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

[Lepardi]

Finns have an incredible group of young forward superstars emerging in the same era coming up.

Emerging superstars don't mean much when none of them is a superstar right now. As of September 2016, Taylor Hall and Jason Spezza are clearly better players than Patrik Laine and Lauri Korpikoski. That's why Hall and Spezza certainly deserve to be in the World Cup more than most of the Finnish players, if we want to see quality hockey. And shouldn't it all be about quality hockey? To heck with nationalities, they're so passé.

 

[Lepardi]

Someone who doesn't see a conection between a continent and a country probably missed some important geography lessons in school.

You really think you're fit to lecture us Europeans on what Europe means? Try going to Slovakia or Latvia and ask them what they have in common with Denmark and Norway. You might be surprised. Then again, had you learned some history as well as geography at school, you might be aware of these things already.

 

[xxxx]

You really think you're fit to lecture us Europeans on what Europe means? Try going to Slovakia or Latvia and ask them what they have in common with Denmark and Norway. You might be surprised. Then again, had you learned some history as well as biography at school, you might be aware of these things already.

You are taking this personally? Lol. And yes, apparently yes. They have one thing common, they are European countries, not Asian, North American, or African. But perhaps continents don't exist for europeans, I don't know.

 

[xxxx]

Emerging superstars don't mean much when none of them is a superstar right now. As of September 2016, Taylor Hall and Jason Spezza are clearly better players than Patrik Laine and Lauri Korpikoski. That's why Hall and Spezza certainly deserve to be in the World Cup more than most of the Finnish players, if we want to see quality hockey. And shouldn't it all be about quality hockey? To heck with nationalities, they're so passé.

I think some people are just too close-minded and too serious about this tournament, that's all. I'm not saying we should make such tournaments regularly, or that we should have Canada "B" and Canada "C" next time, but people seem to like being negative, rather than enjoy something unique and exciting. I don't get it. If someone really doesn't like the tournament, why even bother to waste time with posting negative comments about it? Some people say they are not gonna waste their time with watching this thing, yet they are wasting time talking about it.

 

[Don Corleone]

People seem to like being negative, rather than enjoy something unique and exciting. I don't get it. If someone really doesn't like the tournament, why even bother to waste time with posting negative comments about it? Some people say they are not gonna waste their time with watching this thing, yet they are wasting time talking about it.

Well unfortunately more often than not most forums, boards and websites have a lot of negative comments instead of positive ones. Often the negativity greatly outnumbers the positive comments. Not that I am trying to act all high and mighty about it because I am also guilty of this now and then. Some really like complaining and since its so simple to go to a website and just post anything they do it. I also get that sometimes people feel angry about something and need to vent online, I do it when Colorado makes boneheaded moves

 

[holyprime]

That's the nature of the whole thing, if everybody agrees how perfect and awesome something is, there won't be much of a discussion.

I think some people are just too close-minded and too serious about this tournament, that's all. I'm not saying we should make such tournaments regularly, or that we should have Canada "B" and Canada "C" next time, but people seem to like being negative, rather than enjoy something unique and exciting.

Imagine the big european football leagues taking over the world cup, deciding that you NA nations are just a pushover and should be grateful to be even able to participate as "Team America", together with all the other concacaf nations, except Mexico and Canada.

The NHL flipped the finger to quite a few nations and alienated almost everybody interested in international competition. For money (it also resembles political components we can't discuss here). There was no doubt in my mind when the whole thing was announced, that there will mostly be negative opinions in the rest of the world (which in hockey is basically europe) about it. Most of the discussion wasn't venting, but people trying to get this point across.

 

[xxxx]

Imagine the big european football leagues taking over the world cup, deciding that you NA nations are just a pushover and should be grateful to be even able to participate as "Team America", together with all the other concacaf nations, except Mexico and Canada.

The NHL flipped the finger to quite a few nations and alienated almost everybody interested in international competition. For money (it also resembles political components we can't discuss here). There was no doubt in my mind when the whole thing was announced, that there will mostly be negative opinions in the rest of the world (which in hockey is basically europe) about it. Most of the discussion wasn't venting, but people trying to get this point across.

