At what point is an "A squad" a "B squad"?
- Thread starter Canuckistani
- Start date
For me personally there is no a or b team when my country's colors are donned. You put the USA shirt on and you represent. However I can easily recognize the level of talent a given team might have and I can similarly adjust my expectations for each tournament. We all have a somewhat nebulous ranking of our national player pool and when there's one or two at most of players who might rank 1-23, then I suppose you could call it a b team. The only reason you would though is to try and excuse some sort of failure.
For me it's simply a matter of judging the talent level, win or lose.
Even when Canada won the WHC in 1994, 1997, 2003, 2004 and 2007, no one in Canada was under the impression that it was anything but a B or C squad that won.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,806
- 15,466
There's no exact number of players that have to be missing, the answer is going to be different for different people. The question is just how far away a roster is from the optimal roster. Missing 2-3 players is pretty much par for the course in hockey. Missing half of the roster is a different matter.
The situations in 1996 and 2005 from a Canadian perspective are different. Many players were missing in 1996 for Canada, but in 2005 Canada was missing basically half of the optimal roster, and only half of the players who were there had even played hockey that year. That's obviously a different (and unique) situation.
The situations in 1996 and 2005 from a Canadian perspective are different. Many players were missing in 1996 for Canada, but in 2005 Canada was missing basically half of the optimal roster, and only half of the players who were there had even played hockey that year. That's obviously a different (and unique) situation.
This is very "canadian" and very hypothetical question which can not be easily answered in such sport as hockey is....
Generally I do not really like making distinctions between "A" or "B" team. The best possible you put together to represent your country is always your "A" team and these players deserve to be treaten as your "A" players in that moment. There is only one exception - it happened in past that two national tournaments were held simultaneously in the same time - in that case, when one country sends two teams I agree with making this distinction.
The reasons I do not generelly like it could be as follows:
1. It is really disrespectful to players.
2. It downgrades the tourney (god bless that american fans have never opened discussion wether they send best possible to Ivan Hlinka or to WJC otherwise we would have probably another tourney in discussion of its own importance)
3. There are two many aspects in how to built successful team and roster is just on of them.
I would understand to "AB" question in regards to internal discussion about how the players are chosen to the team (i.e. whether association built the best team possible or not). However it seems to me that this "AB" is mostly used as an excuse argument. But in fact there is even no reason for that - canadian teams mostly don't win WC, Slovakia (which is by the way the perfect example of distinction between A" and "B" with low depth and players like Hossa, Gaborik, Tatar ussually in SC playoff) got one silver recently and they celebrated it almost like a miracle, we won it in 2010 with maybe 20 or 30 excuses but everybody here remembered how hard it was and that we almost did not reach QF).
So even if I understand to different situation in NA and different perceiving of things, I would be very happy if this neverending discussion twists to something positive. For instance, instead of evaluating the tourney, focusing on how to built better team.
As to missing players in Canada's cups and Olympics. As we say here - "nature is part of the game". Injuries and excuses are part of hockey.....It does not have any relation to importance of the tourney IMO.....Sorry for long post and mistakes. I hope it is understandable....
Generally I do not really like making distinctions between "A" or "B" team. The best possible you put together to represent your country is always your "A" team and these players deserve to be treaten as your "A" players in that moment. There is only one exception - it happened in past that two national tournaments were held simultaneously in the same time - in that case, when one country sends two teams I agree with making this distinction.
The reasons I do not generelly like it could be as follows:
1. It is really disrespectful to players.
2. It downgrades the tourney (god bless that american fans have never opened discussion wether they send best possible to Ivan Hlinka or to WJC otherwise we would have probably another tourney in discussion of its own importance)
3. There are two many aspects in how to built successful team and roster is just on of them.
I would understand to "AB" question in regards to internal discussion about how the players are chosen to the team (i.e. whether association built the best team possible or not). However it seems to me that this "AB" is mostly used as an excuse argument. But in fact there is even no reason for that - canadian teams mostly don't win WC, Slovakia (which is by the way the perfect example of distinction between A" and "B" with low depth and players like Hossa, Gaborik, Tatar ussually in SC playoff) got one silver recently and they celebrated it almost like a miracle, we won it in 2010 with maybe 20 or 30 excuses but everybody here remembered how hard it was and that we almost did not reach QF).
So even if I understand to different situation in NA and different perceiving of things, I would be very happy if this neverending discussion twists to something positive. For instance, instead of evaluating the tourney, focusing on how to built better team.
As to missing players in Canada's cups and Olympics. As we say here - "nature is part of the game". Injuries and excuses are part of hockey.....It does not have any relation to importance of the tourney IMO.....Sorry for long post and mistakes. I hope it is understandable....
You said the only reason anyone would distinguish between an A or B squad is to "excuse some sort of failure." Yet how can that be so if the sentiment remains the same even after a victory?
Even the 300 mens players at the Olympics are a pretty far cry from the top 300 players in the world. You've got most of the top 100 players there, but then many that wouldn't crack the top 1000.
For me I put the 2005 WC ahead of the other WC, but still significantly behind any CCup, WCup or OG in terms of importance. Just too many players declined to attend in 2005 to put it in the same category.
For me I put the 2005 WC ahead of the other WC, but still significantly behind any CCup, WCup or OG in terms of importance. Just too many players declined to attend in 2005 to put it in the same category.
So what is the practise in Canada? Do they ussually decline or they are not even chosen? Does Canada built the strongest team possible to WC or not? I am not saying taht WC is on the same level as OG. But the fact that somebody declines is exactly problem of that team, not of the tourney. These excuses are in every team every year.
I think it is probably a bit of both but to be honest I care so little about the WC that I don't really know. I would like to see Canada and the USA stop sending teams to the WC since they clearly don't take the tournament seriously.
Is it because of OG golds? I remember times when it was funny to watch Team Canada with players like Robitaille, Smith etc.. They maybe had some good parties there during the tourney but they did not look not to take it seriously....
Robitaille must have taken it somewhat seriously since he was the guy who scored the game winning goal in a shootout to win the WHC.
I can't imagine the fans in Finland thinking that was very funny that day.
I just responded to the opinion that they do not take it seriously now. They do not seem to me not to take it seriously. However it could be just show for journalist and I also remember canadian captain (probably Getzlaf) having party with some european national MISS during the tourney. I don't doubt Robitaille's attitude. Nevertheless I admit that what Kanadensisk said could be true to some extent...
I know you were just responding and I would tend to agree with you, a lot of years the guys don't take it too seriously, or at least not as seriously as the European players.
But Robaitaille and the team he was on must have and are probably not the best example to use, they won gold at it.
Just pointing that out.
Most missing Canadian players are due to either the NHL playoffs or declines. The guys putting together the team would always love to have all available players attend but many simply take a pass.
It's even worse for Team USA given the almost compete indifference of US fans to the WHC.
Because the event is always in Europe and is generally a bigger deal over there, available European players seem more likely to attend than north Americans.
Attendance at the WHC during Olympic years is always notably low, but just look at how many Sochi Olympians elected to play at the WHC this year in Minsk: 11 Swiss, 8 Russians, 6 Finns, 6 Slovaks, 5 Czechs, 2 Swedes and no Canadians or Americans.
North American players would usually rather be golfing or with their families. The ones who go are either uber patriots like Ryan smyth or jack Johnson, or young kids who want to prove themselves.
The iihf doesn't want the WC outside of Europe, nor do they want NA sending strong teams. They know arenas in NA are reserved for club playoffs that time. Anyway, who cares, as I said earlier I would rather we not participate in the first place.
Last edited:
The WC has never been popular over here and it goes back to the times when all our top players were banned from even setting foot on the ice at them. Nowadays my impression is that it is more of a fun / party thing for the young NA players to travel to Europe together.
rocsfeather
jump
I think it's case by case and when you look at a given teams roster you can just kinda tell if it's a B squad or something.
Please show me what the IIHF has done to promote holding the WC outside of Europe, especially in the USA.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,806
- 15,466
It's not really the point of the thread, but the IIHF doesn't seem to have an agenda against North America anymore. They clearly did in the past, which still colours perception of the IIHF in Canada at least today. They were happy to hold the WC in Canada the first time Canada tried to host it, and they gladly send the WJC to North America.
My sense is that they would much rather work closely with the North American hockey bodies, as they are the two largest pools of players and hockey related money in the world, but they created a situation in the past where they are viewed in an adversarial manner. The IIHF has never been significant in Canada nor has it played a role in development there, and Canada has been passionate about hockey for over 100 years, so it's going to be difficult to make progress. The same is true to a lesser extent in the United States.
My sense is that they would much rather work closely with the North American hockey bodies, as they are the two largest pools of players and hockey related money in the world, but they created a situation in the past where they are viewed in an adversarial manner. The IIHF has never been significant in Canada nor has it played a role in development there, and Canada has been passionate about hockey for over 100 years, so it's going to be difficult to make progress. The same is true to a lesser extent in the United States.
That's not what you claimed. You claimed the iihf has an agenda to weaken Canada and the USA programs which is just silly.
The iihf would like nothing more than to have Sidney Crosby and co at the worlds every year and they'd love for Canada to actually have some interest in hosting the tournament because it would mean more $$
The answer that you failed to give is that the IIHF has done absolutely nothing to promote having the WC in the US, which speaks volumes as to how interested they are in holding the WC outside of Europe. In a competitive world a company wouldn't last very long if it just sat back and did nothing to land its biggest potential customer, which is exactly what the IIHF has done for the last 100 years.
Furthermore in Europe most sports fans who are aware of hockey don't realize that the WC is a C level tournament, the hard core fans know, but the majority do not. They want European teams winning so they can sell the perception that the teams are better than they really are. The European nations controlling the IIHF don't want strong NA teams there, it's kind of obvious really.
Latest posts
-
Rumor: Trade Rumors & Proposals Thread | No More Pacifism For the Oilers?- Latest: Oilslick941611
-
-
-
