WC: 2023 IIHF World Championship Division II

Oh so in addition to 41 y.o. Camenzind Australia is also debuting 39 y.o. Czech Tomas Landa, 35 y.o. American John Kennedy and 36 y.o. Russo-Estonian Vadim Virjassov. I must say that is pretty pathetic.
Though it must be said that all have been active in Australia for a very long time already and are among the best players in the domestic league, so besides their fairly advanced age not much speaks against their nomination. But it's a very old roster that they have indeed, quite the contrast to Spain in particular.
 
Though it must be said that all have been active in Australia for a very long time already and are among the best players in the domestic league, so besides their fairly advanced age not much speaks against their nomination.
It's not about some moral high ground in this case but about the point ozo is making: how does Australian hockey benefit from a 36-year-old who at his peak was a mediocre player for the juggernaut of hockey that is Estonia taking away the roster spot from the local? Yes, they will medal in D2A at the cost of being actively detrimental to their program.

Could have taken any of their USPHL kids and almost certainly achieved the same result while investing in the player that's going to represent them for another 20 years.

I understand on a case-by-case basis some exceptions can be made, like it's not even funny how different the level Camenzind played at is from the one regular Australian is ever going to reach, maybe it is actually beneficial to have someone like that around. But then it's not 1 guy but 4 and most of whom haven't actually played real pro hockey either and probably only moved to Australia because of it to begin with, it's obviously that's the new "strategy" en masse and what possible benefit could be had here?

The ultimate upside is to move up to D1B for a year on the back of these geezers and be slapped around there. And even that's unlikely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kaiser matias
That's the other extreme of course, but I think the gap is in slightly older players in their early 20s whether then that's because of the pandemic or something else. I'd imagine several of these kids will get promoted to the senior team in the upcoming years.
 
So Div 2 (B) - UAE are 2-0.... Turkiye beat Mexico 5-0... I seem to recall Turkiye as a division 3 staple so them being able to stay in Div 2 would be an accomplishment.

The UAE seem to really be taking their hockey seriously...
 
The UAE seem to really be taking their hockey seriously...
Indeed, great to see a country reaping the rewards of investing in the development of the sport, resulting in excellent performances from their top scorers in this tournament, those being (checks notes) Ilia Chuikov, Sergei Kuznetsov and Maxim Zaknarau, plus their starting netminder Mate Tomljenovic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kaiser matias
Indeed, great to see a country reaping the rewards of investing in the development of the sport, resulting in excellent performances from their top scorers in this tournament, those being (checks notes) Ilia Chuikov, Sergei Kuznetsov and Maxim Zaknarau, plus their starting netminder Mate Tomljenovic.
Heeey, don't be snarly like that, they are very serious about buying their hockey team...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimXVX
Knowing that there are quite a few half-decent hockey players among those youngsters that have fled the special military operation to the UAE, their talent pipeline isn't about to run dry anytime soon either.
 
Knowing that there are quite a few half-decent hockey players among those youngsters that have fled the special military operation to the UAE, their talent pipeline isn't about to run dry anytime soon either.
Same applies to Georgia, Israel as well though, maybe even Bulgaria. Soon entire division 2 will be mostly Russians vs Russians, it's truly getting out of hand.
 
Meanwhile at 1A, GB is ready to make that triumphant return to the elite with 5 fresh imports while their U18s and U20s are getting their face bashed in by Croatia. Fascinating stuff.

Looking forward to reading some more posts by certain GB fans about how imports don't really make the difference for them :laugh:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tornaado66
Meanwhile at 1A, GB is ready to make that triumphant return to the elite with 5 fresh imports while their U18s and U20s are getting their face bashed in by Croatia. Fascinating stuff.

Looking forward to reading some more posts by certain GB fans about how imports don't really make the difference for them :laugh:
maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think there is at least *some* difference between Canadians who have some familial connection to the UK or have been settled there for a longer length of time than say the UAE spending big bucks to entice a few random Russians and Belarussians who would otherwise have nothing to do with the country...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eye of Ra
maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think there is at least *some* difference between Canadians who have some familial connection to the UK or have been settled there for a longer length of time than say the UAE spending big bucks to entice a few random Russians and Belarussians who would otherwise have nothing to do with the country...
Yes, I agree, from the ethical perspective there is a difference, from the disconnect between the NT ranking and what the program is actually capable of, there isn't.

There are basically 2 attempts at "mitigating circumstances" in the whole naturalization thing:

1) the player has ethnic roots and/or has lived in the country for so long he became our own;
2) the player is barely as good as most of our local guys, we only need him to fill some certain hole in the lineup or add some depth.

