national teams. But should the fact that it does not keep us from watching and getting what we can out of it?

Look at the annual WHC. This is a tournament where every year, every YEAR, has a structure where all the relevant national teams are kept from having the liberty to select from their complete and best pool of players because of it conflicting with the NHL playoffs, and yet we still watch don't we? Not only that, look at the crazy celebrations fans from European teams have when their team wins. The fact that it is a completely bogus world championship does not keep them from enjoying that tournament, nor does it keep us North American fans here from enjoying it also.

So why not this "world cup" ? I mean, as fans..............aren't we being hypocritical in giving a free pass to the WHC but holding our noses and acting like some principled gaurdians of the game with this tournament?

This so called world cup, like the so called World hockey championships, is not a legitimate international tournament to determine who is really the World champion in Hockey..................it is for entertainment.

Why deny ourselves being entertained? we don't at the WHC.

 

[Lepardi]

That is specific of hockey. Even teams like South Korea, Cameroon, Nigeria were able to make big mark in soccer world cup once a while. However thats not the case of hockey. By soccer logic, Latvia, Switzerland or Slovakia should be able to get to semis at least twice in 10 years...Culture, weather and genetic might have some role in it imo.

How many times have Cameroon and Nigeria been to the semis? South Korea was there once, but only thanks to horrible home refereeing.

 

[Lepardi]

Thats completely wrong logic. There is a big competition in hockey. WHC has several divisions.

Slovenia has one thousand registered hockey players. They're ranked 15th in the world. That tells you pretty much all you need to know about hockey's competitiveness.

 

[Gary Nylund]

My responses in red:

I don't disagree.

It has perhaps started to sound as if I agree with what the NHL has done with this tournament in making these two pseudo teams, I do not.

It seems some people hate this tournament so much that if you say anything even remotely hinting at the possibility, that there may be some aspect of this tournament no matter how small that is not completely evil, they will jump all over you. I've used a disclaimer lately - "I do not like the gimmick teams".

However, I have started to back up the tournament somewhat from it's detractors here because whether we like it or not the tournament is going on and some very good hockey should be played. We can whine about it for months or take it for what it is this time out. I have resigned myself to it being what it is and am trying to find the positives in it because to do otherwise to me now stands as being negative for the sake of being negative.

It is going to be played, may as well try to get some enjoyment out of it. At least that is how I see it.

Hear hear! It's not often we get to see hockey like this, not ideal this time but still ... I'm hoping that by the semis, the gimmick teams are out, maybe then some of the hate will die down a bit. I mean if the last 4 teams standing are Canada, Russia, USA, and one of the other national teams, we can pretend the gimmick teams never existed.

In the end, I think most of us agree that an international tournament should just include national teams. But should the fact that it does not keep us from watching and getting what we can out of it?

Look at the annual WHC. This is a tournament where every year, every YEAR, has a structure where all the relevant national teams are kept from having the liberty to select from their complete and best pool of players because of it conflicting with the NHL playoffs, and yet we still watch don't we? Not only that, look at the crazy celebrations fans from European teams have when their team wins. The fact that it is a completely bogus world championship does not keep them from enjoying that tournament, nor does it keep us North American fans here from enjoying it also.

So why not this "world cup" ? I mean, as fans..............aren't we being hypocritical in giving a free pass to the WHC but holding our noses and acting like some principled gaurdians of the game with this tournament?

This so called world cup, like the so called World hockey championships, is not a legitimate international tournament to determine who is really the World champion in Hockey..................it is for entertainment.

Why deny ourselves being entertained? we don't at the WHC.

I agree completely. I expect the hockey played in the World Cup will be of a much higher quality than we see in the WHC and I'm pretty sure the people who refuse to watch are missing out.

 

[xxxx]

I know which specific country is ranked seventh by the IIHF. Not the point. The point is the idiotic logic of saying that Slovakia deserved to be there because it was part of the "top 7", but now saying that only six national teams belong in the tournament. There is always a top 7, a top 8, a top 100. Saying that the top six is the cutoff is arbitrary opinion.

I'm not sure you know what TOP means in the sense I described.

A certain poster said that only two teams outside of the big-six have made the semifinals at the pro-olympics. Belarus and Slovakia. I just argued that Slovakia was part of the "top teams" in 2010, that's all. It's not my intention to argue anything else.