You can't compare soccer to hockey in any way.

Second, I doubt that majority of European hockey fans who are really interested in the best-on-best hockey have negative opinions about the tournament. Highly doubt it. I guess we will see what the ratings are, maybe even the pre-tournament games in Europe will somehow show something.

 

[Gary Nylund]

That's the nature of the whole thing, if everybody agrees how perfect and awesome something is, there won't be much of a discussion.

Imagine the big european football leagues taking over the world cup, deciding that you NA nations are just a pushover and should be grateful to be even able to participate as "Team America", together with all the other concacaf nations, except Mexico and Canada.

The NHL flipped the finger to quite a few nations and alienated almost everybody interested in international competition. For money (it also resembles political components we can't discuss here). There was no doubt in my mind when the whole thing was announced, that there will mostly be negative opinions in the rest of the world (which in hockey is basically europe) about it. Most of the discussion wasn't venting, but people trying to get this point across.

And? What's the problem? I also wonder why "except Mexico and Canada"?

I remember the last time when Canada was in the football World Cup - going in, the bookmakers had the odds of Canada scoring even one goal in the tournament at 200-1. Seemed high at the time but they were right, Canada lost 3 games without scoring a goal, that was that and we haven't been back to the World Cup since. Now if Canada had been combined with a few other countries to make a competitive team, would that have been so bad? It would have been more competitive, more entertaining, less humiliating and maybe at least some of our players would have had the chance to play in this event over the last 30 years instead of sitting on the sidelines. I think that would have absolutely been a positive experience for Canadian players/fans and if it was understood that it was not a permanent arrangement, that as soon as Canada was capable of fielding a more worthy team then Canada would have it's own team, I think that would be just fine.

I'm not saying there's anything with National pride, but if your team goes to a competition where it's clearly in over it's head and gets clobbered, is that really infinitely better than being part of a combined team, playing some competitive games and getting some good experience in the process?

Maybe when the tournament is over, we'll hear some positive comments about the format from some Team Europe players who's national teams wouldn't be in even if there were 8 national teams. Maybe this format isn't the disaster so many seem to think and people should put away their pitchforks and wait and see how it all plays out.

 

[DaJackal]

You can't compare soccer to hockey in any way.

Why?

I remember the last time when Canada was in the football World Cup - going in, the bookmakers had the odds of Canada scoring even one goal in the tournament at 200-1. Seemed high at the time but they were right, Canada lost 3 games without scoring a goal, that was that and we haven't been back to the World Cup since. Now if Canada had been combined with a few other countries to make a competitive team, would that have been so bad? It would have been more competitive, more entertaining, less humiliating and maybe at least some of our players would have had the chance to play in this event over the last 30 years instead of sitting on the sidelines. I think that would have absolutely been a positive experience for Canadian players/fans and if it was understood that it was not a permanent arrangement, that as soon as Canada was capable of fielding a more worthy team then Canada would have it's own team, I think that would be just fine.

I'm not saying there's anything with National pride, but if your team goes to a competition where it's clearly in over it's head and gets clobbered, is that really infinitely better than being part of a combined team, playing some competitive games and getting some good experience in the process?

Maybe when the tournament is over, we'll hear some positive comments about the format from some Team Europe players who's national teams wouldn't be in even if there were 8 national teams. Maybe this format isn't the disaster so many seem to think and people should put away their pitchforks and wait and see how it all plays out.

Yes it is. For example if Finland, Sweden and Norway decided to send a combined team so that they could get to soccer WC games (well, at least Sweden can get there on their own too but anyway) I would find it disgusting and couldn't cheer for that team. In international tournaments it is all about national teams. If I were a professional athlete I wouldn't want to represent any other team than my homeland (edit: in an international tournament, of course).

That said, Team Europe players are not there to represent their country anyway. Their motivation is to get to play with the best players (that they possibly won't be able to do in their NHL team, due to cap and such) and use it as a good opportunity to show what they got and increase their value. In this context I get it why they are so eager to participate. It's like an extended NHL All-Star weekend sans John Scott.

