Apparently Rene Fasel is just as insane as Bettman

[Jussi]

At the men's level Finland plays defensive hockey because they don't have the skill level compete any other way against the big countries. Anyone who watches league hockey knows that defensive systems help less skilled teams be competitive, the downside is that it sucks the entertainment level right out of the sport.

At the men's level we ideally play puck control/possession hockey but when the talent level is decreased too much due to injuries (like in Sochi 2014) we have to adjust our tactics depending on the opponent. "Our Game" requires competent centers and we just didn't have enough of those healthy at the Olympics. Add in Koivu, Filppula and Barkov and that automatically improves our puck possession and thus offense. Our recent WJC squad was really lacking in centers having such qualities compared to the previous year's team and the result was evident on the ice.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

And ironically also Canada collapsed around its goal and played ultra defensively in Sochi. It's also ironic that if Canada does that, it just shows how dominating the team is defensively. If other teams do that it just shows that the players are not skilled enough to play properly against stronger opponent. Yeah, sure. Apparently other teams should just let super stars to walk in the slot and score, because otherwise it's too difficult for star players to prove their mad skillz.

I wonder how Finnish grinders made most goals in the tournament (+40% when compared to super hyper skilled Canadian hockey gods)? I also wonder that if Canada has so ultra skilled players, why can't they demolish even some Latvia or Norway with their A-team? Mr Kanadensisk already drew the "players did not care/didn't put best effort" card, which is the ultimate desperation move when the game and results does not reflect how things look on paper (super stars vs pathetic euro grinders) to someone.

Canada's defence was close to perfect, but I don't think anyone who watched the games would say that we played defensive hockey. The shot totals and puck possession time in the offensive zone were ridiculously in favour of Canada throughout the tournament.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

and some people make poor analogies

Canada 3-1 Norway
Canada 6-0 Austria
Canada 2-1 Finland
Canada 2-1 Latvia

So the only game that Canada cared about and tried hard was the Austrian game? Why specifically that game?

Actually if you know the story it is a pretty good analogy. Slovenia beat Austria 4-0, so I'm not sure Canada beating them 6-0 really indicates anything.

 

[roto]

Canada's defence was close to perfect, but I don't think anyone who watched the games would say that we played defensive hockey. The shot totals and puck possession time in the offensive zone were ridiculously in favour of Canada throughout the tournament.

It's true that Canada was not "all on defense", and I didn't claim that. I agree that Canada had puck a lot, especially against Latvia. Still, when Canada didn't have the puck, it defended very tightly like other teams. Especially in own zone it stayed inside the game like others. Was it entertaining to watch? No. Was it effective? Yes. Was it different than what other teams did? Not.

I just don't understand why good and tight defense is something bad and unentertaining, but it magically changes to "close to perfect" or "dominating" when Canada is doing it. How should other teams defend against Canada so that you would be satisfied? Weakly and let them score? Should the defensemen rush themselves outside of the forwards and give free scoring chances? If defenders are not supposed to play themselves out in NHL why they should do it against Canada in international games?

The weirdest thing is when Canadian fan complains that weaker countries play trap and collapse. By reading HFBoards threads one could get to conclusion that particularly Canada is able to destroy weak defenses of other teams almost single-handedly using the star forwards. In reality it's not easy for Canada's B/C teams in WHC and it doesn't seem to be much easier for A-team either.

 

[JackSlater]

It's true that Canada was not "all on defense", and I didn't claim that. I agree that Canada had puck a lot, especially against Latvia. Still, when Canada didn't have the puck, it defended very tightly like other teams. Especially in own zone it stayed inside the game like others. Was it entertaining to watch? No. Was it effective? Yes. Was it different than what other teams did? Not.

It was completely different. He is talking about when other teams play in a passive shell, just like Finland did against Canada, and absorb pressure and wait for the right bounce or an opportunity to counter attack. That is completely different from what Canada did, as Canada held onto the puck against every team and comfortably generated more scoring chances than their opposition in every game. Teams are entitled to play whatever way they want and if it is their best chance to win then go for it by all means, but to say that Canada played the same way as Finland/Swiss/Czech or whoever else typically do is completely inaccurate. There are different ways to play excellent defensive hockey.

 

[roto]

It was completely different. He is talking about when other teams play in a passive shell, just like Finland did against Canada, and absorb pressure and wait for the right bounce or an opportunity to counter attack. That is completely different from what Canada did, as Canada held onto the puck against every team and comfortably generated more scoring chances than their opposition in every game. Teams are entitled to play whatever way they want and if it is their best chance to win then go for it by all means, but to say that Canada played the same way as Finland/Swiss/Czech or whoever else typically do is completely inaccurate. There are different ways to play excellent defensive hockey.

Of course it looks different when Canada defends against Latvia and vice versa. Canada can defend more actively, but the end result is the same: defenders stay inside and try to get the puck.