So... opinion. That's it. I wasn't expecting much given your past justifications, but I remain optimistic that you can come up with something other than simply trying to blindly push what the NHL is selling. Slovakia was a huge underdog in 2010, just like they would be now. Not so different from Switzerland today. The Czechs are a huge underdog now as well. That's the nature of . There will always be underdogs, whether in a tournament or some league. Only an idiot would remove the weakest teams and combine them to artificially boost parity. There is a reason that the doesn't put combined teams in the playoffs... yet.

You can be an underdog to win a tournament, and still be one of the top teams. Finland, or even the Czech republic, is and probably always have been lately somehow an underdog to win the olympics/world cup, and even for beating teams like Canada or Russia, but they sure are one of the top teams and clearly above teams like Latvia or Belarus. That's pretty common knowledge. So, when you say that Slovakia were an underdog 6 years back, and now are too, is a little bit misrepresented, because Slovakia 6 years ago was one of the top teams, and now they're not.

Anyway, you are reading too much into that.



I don't really care what anyone thinks about this tournament anymore. If anyone likes to spend time here to disrespect the World Cup, fine by me This is a game, I'm not going to argue with anyone about meaningless things anymore.

 

[JackSlater]

In the end, I think most of us agree that an international tournament should just include national teams. But should the fact that it does not keep us from watching and getting what we can out of it?

Look at the annual WHC. This is a tournament where every year, every YEAR, has a structure where all the relevant national teams are kept from having the liberty to select from their complete and best pool of players because of it conflicting with the NHL playoffs, and yet we still watch don't we? Not only that, look at the crazy celebrations fans from European teams have when their team wins. The fact that it is a completely bogus world championship does not keep them from enjoying that tournament, nor does it keep us North American fans here from enjoying it also.

So why not this "world cup" ? I mean, as fans..............aren't we being hypocritical in giving a free pass to the WHC but holding our noses and acting like some principled gaurdians of the game with this tournament?

This so called world cup, like the so called World hockey championships, is not a legitimate international tournament to determine who is really the World champion in Hockey..................it is for entertainment.

Why deny ourselves being entertained? we don't at the WHC.

I don't tell anyone they can't watch this tournament, and I agree completely with your criticism of the WHC. People are free to watch this tournament if they wish, just as I am free to not watch it. No problem there.

My issue is when people bring up factors that are factually wrong in favour of this tournament. Calling it a best on best, even an international tournament, etc. It's simply not. It is an exhibition tournament completely, and I fully expect that the level of hockey will be quite high. I hate the precedent it sets though, and that its success works against NHL participation in the Olympics. I hate that it's a huge step backwards for international hockey, and so I won't watch it. If you or anyone else want to watch it, that's your business.

 

[jj cale]

I don't tell anyone they can't watch this tournament, and I agree completely with your criticism of the WHC. People are free to watch this tournament if they wish, just as I am free to not watch it. No problem there.

My issue is when people bring up factors that are factually wrong in favour of this tournament. Calling it a best on best, even an international tournament, etc. It's simply not. It is an exhibition tournament completely, and I fully expect that the level of hockey will be quite high. I hate the precedent it sets though, and that its success works against NHL participation in the Olympics. I hate that it's a huge step backwards for international hockey, and so I won't watch it. If you or anyone else want to watch it, that's your business.

I respect your viewpoint and agree with a lot of it.

We'll miss you around here come game time, always one of the best Canadian posters around especially concerning Canadian National teams.

 

[Back in Black]

I fully expect that the level of hockey will be quite high. I hate the precedent it sets though, so I won't watch it.

Jack, I can't wait. I'm starving for good Hockey, and pre-season Hockey usually ain't that good!

GO CANADA GO

 

[PNWKingsFan]

I don't tell anyone they can't watch this tournament, and I agree completely with your criticism of the WHC. People are free to watch this tournament if they wish, just as I am free to not watch it. No problem there.

My issue is when people bring up factors that are factually wrong in favour of this tournament. Calling it a best on best, even an international tournament, etc. It's simply not. It is an exhibition tournament completely, and I fully expect that the level of hockey will be quite high. I hate the precedent it sets though, and that its success works against NHL participation in the Olympics. I hate that it's a huge step backwards for international hockey, and so I won't watch it. If you or anyone else want to watch it, that's your business.