So sure, there are the worst offenders like China or Kazakhstan and there is Poland icing a single John Murray or Korea still playing the ghost of Matt Dalton [almost] everyone is willing to give a free pass to.

Same way with the GB, when you had a single import in the lineup nobody cared that much. At this point, it's around 10 (depending on how you count those), half of the roster so I don't really care how familiar their connection is. In my eyes, the dam has clearly broken and the federation is just doing whatever they can to boost the results while as I said, the actual products of their program are playing at the D2A for the 7th year in a row. These "familiar connection" arguments just become the "but we are still better than THOSE guys" copium.
 
Last edited:
Man... sour bunch in here.. no one counts unless completely organically grown... good to know. Should probably reduce hockey to 14 countries that can self sustain... ban everyone else.
 
Man... sour bunch in here.. no one counts unless completely organically grown... good to know. Should probably reduce hockey to 14 countries that can self sustain... ban everyone else.
having 20 male residents of one country that can/want to play hockey truly is an exclusive club.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoundAndFury
Man... sour bunch in here.. no one counts unless completely organically grown... good to know. Should probably reduce hockey to 14 countries that can self sustain... ban everyone else.
Ridiculous take.

The whole concept of "national team" is that it should be a national team, no? Otherwise, what is it really representing?
 
Meanwhile at 1A, GB is ready to make that triumphant return to the elite with 5 fresh imports while their U18s and U20s are getting their face bashed in by Croatia. Fascinating stuff.

Looking forward to reading some more posts by certain GB fans about how imports don't really make the difference for them :laugh:
Actually I think you’ll find a lot of Brits, myself included, would much rather our senior team was devoid of any imports even if meant playing a couple of divisions lower like our junior sides.
 
Same way with the GB, when you had a single import in the lineup nobody cared that much. At this point, it's around 10 (depending on how you count those), half of the roster so I don't really care how familiar their connection is. In my eyes, the dam has clearly broken and the federation is just doing whatever they can to boost the results while as I said, the actual products of their program are playing at the D2A for the 7th year in a row. These "familiar connection" arguments just become the "but we are still better than THOSE guys" copium.

Agree and disagree - our youth program is underachieving given the resources it has, that can't be denied, but when you talk about 'actual products of the program' then where do you draw the line? It's quite clear that other countries like for instance Croatia and Bulgaria are starting to take advantage of sending their players to places like Czechia and Sweden to take advantage of their respective infrastructure (and indeed they should!), I don't think the national team necessarily has to only reflect the competence of the country in question's native infrastructure.

Does our federation really also have a coherent vision on where and what they want GB Ice hockey to be? I mean personally I don't see it, and I might even suggest that without Russell at the helm some of these 'marginal' Brits (or however you want to call it) might not be answering the call anyway, certainly we'd struggle to convince too many EIHL high-flyers if the team were to somehow slump back into D1B.
Indeed, the fact that Scott Conway, an English born player and by a distance the league's top-point scorer seems fine sitting out what could be a crucial D1A campaign in order to 'rest' suggests to me that the federation are very much *not* doing all they can to convince their best eligible players to pull on the jersey!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PanniniClaus
Ridiculous take.

The whole concept of "national team" is that it should be a national team, no? Otherwise, what is it really representing?
But is it not ok to have these placeholders and work towards someday having the infrastructure and the resources to build your own?

In Fifa - there are very few countries, even the biggest ones, that don't have dual nationals in the team. Doesn't mean you should tear the whole thing down.
 
Addition on philosophy of imported players: I'm genuinely okay with it as long as it's not a naturalisation purely for hockey/money reasons.

If there are some North American players who genuinely couldn't give a toss about Britain or playing for the team, and just see it as a nice lark at the end of their career, then yeah, I wouldn't be sorry to see them not play. That said, I can't really speak for the feelings of all of our players, and do have the impression that most of the team that aren't UK-born, have UK-born parents/grandparents or have at least lived here for more than the minimum 2 years.
 
But is it not ok to have these placeholders and work towards someday having the infrastructure and the resources to build your own?

In Fifa - there are very few countries, even the biggest ones, that don't have dual nationals in the team. Doesn't mean you should tear the whole thing down.
In soccer those countries produce excess talent that is then absorbed by the lesser nations to complement their own lineups. The end result is that most of the best footballers in the world are involved in national team football. In hockey we generally have third-rate (even that is often generous) Canadians or Russians playing for countries that are unable to produce any serious talent of their own. Players that can't quite make Team Canada aren't involved in national team hockey at all.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad