WC: 2017 Team Finland Pt. 2

[grieves]

It's so hard to watch this game. Kind of want to turn the TV off. Marjamäki did the important thing and made us win the game of death but I can't imagine watching this crap for the next 1-2 years and I hope he gets fired.

It doesn't matter how good the driver is if the car is crap. 4th place with this squad is good enough in my books.

Unless of course Marjamäki was the reason for so many NHL no-shows.

 

[BB88]

Oh I absolutely agree. I would love it if players who realistically belong on the fourth line in these matches were limited into that role, but it's gonna take time. Nobody is going to gamble on a roster full of first-timers, or it's going to get spun into a whole ********* if and when the inevitable bad result comes(can't you just hear Tami droning on about how stupid it was to drop all those venerable veterans). Plus anyone who would be willing to do such a thing will be crossed off Liitto's candidates list pretty damn quickly.

They don't have to throw out all the vets at once, but start saying goodbye to those damm slow non skilled players, and start building around speed and skill more with vets who fit the style better.

It's more and more about speed and skill. Rus, Swe, Can have NHL style teams. You can't constantly let 5 opposition players be on the right side of the puck and expect to score. Get rid of those damm 10s rules for defenseman to keep the puck before they can pass.

They either get past the red line and dump it or throw a shot from a bad angle on net.

It's so hard to watch this game. Kind of want to turn the TV off. Marjamäki did the important thing and made us win the game of death but I can't imagine watching this crap for the next 1-2 years and I hope he gets fired.

Yep, 1 good game keeps him on the job. 1 good game in 1 damm entire year is pathetic reason to keep him though.

I love hockey and watching these games(normally) but Marjamaki is really killing the fun.

 

[Loffer]

I did not state that either proposal is invalid. Just that their validity does not depend on that of the other in any way. And you may substitute "causal" with "logical" if you so wish.

No. A strange unclear claim there.
- I addressed the fallacy implicit in defending the trap game against Sweden with a "good" something (not the result) while by the same token implying and even stating the Canada game with "bad" something showed other tactical options (more offensive, active, liberal..) were and are a no-go with a team like this TF is. That is a fallacious and very problematic claim and argument. That is the core of my argument here. Plus of course the positive conclusion stating otherwise, the opposite.

Edit: In your vocabulary, indeed: A. The goals allowed in the Sweden game were not caused by the defensive system (which was in principle flawless) DOES entail B. Thus: Similarly, given A, we can conclude B. The goals allowed in the Canada game were not caused by the offensive system (which was in principle flawless). There are no differentiating logically relevant attributes or criteria thereof involved or represented in these arguments or in the respective contexts of these arguments to claim or deduce otherwise. So, if A then B.

 

[DoubleGold]

Marjamäki is as anti-hockey as one can get. His hockey is **** and he can't even bring in our top players, who've normally attended the tournament. This guy is a ****ing disgrace.

 

[jfc64]

Is Mikko Rantanen from Rocky Mountainen?

 

[rduck1]

No. A strange unclear claim there.
- I addressed the fallacy implicit in defending the trap game against Sweden with a "good" something (not the result) while by the same token implying and even stating the Canada game showed other tactical option (more offensive, active, liberal..) were and are a no-go with a team like this TF is. That is a fallacious and very problematic claim and argument. That is the core of my argument here. Plus of course the positive conclusion stating otherwise, the opposite.

See, I don't see how these are "by the same token". What has been asserted by FiLe, as far as I can see, is as follows:

A. A disputation that the SWE game was lost (completely) due to the defensive system.

B. A claim that the CAN game was lost due to the offensive system, that the team was unable to follow.

As far as I can see, one can make both these assertions without commiting any fallacy, provided they are properly substantiated. The truth value of A does not affect that of B, and vice-versa. Now whether the claims hold water or not, is not my case to make.

 

[jfc64]

Lehtonen! Kaksi!

