World Cup: 2020 World Cup in Doubt if NHL CBA Reopened

[TorstenFrings]

So yeah this is a Texan astronaut and a Finnish super celebrity we adopted because his granddaddy was born in Finland back in the day:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9604274

Too bad there's no need, or will, to fight over our souls. We'd be suckers for this crap.

We also gotta claim Mackinnon, his lastname is pronounced more correctly in Finnish by the pbp guys than any of our legit guy's.

Sure, but space is pretty interesting on its own already. Not sure how many people would actually watch cricket, just because some players grandmother was German. Leonardo di Caprio's grandmother was though, which German TV has told me way more often than I wanted to hear it. So there is always that. You are right.

Finnish looks like a fun language, I should duolingo that.

P.S.: Do we only get top claim players or do we also have to give Draisaitl and Kühnhackl to the Czechs???

 

[Yakushev72]

Rigged in favour of North American teams? Canada was not able to select the Art Ross and likely Hart winner for this season and USA was not able to select multiple players due to the very rules of the tournament. The rules were terrible, but they certainly didn't favour Canada or USA.

This is a negative overall. The World Cup can be a great tournament when the people in charge let it be a best on best instead of a joke tournament with gimmick teams and unfair rules. That is apparently a big "if" though given how idiotically the NHL handled the tournament in 2016. This is also a worrying trend for international hockey in general. The NHL seems increasingly committed to using international hockey as jut another bargaining chip, and give the labour history between the NHL and the NHLPA that is obviously going to lead to a negative result for fans.

Of course its rigged in favor of NA teams, although 96% of the favored status is enjoyed by Canada. Home ice, home referees, home fans screaming to whip up the players and the native-born refs - nothing left to add to have a totally unbalanced competitive environment. Even with the gimmick teams, the 2016 version was so boring, and drew so little attention outside of Toronto, that you have to wonder whether they might consider allowing it to lay dormant for 8 to 12 years, as they have done in the past.

 

[JackSlater]

Of course its rigged in favor of NA teams, although 96% of the favored status is enjoyed by Canada. Home ice, home referees, home fans screaming to whip up the players and the native-born refs - nothing left to add to have a totally unbalanced competitive environment. Even with the gimmick teams, the 2016 version was so boring, and drew so little attention outside of Toronto, that you have to wonder whether they might consider allowing it to lay dormant for 8 to 12 years, as they have done in the past.

Considering that rigged means that the outcome is decided before the competition begins, I think we will need to see a bit more evidence before we say that the tournament was rigged. You are suggesting that there were advantages for Canada, and things like playing on NHL sized ice and in Canada are likely advantages for Canada. Just like taking away some of the best players from Canada and USA are advantages for every other nation. The goal of the tournament, not that it really matters, was clearly money and exposure. Considering what the NHL did to hurt team USA, I doubt that they gave much reasonable thought to how certain teams would perform.

 

[yarre]

I know use Euro fans aren't that interesting but for me I really started following the NHL with the mindset of "how will the Swedish Olympic team in 2006 look like". Really exciting to track what defensemen can become a part of what forwards are looking to have a breakout season. Of course I got more hooked in to NHL and have bought merchandise and whatnot so there is still revenue they have made from me due to international tournaments.

Maybe there is no direct income stream from it but really, you have to look at the bigger image...

 

[Yakushev72]

Considering that rigged means that the outcome is decided before the competition begins, I think we will need to see a bit more evidence before we say that the tournament was rigged. You are suggesting that there were advantages for Canada, and things like playing on NHL sized ice and in Canada are likely advantages for Canada. Just like taking away some of the best players from Canada and USA are advantages for every other nation. The goal of the tournament, not that it really matters, was clearly money and exposure. Considering what the NHL did to hurt team USA, I doubt that they gave much reasonable thought to how certain teams would perform.

None of that changes the fact that everything about it represented a huge advantage for, mainly Canada, to win the tournament. Whether it would have been competitive somewhere else is beside the point. It was surely ordained to be a coronation in Toronto.

 

[JackSlater]

None of that changes the fact that everything about it represented a huge advantage for, mainly Canada, to win the tournament. Whether it would have been competitive somewhere else is beside the point. It was surely ordained to be a coronation in Toronto.

It's an interesting fact that everything about the tournament was designed for Canada to win, including Canada being one of two teams placed under a specific roster restriction that prevented Canada from selecting the player who would be the top scorer in the NHL in the season that immediately followed. The reason that the tournament was in Canada is obvious - to make money. That's the reason that the NHL held the tournament. Holding it in Canada likely was beneficial to Canada, just as not allowing Canada to select its best scorer was not beneficial to Canada. Fortunately for you though the tournament was a joke, so the results are beyond irrelevant.