For me this hits the nail on the head. I don't have a problem with this tournament in general (though obviously, it's not cup of tea) - except that it's not-too-unlikely that before this time next year, we'll hear about this tournament's "success" as eliminating the need to participate in the Olympics in 2018 and 2022. Daly has already made some overtures to that effect.

Thus compounding the issues the international game already has.

 

[Curufinwe]

If the Olympics aren't going to cover insurance for the NHL players they won't be going there, whether the WC is a success or not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/s...face-off-over-who-pays-to-insure-players.html

 

[xxxx]

Does anyone thinkg that his year's Team Canada is one of the best that we've had in the last 25 years? I mean, look at the roster.

Getzlaf - Crosby - Stamkos
Tavares - Giroux - Bergeron
Benn - Thornton - Seguin
Duchene - Toews - Carter
Marchand

Keith - Weber
Vlasic - Doughty
Pietrangelo - Burns
Muzzin

Price, Holtby, Crawford

Babcock, Quenneville, Trotz, Julien, Peters



I mean, not only there's many of future Hall Of Famers, not only there's 22 olympic-gold-medals, not only there's 20 StanleyCup rings (and together it's 28 times that the players have played the Stanley Cup finals), but also the recent success of those players, or what they've accomplished throughout their careers.... it's phenomenal group of players in my opinion. It's true that it's a shame McDavid can't be there, I must admit, it would've been perfect then. But when you look at the team, I think it's gonna be stronger than the two we've lately seen winning the olympic gold, which is kinda scary, isn't it?

 

[snipes]

In the end, I think most of us agree that an international tournament should just include national teams. But should the fact that it does not keep us from watching and getting what we can out of it?

Look at the annual WHC. This is a tournament where every year, every YEAR, has a structure where all the relevant national teams are kept from having the liberty to select from their complete and best pool of players because of it conflicting with the NHL playoffs, and yet we still watch don't we? Not only that, look at the crazy celebrations fans from European teams have when their team wins. The fact that it is a completely bogus world championship does not keep them from enjoying that tournament, nor does it keep us North American fans here from enjoying it also.

So why not this "world cup" ? I mean, as fans..............aren't we being hypocritical in giving a free pass to the WHC but holding our noses and acting like some principled gaurdians of the game with this tournament?

This so called world cup, like the so called World hockey championships, is not a legitimate international tournament to determine who is really the World champion in Hockey..................it is for entertainment.

Why deny ourselves being entertained? we don't at the WHC.

Well said. I agree. I'm fully aware of the problems with this tournament and the issues many prominent posters on HFInternational have brought up. I'm in agreeance with the issues.

The number one problem for me is this interrupts the current Golden Era we are in with this group of Canadian players (a continuation of the 2005-09 WJC Gold medalists). A truly special group of Canadian players. History will remember this group very fondly. As I mentioned earlier, due to strict interpretation we can't call this best-on-best. It sucks to lose out on another Gold to the tally. This tournament will always have an asterisk attached to it.

However, this tournament will be the best assembly of talent teams #1-8. I don't think anyone can argue that. I'm just going to enjoy it for what it is. A summit of the most elite hockey talent on the planet.

 

[jj cale]

Well said. I agree. I'm fully aware of the problems with this tournament and the issues many prominent posters on HFInternational have brought up. I'm in agreeance with the issues.

The number one problem for me is this interrupts the current Golden Era we are in with this group of Canadian players (a continuation of the 2005-09 WJC Gold medalists). A truly special group of Canadian players. History will remember this group very fondly. As I mentioned earlier, due to strict interpretation we can't call this best-on-best. It sucks to lose out on another Gold to the tally. This tournament will always have an asterisk attached to it.

However, this tournament will be the best assembly of talent teams #1-8. I don't think anyone can argue that. I'm just going to enjoy it for what it is. A summit of the most elite hockey talent on the planet.

I'm expecting spirited affairs between Canada and the U.S, they should be real special games. The U.S is going with a lot of jam on their team to counteract Canada, I look at a guy like Big Buff as their new Derian Hatcher. Expect blood and tenacity for those games.