 

[stonec]

Marjamäki is as anti-hockey as one can get. His hockey is **** and he can't even bring in our top players, who've normally attended the tournament. This guy is a ****ing disgrace.

His hockey produced the maximum result in this tournament. Only teams that had a huge material advantage were ahead of us (Canada, Sweden and Russia). The material-adjusted realistic finishing position would have been sixth.

Regarding your statement that top players are not in the tournament because of Marja, it's pure speculation until we hear confirmation. Maybe they are not here because of Lehtinen(?) After all he is the one communicating with them. Or maybe they are all injured/tired, we can't now. Three years ago with Erkka was the same thing, we had a complete nobody team. If it's true it's problematic, but then again Olympics will be with Euro players anyway. If the Olympics flop totally, after that they have time to fire him.

 

[Loffer]

See, I don't see how these are "by the same token". What has been asserted by FiLe, as far as I can see, is as follows:

A. A disputation that the SWE game was lost (completely) due to the defensive system.

B. A claim that the CAN game was lost due to the offensive system, that the team was unable to follow.

As far as I can see, one can make both these assertions without commiting any fallacy, provided they are properly substantiated. The truth value of A does not affect that of B, and vice-versa. Now whether the claims hold water or not, is not my case to make.

Not so fast. They are claims put forth with different and unwarranted criteria of judgement cornerning the 'defensive' and 'offensive' option without any explicit or objective appeal or reference to those criteria and that is very very problematic, fallacious and partial/subjective when arguing over the better general strategic approach to the game of TF.

That is my critical part of the argument and the constructive one is to do the only valid and thus oppositen inference in this, above characterized situation.

 

[Past Considerations]

Three years ago with Erkka was the same thing, we had a complete nobody team.

And they played vastly better hockey with identity. I don't care if the roster full of nobodies, because it is simply hard to believe with the exactly same roster it would have been this bad under any of the three previous coaches.

 

[rduck1]

Not so fast. They are claims put forth with different and unwarranted criteria of judgement cornerning the 'defensive' and 'offensive' option without any explicit or objective appeal or reference to those criteria and that is very very problematic, fallacious and partial/subjective when arguing over the better general strategic approach to the game of TF.

That is my critical part of the argument and the constructive one is to do the only valid and thus oppositen inference in this, above characterized situation.

It's not fallacious. It might not be factual or well argued for, but there's no logical issue there, as far as I can see.

 

[Loffer]

It's not fallacious. It might not be factual or well argued for, but there's no logical issue there, as far as I can see.

A clear fallacy it is. Believe me! You cannot accept such arbitrary deviations from the general decision criteria given two instances A and B as described above thus resulting in completely different ratings between them, not in informal thinking and arguing we are dealing with here nor in scientific reasoning either, for that matter. It has most likely some fine Latin name also I don't recall or care to find out now what (mostly). But petitio principii, i.e. Circular inference is at work there, to say the least.

Edit. A trivial amendment: An inherent/implicit contradiction at play there is also, of course, undeniably.

 

[Mestaruus]

I love hockey and watching these games(normally) but Marjamaki is really killing the fun.

Exactly. National hockey is the most important form of hockey for me and watching Marjamäki's national team is slowly killing it for me. There is still a chance that he learns from mistakes and is maybe capable of changing the play style and if he keeps his job next season he could change things completely. I'm little bit doubtful about him changing it but there's always a chance.

 

[rduck1]

A clear fallacy it is. Believe me! You cannot accept such arbitrary deviations from the general decision criteria given two instances A and B as described above thus resulting in completely different ratings between them, not in informal thinking and arguing we are dealing with here nor in scientific reasoning either, for that matter. It has most likely some fine Latin name also I don't recall or care to find out now what (mostly). But petitio principii, i.e. Circular inference is at work there, to say the least.