 

[Yakushev72]

It's an interesting fact that everything about the tournament was designed for Canada to win, including Canada being one of two teams placed under a specific roster restriction that prevented Canada from selecting the player who would be the top scorer in the NHL in the season that immediately followed. The reason that the tournament was in Canada is obvious - to make money. That's the reason that the NHL held the tournament. Holding it in Canada likely was beneficial to Canada, just as not allowing Canada to select its best scorer was not beneficial to Canada. Fortunately for you though the tournament was a joke, so the results are beyond irrelevant.

Canada already had several assist men (Crosby, Toews) to set up goal scorers, so they didn't need McDavid. At the time that the tournament was organized, no one would have ventured that Canada might lose because they didn't have their best junior age players in the lineup. That would have been thought to be ridiculous. But even with that, the advantages were so overwhelming that it made no difference in the outcome.

 

[JackSlater]

Canada already had several assist men (Crosby, Toews) to set up goal scorers, so they didn't need McDavid. At the time that the tournament was organized, no one would have ventured that Canada might lose because they didn't have their best junior age players in the lineup. That would have been thought to be ridiculous. But even with that, the advantages were so overwhelming that it made no difference in the outcome.

Aha, so Canada being unable to select its second best player is a minor inconvenience, offset by having an "assist man" like... Toews. You're right that Canada can and could still win without McDavid, primarily because Canada's biggest advantage - having a much better roster than any other country - remained. If the tournament was rigged for Canada to win, I still fail to see how removing Canada's second best player from eligibility is a viable decision.

 

[Yakushev72]

Aha, so Canada being unable to select its second best player is a minor inconvenience, offset by having an "assist man" like... Toews. You're right that Canada can and could still win without McDavid, primarily because Canada's biggest advantage - having a much better roster than any other country - remained. If the tournament was rigged for Canada to win, I still fail to see how removing Canada's second best player from eligibility is a viable decision.

I see some evidence that it is changing, but for now, if you give Canada all of the advantages, and everyone else all the disadvantages, I agree...Canada is probably going to win.

 

[DoubleGold]

So when the hell will we get a best-on-best tournament? Sigh...

 

[CokenoPepsi]

World cup has been best hockey just 2016 was bad because of the two gimmick teams

 

[JackSlater]

I see some evidence that it is changing, but for now, if you give Canada all of the advantages, and everyone else all the disadvantages, I agree...Canada is probably going to win.

So once again, "all of the advantages" includes Canada not being able to select its best scorer? You will have to share your definition of "advantage" because I fail to see how having a roster restriction in place, while four national teams do not, constitutes an advantage.

If you want to make a case that Canada was in an advantageous situation that is fine, but denying the obvious - that in some way Canada was disadvantaged by the idiotic tournament rules - just makes your claims look like bitter conspiracy theories. The tournament was meaningless, so there is no need to spin grand theories to justify yet another Russian loss. Canada has far better players than any other country does right now. Play an actual best on best in Canada, Russia (the 2014 home ice advantage didn't prove too useful that time I suppose) or Zimbabwe and Canada is the likeliest winner.

 

[Tuoppi]

If there isn't World cup anymore there could be best-on-best rivalry games before NHL season
USA-Canada
Canada-Russia
Sweden-Finland
Finland-Russia
Czech rep.-Russia
Czech rep.-Slovakia
Germany-Switzerland and so on.

 

[varsaku]

If there isn't World cup anymore there could be best-on-best rivalry games before NHL season
USA-Canada
Canada-Russia
Sweden-Finland
Finland-Russia
Czech rep.-Russia
Czech rep.-Slovakia
Germany-Switzerland and so on.

I think the NHL should do a best of seven series between Canada and United States and give up on the delusional idea of a World Cup of hockey. They could really market those games and place each game in a different city. That would definitely gain some attention.

 

[QnebO]

You mean the gimmic cup? The world championships going on right now are more valuable. I couldnt care less about world cup if theres gimmick teams. I care about this tournament with heart.. world cup was just like all star game. Not worth watching mid night.

World cup or not? Who cares if its the bettman rules, money first.

 

[Yakushev72]

So once again, "all of the advantages" includes Canada not being able to select its best scorer? You will have to share your definition of "advantage" because I fail to see how having a roster restriction in place, while four national teams do not, constitutes an advantage.

If you want to make a case that Canada was in an advantageous situation that is fine, but denying the obvious - that in some way Canada was disadvantaged by the idiotic tournament rules - just makes your claims look like bitter conspiracy theories. The tournament was meaningless, so there is no need to spin grand theories to justify yet another Russian loss. Canada has far better players than any other country does right now. Play an actual best on best in Canada, Russia (the 2014 home ice advantage didn't prove too useful that time I suppose) or Zimbabwe and Canada is the likeliest winner.

Even if McDavid was your second best player, one player won't make that big a difference in determining which teams will prevail. I personally am not that awed by McDavid being the leading scorer, because the majority of his points were secondary assists, which is nothing more than a meaningless tool to pad scoring statistics. You know, as you are entering the ice for a shift, the puck bounces off your stick and onto the stick of a teammate, who passes to a breaking teammate who scores a goal. You just accidentally got in the way of a puck, and suddenly you are awarded a point. If McDavid was a 50- or 60-goal scorer, I would be more willing to apply the superstar tag, but not yet.

 

[Nino33]

Even if McDavid was your second best player, one player won't make that big a difference in determining which teams will prevail.

I recall you expressing the exact opposite view when it was Russia without just one player

I personally am not that awed by McDavid being the leading scorer, because the majority of his points were secondary assists, which is nothing more than a meaningless tool to pad scoring statistics. You know, as you are entering the ice for a shift, the puck bounces off your stick and onto the stick of a teammate, who passes to a breaking teammate who scores a goal. You just accidentally got in the way of a puck, and suddenly you are awarded a point. If McDavid was a 50- or 60-goal scorer, I would be more willing to apply the superstar tag, but not yet.

I can't believe you used "accidentally got in the way of the puck" when describing how the NHL's leading scorer got points


By the way, this year 63% of McDavid's Assists were "first assists" (Crosby was 64%, Ovechkin 57%; looking at the other top assists players Backstrom was 50%, Getzlaf 67%, Hedman 61%, Karlsson 45%, Kane 64%, Zetterburg 69%, Scheifele 50%, Draisaitl 65% and Wheeler 69%)

Also worth noting, McDavid didn't just have the most points in the NHL this year, he also had the most first assists (and looking at goals + first assists McDavid was #1 there too).....wow, were you ever wrong

All data obtained via Stats.HockeyAnalysis.com

 

[JackSlater]

Even if McDavid was your second best player, one player won't make that big a difference in determining which teams will prevail. I personally am not that awed by McDavid being the leading scorer, because the majority of his points were secondary assists, which is nothing more than a meaningless tool to pad scoring statistics. You know, as you are entering the ice for a shift, the puck bounces off your stick and onto the stick of a teammate, who passes to a breaking teammate who scores a goal. You just accidentally got in the way of a puck, and suddenly you are awarded a point. If McDavid was a 50- or 60-goal scorer, I would be more willing to apply the superstar tag, but not yet.

There are several problems here. One is your theory that one player "won't" make a big difference, which is of course unverifiable at best, intuitively ridiculous at worst. In some instances one player could make a significant difference, or none at all. No one can guarantee, but when we are talking about the very best players in the world it is ridiculous to dismiss them so easily.

A second problem is your factually wrong information, given that of McDavid's 100 points he had 30 goals, 44 primary assists and 26 secondary assists. By my math, 26 is far from a majority in 100. I don't expect your perceptions of McDavid to match reality very much though given that I'm certain you don't watch the NHL. This doesn't really matter that much though, given that Canada being disadvantaged by the age restriction is a fact regardless of whether you consider McDavid a "superstar" based on factually wrong information.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

You know, people would be totally on board with an NHL-run international tournament if they didn't run it like a bunch of idiots.

 

[Rob]

I understand how the Euros don't like the NHL run World Cup of hockey. That it is titled in favor of the NA teams. I get it. However, the IIHF should also take some of the blame for not hosting the World Championships at a time of the year when the best hockey league in the world is dormant.

Both the NHL and the IIHF deserve blame.

 

[Xokkeu]

I understand how the Euros don't like the NHL run World Cup of hockey. That it is titled in favor of the NA teams. I get it. However, the IIHF should also take some of the blame for not hosting the World Championships at a time of the year when the best hockey league in the world is dormant.

Both the NHL and the IIHF deserve blame.

There's no real time to host it. June and July then there's no off-season for players. August some European leagues are starting up.

 

[Rob]

There's no real time to host it. June and July then there's no off-season for players. August some European leagues are starting up.

My point was that if the IIHF wanted the tournament to be a true best vs best it would host it in September before the NHL starts. Whether you like it or not the NHL is home to 95%+ of the world's best hockey players.

If they are unwilling to do that then all we have left is the NHL run World Cup and a second rate World Championships in May.

 

[Zine]

My point was that if the IIHF wanted the tournament to be a true best vs best it would host it in September before the NHL starts. Whether you like it or not the NHL is home to 95%+ of the world's best hockey players.

If they are unwilling to do that then all we have left is the NHL run World Cup and a second rate World Championships in May.

Regardless of when it's held, the World Championships will never be a best v best. It occurs too frequently. As long as its held on a yearly basis there will always be a lot of declines.

 

[Hanji]

Regardless of when it's held, the World Championships will never be a best v best. It occurs too frequently. As long as its held on a yearly basis there will always be a lot of declines.

Then the IIHF now has the opportunity to make it a best on best. Hold it once every two or four years.

 

[Xokkeu]

My point was that if the IIHF wanted the tournament to be a true best vs best it would host it in September before the NHL starts. Whether you like it or not the NHL is home to 95%+ of the world's best hockey players.

If they are unwilling to do that then all we have left is the NHL run World Cup and a second rate World Championships in May.

We don't even have a World Cup at this point