It makes absolutely no sense to blame if some team defends by staying inside and the other team is unable break it to get good scoring chances. A good team should be able to break those defensive formations, because even more mediocre teams can do it.

Ice hockey (and soccer for example) provide means to win by player material which looks way inferior. The skill levels between pro players in ice hockey is, though, such small that Norway can compete with Canada without being blown out, because it's a team sport and not a skills competition.

 

[JackSlater]

Of course it looks different when Canada defends against Latvia and vice versa. Canada can defend more actively, but the end result is the same: defenders stay inside and try to get the puck.

It has nothing to do with Latvia (I don't know why you brought them up twice) as Canada controlled possession in every game. If the end result is "plays well defensively" then yes, but they are tactically and stylistically very different, which is what he said. That Canada excelled defensively does not mean that Canada "collapsed around its goal and played ultra defensively". It doesn't make much of a difference, but it is inaccurate. Canada was actually very aggressive defensively, which the other teams mentioned were not.

It makes absolutely no sense to blame if some team defends by staying inside and the other team is unable break it to get good scoring chances. A good team should be able to break those defensive formations, because even more mediocre teams can do it.

They can play however they want, and if that is the strategy that provides them with the best opportunity to win then they should use it. It tends to be a reflection of individual ability, but teams are built to win as opposed to look impressive.

 

[nobuddy]

Give me 16 teams.

Group A: Canada, Switzerland, Latvia, Austria
Group B: Sweden, Slovakia, Norway, Slovenia
Group C: United States, Czech Republic, Denmark, France
Group D: Russia, Finland, Germany, Belarus


It's really that simple. There's lots of potential cinderellas, five clear contenders, plenty of growing hockey nations to showcase the sport to.

 

[Elvs]

Give me 16 teams.

Group A: Canada, Switzerland, Latvia, Austria
Group B: Sweden, Slovakia, Norway, Slovenia
Group C: United States, Czech Republic, Denmark, France
Group D: Russia, Finland, Germany, Belarus

It's really that simple. There's lots of potential cinderellas, five clear contenders, plenty of growing hockey nations to showcase the sport to.

This. Sure only half the teams can compete for medals, but the same thing can be said about the World Cup in soccer. With this format no star players are left out and the tournament is being marketed to a wider audience. Also with this format NHL teams could find new talent on the smaller ice.

 

[Urbanskog]

Not to prevent a bunch of 12-0 games. Sorry. 8 is enough.

When was the last time you watched international hockey? The 80s?

We'll already be punished enough by having deadly boring grind it out teams like Finland there, anymore than 6 teams right now is too many if the product is going to be even somewhat entertaining.

You might think that watching teams outside of the Big Six might be boring, but I'm sure most would disagree.

Sure, but that's what the World Championships are for.

Why should the WHC be the only tournament with more teams?

 

[ForumNamePending]

Actually if you know the story it is a pretty good analogy. Slovenia beat Austria 4-0, so I'm not sure Canada beating them 6-0 really indicates anything.

Oh, I'm familiar with Aesop... So ya, I guess I have an issue with your premise itself and not the fable you are referencing to support your premise.

I don't think referencing a game where one of the teams showed up hung over and/or half in the bag is the best example to support your argument.

Do I think it's likely that before a game Canada, at least on some level, 'gets up' more for the US or Russian than they do for Austria or Norway? Sure. If that is the case however I think it is also fair to say that back in the day Canada and the USSR 'got up' more for each other than most of the other teams but that didn't stop either one from always destroying a perennial whipping boy like Finland... And that sort of brings us back to my original point/post. Another poster stated what made the CC/WCups special was there wasn't a lot of blow outs and that simply isn't true as there have been plenty of lopsided scores.

 

[eyetest is useless]

Give me 16 teams.

Group A: Canada, Switzerland, Latvia, Austria
Group B: Sweden, Slovakia, Norway, Slovenia
Group C: United States, Czech Republic, Denmark, France
Group D: Russia, Finland, Germany, Belarus


It's really that simple. There's lots of potential cinderellas, five clear contenders, plenty of growing hockey nations to showcase the sport to.

This. Sure only half the teams can compete for medals, but the same thing can be said about the World Cup in soccer. With this format no star players are left out and the tournament is being marketed to a wider audience. Also with this format NHL teams could find new talent on the smaller ice.

in a perfect world this, but you know they won't be able to figure something out wrt dates/money distribution.

 

[gqmixmaster]

It's incomprehensible as to why they're even pondering over this. Just bring in Switzerland and Slovakia (and maybe Germany and Denmark/Belarus/Latvia) and they'd be set. Why even think about drifting away from the basic concept of national team competition?

there aren't enough representatives in the nhlpa from those countries

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

You might think that watching teams outside of the Big Six might be boring, but I'm sure most would disagree.

Most of the world's hockey players and fans are on this side of the Atlantic and if there is one thing I can be sure of it is that you do not speak for us.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Oh, I'm familiar with Aesop... So ya, I guess I have an issue with your premise itself and not the fable you are referencing to support your premise.

I don't think referencing a game where one of the teams showed up hung over and/or half in the bag is the best example to support your argument.

Do I think it's likely that before a game Canada, at least on some level, 'gets up' more for the US or Russian than they do for Austria or Norway? Sure. If that is the case however I think it is also fair to say that back in the day Canada and the USSR 'got up' more for each other than most of the other teams but that didn't stop either one from always destroying a perennial whipping boy like Finland... And that sort of brings us back to my original point/post. Another poster stated what made the CC/WCups special was there wasn't a lot of blow outs and that simply isn't true as there have been plenty of lopsided scores.

It was much harder to make the playoff games in the CCup's, thus no one could afford to coast through the first round. In the OG the opening round for the top teams is basically a bunch of glorified exhibition games since no one gets eliminated by them.

 

[Zine]

Most of the world's hockey players and fans are on this side of the Atlantic and if there is one thing I can be sure of it is that you do not speak for us.

But you don't speak for all North Americans.

Based on this thread and others, it appears most hockey fans (Euro and NA alike) want a tourney with participants beyond the 'top 6'.....especially Slovakia and Switzerland.

 

[NyQuil]

8 teams is fine.

I just don't see the point in having the same format/number of teams as the WHC.

 

[Zine]

For a World Cup style tourney, I wouldn't mind 10 teams.

-2 groups of 5 teams. Top 4 from each group advance to single elimination.

 

[InglewoodJack]

Tournaments with 6-8 teams are boring. We know all these countries are good, they all love hockey, and we know at the end of the day of the 6 confirmed teams, there's like 4 teams with actual chances to win anyways. What that means for me, is that it doesn't A) make for a particularly interesting tournament, nor does it grow the game, or show minor hockey countries that they can compete with the big boys. While I understand that a game between say, France and Italy (should they include minor countries) would not sell very well in Canada, especially at an arena like the AC, I think the point of these tournaments is to grow the game.

Not to mention, you're probably going to see a bunch of underachieving superstars play at a meaningless tournament. It would be cool to see a change.

 

[Inkling]

Any hockey tournament with Latvia is a better hockey tournament. I remember their fans from the 2009 World Juniors and they were great.

 

[ForumNamePending]

It was much harder to make the playoff games in the CCup's, thus no one could afford to coast through the first round. In the OG the opening round for the top teams is basically a bunch of glorified exhibition games since no one gets eliminated by them.

In '06 the % of teams that made the playoffs was the same as most of the Canada Cups and less than both WCups. I'll be the first to admit the format for the last 2 Olympics has been kind of dumb but I don't think the prelim round (or whatever they call it) is meaningless. Teams are still playing for a bye to the QF and and/or an easier bracket (at least in theory) in the knockout rounds.

And once again none of this changes my original point... The CC/WCups had plenty of blowouts.

 

[QnebO]

So we should always play offensive hockey even if we then lose some games so some poster here would be happy

Had Canada team that wasn't as talented, they would do the same. We all care about is win after all when playing.

Team Canada in Spengler cup played hack and slash defense and dump and chase, why is that they didin't dominate with their offensive tactics?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

In '06 the % of teams that made the playoffs was the same as most of the Canada Cups and less than both WCups. I'll be the first to admit the format for the last 2 Olympics has been kind of dumb but I don't think the prelim round (or whatever they call it) is meaningless. Teams are still playing for a bye to the QF and and/or an easier bracket (at least in theory) in the knockout rounds.

And once again none of this changes my original point... The CC/WCups had plenty of blowouts.

It's not just the last two, the '98 and '02 OG were the same for the top teams. In '06 the top 8 teams made it to the playoffs. In the Canada Cup only the top 2 or 4 did, so it obviously a completely different situation. Furthermore goal differential may have come into play in determining who made it through to the playoffs in the Canada Cups so there was a reason to run up the score. In short I don't think the number of blowouts necessarily reflects the competitive balance as you first suggested.

 

[Bures Elbow]

Give me 16 teams.

Group A: Canada, Switzerland, Latvia, Austria
Group B: Sweden, Slovakia, Norway, Slovenia
Group C: United States, Czech Republic, Denmark, France
Group D: Russia, Finland, Germany, Belarus


It's really that simple. There's lots of potential cinderellas, five clear contenders, plenty of growing hockey nations to showcase the sport to.

Perfect, you read my mind.

 

[Exarz]

8 teams is fine.

I just don't see the point in having the same format/number of teams as the WHC.

This would be a "real" best on best WHC to show the fair rankings. I can guarentee the final result would be different than the IIHF WHC with all NHL players eligible