I can't find any justification presented for why the CAN result was due to the offensive system, so I cannot see how it can contradict with the reasoning given for why the SWE result wasn't. Incompleteness is the issue here, not illogicality. Let us wait and see if the case will be made.

 

[Loffer]

I can't find any justification presented for why the CAN result was due to the offensive system, so I cannot see how it can contradict with the reasoning given for why the SWE result wasn't. Incompleteness is the issue here, not illogicality. Let us wait and see if the case will be made.

Incompleteness or not. That is the nature of this informal everyday reasoning, arguing and stating also here at HFBoards, like it or not. And thus the criteria for fallacies and criticism hold here also.

And I have pointed out the illogicality, contradictions, circularity and subjective partiality in honorable (and after this fallacy still most honorable) mr. FiLe's argumentation in this very matter

Thank you!

 

[Esko6]

Fourth place after a really bad tournament is way better than expected, but it unfortunately will make it harder to change the style considering it got this "success".

On the other hand, when Aho, Rantanen and Honka are the most impressive players, the team is maybe a bit too green to be great.

 

[FiLe]

People complaining about Marjamäki's playstyle really should keep in mind that playstyle is, in large part, also dictated by the material available. A team like this - the player's skill levels being what they are - simply is and was grossly incapable of playing fresh, active, offensively creative hockey, no matter how much you whined about it and wanted to see them try it.

Well, in fact they did, a couple of times - in the Canada game and now in the last period vs. Russia. Well, if we wish to be pedantic, I can't say these games were lost because of it - but it sure as heck didn't help them win. And given how you guys weren't happy either way (though Nikita Kucherov sure was), it seriously feels like one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations. At the very least, playing more active hockey would have required a better goalie than either Säteri or Korpisalo proved to be.

Ultimately, the playstyle and the game plan for this tournament was just fine, once we accept the realities of the material available. I personally felt far more frustrated with the Nose last year, and how kept that squad in far too short a leash.

But that's not to say this was the best they could have done, no matter what. What really did us in was not the "anti-hockey" - it was special teams. Our PK was quite mediocre, and our PP pretty damn teethless. Apart from Aho and Rantanen, we didn't really have world class assets to put out there, and the somewhat serviceable ones were in short supply. For example, as reliable as a workhorse like Pyörälä is, in most teams he's part of, he would have no business being part of the PP units.

Maybe what they could have done - and this is part hindsight, so don't go lynching anybody - was strike a balance between conservative, defense first 5-on-5 game and having more talent that could perhaps not do much more on ES except play it safe, but who would then have unique abilities that would be assets on special teams. Simply put, shooters. We didn't get Laine, but Late could've picked Palola, and, well, Pulkkinen was available too.

In a nutshell, accept the realities of the material available and play boring but effective "anti"-hockey when need be, but when you get those opportunities to do more than that, make sure you have at least some talent out there who can.

Now, then. However. Even if demanding a more active playstyle was a complete pipe dream and, frankly, those who demanded it had no idea what they were wishing for, I'm not sure I can say we can hope to keep up with the realities of modern hockey even by playing defense first - at least with our currently established names. Guys like Kemppainen, Pyörälä, Kukkonen, Järvinen, Jaakola, etc, may be slowly becoming dead weight even if we accept that we can't play more active hockey with them. Perhaps one of the amends Marjamäki should make for next year is starting to look for players who can. Weed out a new core from that mass in Europe - one that is more mobile. (Even if it costs us some more EHT games and gives a bunch of Karjala Caps some more grey hairs.) The aim would not be finding players who can be completely unleashed, but the kind of players who can stick to our current brand of hockey - and at least be effective with it.

 

[Loffer]

People complaining about Marjamäki's playstyle really should keep in mind that playstyle is, in large part, also dictated by the material available. A team like this - the player's skill levels being what they are - simply is and was grossly incapable of playing fresh, active, offensively creative hockey, no matter how much you whined about it and wanted to see them try it.

