I'm going to save my precise criticism of this team as my thoughts are well known. The below is not a knee jerk based on the results of this tournament; this is simply my sincere thoughts after observing Hockey Canada's decision-making with respect to international play at all levels the last decade or so.
1. It starts at the U-17 level. I don't care if two Canadian teams can make it to the finals of the U-17 like this year - stop taking more than one team to this tournament. There are plenty of ways to evaluate talent and every other nation does this without sending multiple teams to tournaments (I get Canada often has more depth). European teams (and the USA) at the U-20 level have a lot more experience playing together as their core players often play U-17, U-18, U-20 and at various international competitions each year (that Canada does not take part in). Pick the best 23 U-17 Canadian players for this competition and start playing them together at this level.
2. Stop it with the "graduated" nonsense at the U-18/Hlinka level. No other nation would handcuff themselves by refusing to roster one of their best players simply because they have already played in a U-20 tournament. Again, relative to other nations, Canadian U-20 players play together far less. Insert these players into the U-18 so they can get even more familiarly with international competition and build chemistry with future linemates. Furthermore, no player should be given "exempt" status and separated from the age group based on the fact they've played in a higher level competition once before. It sends a message of entitlement.
3. Quit making firm U-20 roster decisions based on summer hockey. Some of these kids are banged up, tired after a long year, or simply aren't in game shape after several weeks away from the rink. How many times have we heard McKenzie, Wheeler, Pronman, etc. say that Hockey Canada was/wasn't enamored with a player at the summer camp and this cemented their view of the player.
4. As others have suggested, bring back a true selection camp process. Enough with the "locks" and "frontrunners" before camp has even started. How many times in the last several years have we seen some of these guys become some of the least impactful players for Canada once the tournament begins. There are very few opportunities to truly evaluate these players on the same sheet of ice - this process needs to mean more.
5. The outdated approach to roster construction cannot be overstated. I saw someone post on X that Hockey Canada builds rosters like they are confined to a salary cap, and I couldn't agree more. Gone are the days where you need two lines of dedicated role players and mammoth shutdown defenceman. IIHF standards and officiating has essentially taken physical play out of the equation, and you certainly can't clutch and grab like Marc Staal and Ryan Parent anymore. We aren't going to physically run teams out of the rink or intimidate them. You win these tournaments now with talent, speed, skill and transition, something Hockey Canada has seriously overlooked. Guys like Cole Hutson, who may not be an elite defender but is an elite play driver, are immensely more valuable in today's international game than someone like Andrew Gibson. Prioritize skill and let the niche roles sort themselves out.
6. Related to point 5, please, for the love of God, stop with the anti-NCAA bias. NCAA hockey is some of the most fast-paced, challenging hockey that a U-20 player can play. Year after year I see American players that make plays at lightning speed and with urgency because the NCAA game has conditioned them to play that way. There is far more time and space in the CHL, and you can see the difference when we play the USA. Michael Hage is one of the best forwards in the NCAA this year (even on par with some of the top Americans) and he was one of the best in the USHL last year, and in neither case did he receive consideration from Hockey Canada for no reason other than he chose the "wrong" league. I'm hoping the increased integration of the CHL-NCAA due to the recent rule changes will force Hockey Canada's hand here.
7. I love the idea of a dedicated U-20 coach suggested by a poster above for the same reasons.
There was a time when Hockey Canada could defend its decisions and approach because it was truly the gold standard, but other nations have adapted and innovated and this is no longer the case. The cliche "Canadian way" of constructing international teams simply has to stop because it is no longer viable at the U-20 level.