 

[rimpirate]

A random fantasy all-star team is not the same as a team that represents North AmericaU24 for example. There is a connection between a country and a continent, and a clear international factor to "Europe", and therefore Team Europe, and to "North America" and therefore Team North America. Throwing an NHL team into this tournament is absolutely not comparable, since an NHL team doesn't represent anything. Someone who doesn't see a conection between a continent and a country probably missed some important geography lessons in school.

Indeed, there is a connection between e.g. Switzerland and Europe as a continent. Clearly, Switzerland is a European country with a history affected by and affecting the history of other European countries.
But as far as hockey is concerned, there is no kinship, no common history (save perhaps a longstanding rivalry with Germany), no unifying, overarching European hockey philosophy or style that would warrant throwing together players for the sake of creating a European team.
As a Swiss, I take offense at the NHL basically telling the Slovaks, Swiss, Latvians, Danish, Norwegians, Germans, Austrians, Slovenians and French that their team just doesn't rate, but out of sheer goodwill - and a decent amount of greed - their top players might just be fit to play cannon fodder for the true hockey teams. That is why I DO care about the Hokey World Cup (and yes, the spelling is deliberately chosen to reflect the nature of the tournament) and hope that it will prove to be disappointing enough for the suits in charge to rethink the whole idea.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Indeed, there is a connection between e.g. Switzerland and Europe as a continent. Clearly, Switzerland is a European country with a history affected by and affecting the history of other European countries.
But as far as hockey is concerned, there is no kinship, no common history (save perhaps a longstanding rivalry with Germany), no unifying, overarching European hockey philosophy or style that would warrant throwing together players for the sake of creating a European team.
As a Swiss, I take offense at the NHL basically telling the Slovaks, Swiss, Latvians, Danish, Norwegians, Germans, Austrians, Slovenians and French that their team just doesn't rate, but out of sheer goodwill - and a decent amount of greed - their top players might just be fit to play cannon fodder for the true hockey teams. That is why I DO care about the Hokey World Cup (and yes, the spelling is deliberately chosen to reflect the nature of the tournament) and hope that it will prove to be disappointing enough for the suits in charge to rethink the whole idea.

Why take offense? Everyone knows that for example Denmark's national team can't compete with the National teams in the World Cup, is this really news to anyone? As a Canadian, I wouldn't be offended to be told our men's soccer team can't compete - I know that already so what's there to be offended about?

Maybe some Danish fans (or French, Austrian etc. ) are happy that there is this European Team and they will have some players to cheer for in this tournament, are you sure that's not the case?

 

[rimpirate]

Why take offense? Everyone knows that for example Denmark's national team can't compete with the National teams in the World Cup, is this really news to anyone? As a Canadian, I wouldn't be offended to be told our men's soccer team can't compete - I know that already so what's there to be offended about?

Maybe some Danish fans (or French, Austrian etc. ) are happy that there is this European Team and they will have some players to cheer for in this tournament, are you sure that's not the case?

No, and neither did I claim as much. But as you mention Denmark, given their recent performances, the NHL players they produce, why deny them the opportunity to prove they are ready to take the next step in international hockey rather than force them into a mangled pseudo-national team? Frankly, I'd be less disappointed if the NHL had just handed the 7th and 8th spot to Slovakia and any of Denmark, Latvia and Germany rather than Switzerland. Given our recent performances, I'd understand.

 

[Don Corleone]

If I were a professional athlete I wouldn't want to represent any other team than my homeland

Maybe you wouldn't but many would gladly take part in The World Cup if they could. Is there any indication that the players of team Europe and North America are anything else than glad to be a part of their teams? I doubt it. Its only a honor to be named in such a competitive tournament as it tells you that you are world class as an athlete. Also don't athletes especially enjoy competition, which the WC obviously is. If you win the damn thing you'll get a great feeling and memory out of it. Sounds good to me.

 

[Gary Nylund]

No, and neither did I claim as much. But as you mention Denmark, given their recent performances, the NHL players they produce, why deny them the opportunity to prove they are ready to take the next step in international hockey rather than force them into a mangled pseudo-national team? Frankly, I'd be less disappointed if the NHL had just handed the 7th and 8th spot to Slovakia and any of Denmark, Latvia and Germany rather than Switzerland. Given our recent performances, I'd understand.

Who's denying anyone anything? Denmark will have plenty of opportunities going forward - the World Cup isn't the only hockey tournament in existence. The top 6 nations were invited to the World Cup, if Denmark was in the top 6 I'm sure they'd have been invited but as of now, they're not even in the to 10 correct?

 

[stars33]

I think some people are just too close-minded and too serious about this tournament, that's all. I'm not saying we should make such tournaments regularly, or that we should have Canada "B" and Canada "C" next time, but people seem to like being negative, rather than enjoy something unique and exciting. I don't get it. If someone really doesn't like the tournament, why even bother to waste time with posting negative comments about it? Some people say they are not gonna waste their time with watching this thing, yet they are wasting time talking about.

For the same reason why people slow down at car accidents. They are curious to see the outcome of a disaster.

 

[JackSlater]

A random fantasy all-star team is not the same as a team that represents North AmericaU24 for example.

This had to be singled out for how ridiculously funny it is. Where is this North America U24 that these players are representing? I see a team Finland, and I can see where Finland is. I see team Sweden, and lo and behold I can find Sweden on a map. This team represents nothing, especially since young Canadians and Americans already have teams in the tournament. Perhaps to you this team represents Mexicans under the age of 24?

If you want to enjoy the gimmick teams, even for what have thus far been idiotic reasons, that is your right. It's factually wrong to deny that this is a fantasy all star team that represents nothing though.

There is a connection between a country and a continent, and a clear international factor to "Europe", and therefore Team Europe, and to "North America" and therefore Team North America. Throwing an NHL team into this tournament is absolutely not comparable, since an NHL team doesn't represent anything. Someone who doesn't see a conection between a continent and a country probably missed some important geography lessons in school.

There is not an "international factor" here, because they are not nations. International means literally between nations. There is no country called Europe and certainly no country called "North America Under 24". Spin it how you want to justify the NHL's idiocy, but the arguments are incredibly weak. The Young Gunz are made up of young Canadians and Americans. That makes them a national team just as much as the typical CHL team is. These are not national teams. That is a fact. Thus, this tournament is not an international tournament. Another fact.

Emerging superstars don't mean much when none of them is a superstar right now. As of September 2016, Taylor Hall and Jason Spezza are clearly better players than Patrik Laine and Lauri Korpikoski. That's why Hall and Spezza certainly deserve to be in the World Cup more than most of the Finnish players, if we want to see quality hockey. And shouldn't it all be about quality hockey? To heck with nationalities, they're so passé.

Yes, for people complaining about the quality of play and level of players if the tournament featured actual national teams, they should also be up in arms. Why would the NHL invite Finland or the Czechs? We could easily add players like Hall, Faulk, Kessel etc. who are better. Why have Russia's bad defencemen there? Clearly the NHL made an error since it didn't simply include the best players, regardless of nationality.

Which begs the question... if the goal is to make the highest possible level of competition... why pretend to be an international tournament? The NHL made a non-international tournament and said that it wants to have as much talent as possible. That's idiotic. Don't bother considering nationalities at all then. If it just took one side or the other, the tournament would at least make sense.

I think some people are just too close-minded and too serious about this tournament, that's all. I'm not saying we should make such tournaments regularly, or that we should have Canada "B" and Canada "C" next time, but people seem to like being negative, rather than enjoy something unique and exciting. I don't get it. If someone really doesn't like the tournament, why even bother to waste time with posting negative comments about it? Some people say they are not gonna waste their time with watching this thing, yet they are wasting time talking about it.

The problem is that it is not "unique and exciting" but rather "unique and idiotic". They took a formerly great tournament and made a horrible change to it - thus, some people are justifiably displeased. The NHL is also on record as saying that the success for this tournament directly reduces the likelihood of NHL participation in the Olympics. Anyone interested in NHLers at the Olympics should hope for this tournament to fail, according to the NHL.

I remember the last time when Canada was in the football World Cup - going in, the bookmakers had the odds of Canada scoring even one goal in the tournament at 200-1. Seemed high at the time but they were right, Canada lost 3 games without scoring a goal, that was that and we haven't been back to the World Cup since. Now if Canada had been combined with a few other countries to make a competitive team, would that have been so bad? It would have been more competitive, more entertaining, less humiliating and maybe at least some of our players would have had the chance to play in this event over the last 30 years instead of sitting on the sidelines. I think that would have absolutely been a positive experience for Canadian players/fans and if it was understood that it was not a permanent arrangement, that as soon as Canada was capable of fielding a more worthy team then Canada would have it's own team, I think that would be just fine.

I'm not saying there's anything with National pride, but if your team goes to a competition where it's clearly in over it's head and gets clobbered, is that really infinitely better than being part of a combined team, playing some competitive games and getting some good experience in the process?

Canada deserved to lose, and there is nothing wrong with that. This sounds a lot like the pathetic ideas people have today about everyone getting participation medals. If you aren't good enough, that's fine - go lose and get better next time. If you want to see players from different countries join together to make a better team, there are already plenty of domestic soccer leagues that will satisfy you. The World Cup, and before this idiotic tournament any world cup, is designed for national teams.

Maybe when the tournament is over, we'll hear some positive comments about the format from some Team Europe players who's national teams wouldn't be in even if there were 8 national teams. Maybe this format isn't the disaster so many seem to think and people should put away their pitchforks and wait and see how it all plays out.

The very format of the tournament itself is the problem, with player selection compromised for some teams and several non-national games interspersed with actual international games in the same tournament. How could that play out in a way that fixes those issues? It can't. The best case scenario would be the gimmick teams losing all games by the same score, and thus not affecting results, but even then there is player selection for USA and Canada that is compromised.

 

[xxxx]

For the same reason why people slow down at car accidents. They are curious to see the outcome of a disaster.

That's funny, but when in those situations you are close to being powerless and just waiting what happens. In this case, people choose to spend their free time bashing something they don't like and won't watch. Ironic.

 

[Gary Nylund]

My responses in red.

Canada deserved to lose, and there is nothing wrong with that. This sounds a lot like the pathetic ideas people have today about everyone getting participation medals. If you aren't good enough, that's fine - go lose and get better next time.If you want to see players from different countries join together to make a better team, there are already plenty of domestic soccer leagues that will satisfy you. The World Cup, and before this idiotic tournament any world cup, is designed for national teams.

That's not substantially different from what's happening now, Denmark for example, not good enough to be invited so their players have a chance to be selected for the Europe Team, once they're good enough as a nation that will change. If you want to see players representing their country, there is already the WHC that should satisfy you - do you see what I did there?

When you say the World Cup is "designed for national teams" you're obviously wrong considering the format allows for these non-national teams. You obviously don't like it but those are the facts.

The very format of the tournament itself is the problem, with player selection compromised for some teams and several non-national games interspersed with actual international games in the same tournament. How could that play out in a way that fixes those issues? It can't. The best case scenario would be the gimmick teams losing all games by the same score, and thus not affecting results, but even then there is player selection for USA and Canada that is compromised.

I've already said I'm not a big fan of the gimmick teams and I don't think they'll be around next time. Until we see how it actually plays out I am keeping an open mind though and I am not opposed to considering any positive aspects that there may be. These gimmick teams may not be a great idea but it's not the end of the world as we know it as some people are making it out to be either.

 

[Canuckistani]

I remember the last time when Canada was in the football World Cup - going in, the bookmakers had the odds of Canada scoring even one goal in the tournament at 200-1. Seemed high at the time but they were right, Canada lost 3 games without scoring a goal, that was that and we haven't been back to the World Cup since. Now if Canada had been combined with a few other countries to make a competitive team, would that have been so bad? It would have been more competitive, more entertaining, less humiliating and maybe at least some of our players would have had the chance to play in this event over the last 30 years instead of sitting on the sidelines.

It also wouldn't have been Team Canada anymore. So why would anyone in Canada have cared about it?

Sports involve teams that are strong and teams that are weak. That's just the way it is, and is part of what makes sport so compelling.

At worst, the weak teams get experience vs the stronger teams and at best one of those weak teams pulls off an upset against stronger competition and creates an incredible moment. Miracle on Ice, Belarus vs Sweden, Leicester City, Senegal vs France 2002, Cameroon vs Argentina 1990, Iceland vs England...that's all part of sports legend now.

The NHL's world cup "logic" would have combined the America 1980 Olympic team with Romania, Canada, Japan and Holland to create some idiotic version of "competitiveness" because of course they could never compete with the Soviets on their own.

I don't want sports ruined by such idiocy.

 

[Canuckistani]

Second, I doubt that majority of European hockey fans who are really interested in the best-on-best hockey have negative opinions about the tournament.

The world cup is not best-on-best hockey.

 

[JackSlater]

That's not substantially different from what's happening now, Denmark for example, not good enough to be invited so their players have a chance to be selected for the Europe Team, once they're good enough as a nation that will change. If you want to see players representing their country, there is already the WHC that should satisfy you - do you see what I did there?

I know it's the same situation. That is the problem... so what is your point? It's idiotic what is happening in the hockey World Cup, and it would be idiotic to repeat the same thing in the soccer World Cup. Also, what is the criteria for "good enough"? More importantly, why not just limit the pool to teams that are "good enough" instead of putting in gimmick teams that impact player selection and render it a non-international tournament?

Good attempt at being clever I suppose. There is a big difference though. The World Championships is not close to a best on best tournament, like the World Cup (soccer) is and the World Cup (hockey) used to be. The NHL also claims that the success of this tournament directly works against the only current best on best hockey tournament, the Olympics. What you proposed would leave soccer without a best on best tournament, just like this World Cup has the potential to. The World Championships does nothing to rectify that problem.

When you say the World Cup is "designed for national teams" you're obviously wrong considering the format allows for these non-national teams. You obviously don't like it but those are the facts.

I'm not wrong. Every world cup is designed to be and billed as an international tournament. The NHL is even trying to call this an international tournament. It isn't one. Anyone with common sense knows that a World Cup is designed to be played between national teams. Using this format to justify what a World Cup is is laughable. The format is the problem itself.

I've already said I'm not a big fan of the gimmick teams and I don't think they'll be around next time. Until we see how it actually plays out I am keeping an open mind though and I am not opposed to considering any positive aspects that there may be. These gimmick teams may not be a great idea but it's not the end of the world as we know it as some people are making it out to be either.

No one has said that this is the end of the world, and your feeble attempt at creating that strawman is obvious. You haven't listed the actual positive that might result from the gimmicks playing out.

 

[Gary Nylund]

It also wouldn't have been Team Canada anymore. So why would anyone in Canada have cared about it?

I think there would have been plenty of soccer fans in Canada who would have watched with interest to see how our best players fared against the best players in the world. Also, I could just as easily ask you why anyone in Canada would care about the World Cup over the last 30 years, after all, there was no Team Canada in it? Here's the thing, I (and many others) have been watching with great interest, go figure.

Sports involve teams that are strong and teams that are weak. That's just the way it is, and is part of what makes sport so compelling.

At worst, the weak teams get experience vs the stronger teams and at best one of those weak teams pulls off an upset against stronger competition and creates an incredible moment. Miracle on Ice, Belarus vs Sweden, Leicester City, Senegal vs France 2002, Cameroon vs Argentina 1990, Iceland vs England...that's all part of sports legend now.

The NHL's world cup "logic" would have combined the America 1980 Olympic team with Romania, Canada, Japan and Holland to create some idiotic version of "competitiveness" because of course they could never compete with the Soviets on their own.

I don't want sports ruined by such idiocy.

So according to you, the Ryder Cup and the Presidents Cup have ruined Golf? Funny how many people (both players and fans) seem to look forward to and enjoy these events.

The world cup is not best-on-best hockey.

If you want to get technical, there has never been and probably never will be "best-on-best" hockey as has been pointed out ITT.

 

[Curufinwe]

What TNA players do most people agree would have made the American and Canadian teams if they were available? Eichel, McDavid.... anyone else?

Forwards:

Sean Couturier, Philadelphia Flyers; Jonathan Drouin, Tampa Bay Lightning; Jack Eichel, Buffalo Sabres; Johnny Gaudreau, Calgary Flames; Dylan Larkin, Detroit Red Wings; Nathan MacKinnon, Colorado Avalanche; Auston Matthews, Zurich (SUI); Connor McDavid, Edmonton Oilers; J.T. Miller, New York Rangers; Sean Monahan, Calgary Flames; Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Edmonton Oilers; Brandon Saad, Columbus Blue Jackets; Mark Scheifele, Winnipeg Jets

Defense:

Aaron Ekblad, Florida Panthers; Shayne Gostisbehere, Philadelphia Flyers; Seth Jones, Columbus Blue Jackets; Ryan Murray, Columbus Blue Jackets; Colton Parayko, St. Louis Blues; Morgan Rielly, Toronto Maple Leafs; Jacob Trouba, Winnipeg Jets

Goalies:

John Gibson, Anaheim Ducks; Connor Hellebuyck, Winnipeg Jets; Matt Murray, Pittsburgh Penguins

 

[Gary Nylund]

My answers in red.

I know it's the same situation. That is the problem... so what is your point? It's idiotic what is happening in the hockey World Cup, and it would be idiotic to repeat the same thing in the soccer World Cup. Also, what is the criteria for "good enough"? More importantly, why not just limit the pool to teams that are "good enough" instead of putting in gimmick teams that impact player selection and render it a non-international tournament?

Strange question. Here's a hint - there are 6 national teams in the World Cup, the top 6 national teams in the world are invited. I hope that helps.

Good attempt at being clever I suppose. There is a big difference though. The World Championships is not close to a best on best tournament, like the World Cup (soccer) is and the World Cup (hockey) used to be. The NHL also claims that the success of this tournament directly works against the only current best on best hockey tournament, the Olympics. What you proposed would leave soccer without a best on best tournament, just like this World Cup has the potential to. The World Championships does nothing to rectify that problem.

I think you've lost your way here - what is it exactly that you think "I've proposed"? Please be sure to quote me when you answer.

Again, as I've said before, I would have preferred to not have these gimmick teams. All I'm saying is that there may be some positive aspects to it. Perhaps they won't outweigh the negative but that doesn't mean it's all bad. Also, I'm going to wait and see how it all plays out before judging. Seems like the intelligent thing to do to me, you obviously disagree and that is your right.

I'm not wrong. Every world cup is designed to be and billed as an international tournament. The NHL is even trying to call this an international tournament. It isn't one. Anyone with common sense knows that a World Cup is designed to be played between national teams. Using this format to justify what a World Cup is is laughable. The format is the problem itself.

You said the World Cup is "designed for national teams". The fact that there are teams that aren't National teams says rather strongly that you're wrong. Not sure what else there is to say here.

No one has said that this is the end of the world, and your feeble attempt at creating that strawman is obvious. You haven't listed the actual positive that might result from the gimmicks playing out.

End of the world - it's only an expression, LOL at calling it a strawman. I have listed some potential positives, sorry if you missed them.

 

[Canuckistani]

I think there would have been plenty of soccer fans in Canada who would have watched with interest to see how our best players fared against the best players in the world. Also, I could just as easily ask you why anyone in Canada would care about the World Cup over the last 30 years, after all, there was no Team Canada in it? Here's the thing, I (and many others) have been watching with great interest, go figure.

People watch the FIFA World Cup to see other national teams. They don't watch thinking "I wish Canada could complete in a team with Costa Rica and Jamaica" or "If only all European teams were handicapped by an age restriction."

So according to you, the Ryder Cup and the Presidents Cup have ruined Golf? Funny how many people (both players and fans) seem to look forward to and enjoy these events.

Hockey is not golf. One is a team game with a long history of country vs country competition and other other is a game of individuals who occasionally get together for USA vs Europe/World.

Here's a hint - there are 6 national teams in the World Cup, the top 6 national teams in the world are invited. I hope that helps.

So how hard would it be to invite the top 8 teams?