Well, in fact they did, a couple of times - in the Canada game and now in the last period vs. Russia. Well, if we wish to be pedantic, I can't say these games were lost because of it - but it sure as heck didn't help them win. And given how you guys weren't happy either way (though Nikita Kucherov sure was), it seriously feels like one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations. At the very least, playing more active hockey would have required a better goalie than either Säteri or Korpisalo proved to be.

Ultimately, the playstyle and the game plan for this tournament was just fine, once we accept the realities of the material available. I personally felt far more frustrated with the Nose last year, and how kept that squad in far too short a leash.

But that's not to say this was the best they could have done, no matter what. What really did us in was not the "anti-hockey" - it was special teams. Our PK was quite mediocre, and our PP pretty damn teethless. Apart from Aho and Rantanen, we didn't really have world class assets to put out there, and the somewhat serviceable ones were in short supply. For example, as reliable as a workhorse like Pyörälä is, in most teams he's part of, he would have no business being part of the PP units.

Maybe what they could have done - and this is part hindsight, so don't go lynching anybody - was strike a balance between conservative, defense first 5-on-5 game and having more talent that could perhaps not do much more on ES except play it safe, but who would then have unique abilities that would be assets on special teams. Simply put, shooters. We didn't get Laine, but Late could've picked Palola, and, well, Pulkkinen was available too.

In a nutshell, accept the realities of the material available and play boring but effective "anti"-hockey when need be, but when you get those opportunities to do more than that, make sure you have at least some talent out there who can.

Now, then. However. Even if demanding a more active playstyle was a complete pipe dream and, frankly, those who demanded it had no idea what they were wishing for, I'm not sure I can say we can hope to keep up with the realities of modern hockey even by playing defense first - at least with our currently established names. Guys like Kemppainen, Pyörälä, Kukkonen, Järvinen, Jaakola, etc, may be slowly becoming dead weight even if we accept that we can't play more active hockey with them. Perhaps one of the amends Marjamäki should make for next year is starting to look for players who can. Weed out a new core from that mass in Europe - one that is more mobile. (Even if it costs us some more EHT games and gives a bunch of Karjala Caps some more grey hairs.) The aim would not be finding players who can be completely unleashed, but the kind of players who can stick to our current brand of hockey - and at least be effective with it.

Eloquently put, as usual, mr. FiLe. From that 5/5. Your words carry their own weight and have some deep and tested wisdom in them.

But regardless, I say time for eloquence and old wisdom is over. To the barricades! A thorough revolution in the system and all the vets with no whatsoever offensive surplus for the team OUT and OUT (and a one-way ticket to Oulu!)

Bring in the fresh, developing greenhorns and young guns! And let's start to play dynamic and brave new brand of good ol HOCKEY! Damn!

 

[rduck1]

We didn't get Laine, but Late could've picked Palola, and, well, Pulkkinen was available too.

This is the biggest thing here. The secondary scoring options here were both Aaltonens and Puljujärvi -- all of them gambles to some extent, and that's honestly too few to begin with. And of course in the end they ended up taking turns in the press box...

I hope the lesson learnt here is that when there's a choice between a JoonasKemppainen and a JaniLajunen, the answer can't be "I'll take both, and make Pihlström a center too".

 

[Couchcaptain]

Marjamäki is disgrace to Finnish hockey. What an absolute puke of an coach he is. He seems to understand nothing about modern hockey.
I hate how he made that team to play so soft and slow hockey, terrible to watch. The way to go against Russia should have been physical, hard hitting playstyle. I hate how Marjamäki seems to understand nothing about the physical side of the game.
Hope he gets fired, ASAP.

 

[FiLe]

I hope the lesson learnt here is that when there's a choice between a JoonasKemppainen and a JaniLajunen, the answer can't be "I'll take both, and make Pihlström a center too".

The last thing I want to see Marjamäki do is repeat the mistakes he did here. Luckily, I'm fairly confident that he doesn't.

Though I can't guarantee his idea of a fix is always exactly the same as some people who are not the head coach of Team Finland think it should be.

 

[Loffer]

As I want and as I am obliged & justified in a sense to the last word in this issue, and if I am not, just feel free to take it away from me like a friggin lollipop from a child - I must further clarify that being a dull conservative in this crucial and urgent question is a wrong way to go (sure, this way to put it might also be seen as a false dichotomy, a dilemma not representing the situation adequately, and I am ready to risk this possibility); thus, swearing on the "virtues" and "goods" of taking a cautious stance at the face of the inevitable rebuild of Team Finland is just a way to prolong and delay the needed revolution. And anyway, it's been done long enough, and the new bright set of ideas must be carried in the now dim house of Finnish hockey which has subsisted too long in the long authoritative shadow of Kummola and his legacy and loyalists. And yes, it will be the case still, after this post but the new winds are rising in the horizon, and we should regardless come up with something else and more acute on these boards but that "hiljaa hyva tulee" hyssyttely which I hate, hah! Because that attitude is just a way of maintaining the obsolete status quo as long as possible hindering and slowing the inevitable change in and around any issue in a need of a fundamental and drastic change in life, also in this national team thing of hockey.

So, no matter if Team Finland loses one two goals more in one two more games at WHC during the transitional stage by deploying this new bold set of principles for its modern offensively oriented game combined with the simultanoeus and complete change of the default roster in favour of the so called young guns, it is in any case only shipping to the future, in Finnish as if putting money in the bank. -Besides, there is not even any plausible guarantee and I do question the assumption strongly that this "transition stage" of brave new hockey played by the next generation of players (without the dead weight of the vets) would be less successful and result in worse results even temporarily and short term than the current turtling tactics screaming the bleak "realities" of "being so ****ing bad, slow and tired" it is not even funny.

So, I conclude we need a revolution and we need it now. At the latest a (one more suffered) year from now.

 

[Mestaruus]

I'm not that disappointed that Finland lost to SWE or Canada but the manner they lost was so disappointing. These opponents had huge material advantages sure but some other coach could have made this team over achieve in more games than just few games and make SWE & CAN games closer.

If Marjamäki stays, I hope he at least changes many of the assistant coaches and replaces them with some people with more spirit or fire & coaches with some player background. I don't think Immonen is the right type despite of player background.

 

[ChicagoBullsFan]

http://yle.fi/urheilu/3-9625526
Sad but true.

Finland must start change player generation immediately and not in the future.
It's not enough there's 5 players of new generation ( Aho,Rantanen,Puljujärvi,Lehtonen, Honka).

And rest of the team are useless slow old farts like J-M Aaltonen, Hietanen, Kukkonen, Jaakola, Ohtamaa, Pihlström, Pyörälä etc.
All those gentlemen's best of before date has expired 3 yrs ago.

Guys like Ristolainen,Saarela, Kuokkanen,Koivula Tolvanen,Vesalainen,Ikonen, Heiskanen,Vaakanainen,Juolevi,Välimäki, Niemeläinen,Salo, etc are the future of team Finland.
But somehow i have feeling Finland's player generation won't change so long when Marjamäki is head coach so this same **** will continue next season ( hopefully i'm wrong).

 

[BB88]

They scored amazing 1 goal at the World Cup with different roster, Marjamaki just failed to play a style of hockey that's needed in todays game.
Speed and skill, speed and skill.

All season team Finland was slow, boring and players weren't having fun.

Exactly. National hockey is the most important form of hockey for me and watching Marjamäki's national team is slowly killing it for me. There is still a chance that he learns from mistakes and is maybe capable of changing the play style and if he keeps his job next season he could change things completely. I'm little bit doubtful about him changing it but there's always a chance.

I just read a good article from Hiitelainen on IS saying the same, Marjamaki needs to realize it's time to change, in so many ways.