Canada Cup - Best On Best or Not?

[Uncle Rotter]

From 1977 on NHLers were allowed to participate in the World Championship though. It was the schedule issue that prevented many of Canada's top players from participating there for the vast majority of the Canada Cup era, not a ban by the IIHF.

Günther Sabetzki became president of the IIHF in 1975 and helped to resolve the dispute with the CAHA. The IIHF agreed to allow "open competition" between all players in the World Championships, and moved the competition to later in the season so players not involved in the NHL playoffs could participate. However, NHL players were still not allowed to play in the Olympics, because of both the unwillingness of the NHL to take a break mid-season and the IOC's strict amateur-only policy. The IIHF also agreed to endorse the Canada Cup, a competition meant to bring together the best players from the top hockey-playing countries.[54] The 1976 World Ice Hockey Championships in Katowice were the first to feature professionals although in the end only the United States made use of the new rule, recalling eight pros from the Minnesota North Stars and Minnesota Fighting Saints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Hockey_World_Championships

 

[Theokritos]

...

Thanks for the correction, so NHLers were allowed in the World Championship from 1976 on.

 

[canucksfan]

Does 1972 ring a bell? The penalties in Game 6 of the Summit Series were 31-4 in minutes for Canada. That's insane, and yet we still won 3-2 on Moscow ice. Do you really want to go back to that type of game? Stahlberg was a decent ref in that tournament, but it was Kompalla who orchestrated Game 6 and then got sneaked in for Game 8. Stahlberg was told to stay at his hotel room. I hope you don't want to go back to those days. There was a Canadian NHL ref for the gold medal game in 2014. That worked out just fine, do you know why? Because it was the best in the world from the best league in the world. I'd want nothing less. If home ice meant the world to teams then Russia would have found a way to get out of the quarter finals against Finland last month.

In 76' and 81' refs from different countries were used. There were no issues. Canada got the **** kicked out them in 81' and then all of a sudden it was all Canadian refs. Why did they change? There were no issues at all in 76' or 81'.

Sure not every home team wins but home ice is important. Teams in the NHL lay all year for home ice advantage. Canada has a better record at home than they do 'away'. To dismiss home ice advantage for Canada in the Canada Cups is very ignorant.

I don't think you should use Women's hockey as a barometer. That was an American ref in 2002, and secondly the officiating in Women's hockey is awful all the time.

Good point.

Wouldn't you want the best refs in the world for a game this important? I would. If that means it's a Canadian or a Swede so be it. The best place in the world to train is the NHL. If you can succeed there you can do it anywhere. An NHL ref that has a chance to referee a World Cup/Olympics is going to go out of his way to ensure the game is fair and not compromised. They make a good living, you aren't going to risk your job by being bias.

See paragraph above.

By the way Canada just won in Sochi with no advantages at all. The best players will win wherever.

This is simply not true. In 2014 Canada has clearly the best team. However, there are tournaments where the teams are basically equal. Canada beat the USSR in 84' in OT and the final three games of the 87' CC went into OT. Any of those teams could have won. Having home ice advantage, Canadian refs and rules I believe gave Canada a slight edge over the USSR. Considering how close the games were, a slight advantage can result in a victory.

If the games were played in the USSR under their rules and unbiased refs(lets assume for a minute) I believe Canada loses quite easily.

Every year the WJC are played in Canada players and HC state how important it is to lay on Canadian ice.

 

[canucksfan]

Yes. If any other country had shown any serious interest we would know about it. At the time other countries were figuring out ways to keep Canada's top players out, not include them.
It didn't matter where the refs came from, they acted honestly and professionally, and there is no doubt that NHL refs were by far the most qualified to call small ice, physical, NHL rules games.

There were no reffing issues in 76 or 81 and they used refs from different countries.

What gave Canada and the USA a small advantage was their familiarity with the ice size and rules, not the location. The same advantage that Europeans enjoy when using IIHF rules and ice size. On the same note the USSR and Czechoslovaks had for all intents and purposes full time national team programs, which is an advantage far bigger than either mentioned above.
I agree that the Canada Cups weren't ideal, but neither are the NHL - Olympics. These days the top European players have far more experience on the small ice than NA's do on the large ice. It would be more fair to use small ice in the Olympics, or at the very least to do so half the time, not once every 6 or 7 times.

See my above post about home ice advantage.

 

[Theokritos]

As I said the Canada Cup was created because of the IIHF/IOC ban.

The concept was certainly thought out during the time of the ban, but when the IIHF decided to lift that ban in July 1975 the Canada Cup had not even been approved. If anybody was not able to participate in World Championships from then on it was only because of the NHL & not the IIHF.

 

[dreamingofdrouin*]

It was best on best because the best players for every country played in it? what the hell is thread even about? That's what best on best means. What is this thread even about?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

There were no reffing issues in 76 or 81 and they used refs from different countries.

See my above post about home ice advantage.

There were issues which is why NHL refs were used from there on in. There have been a number of threads that cover the statistical disadvantage host teams have in men's international hockey. Your claim that the ussr would have won easily at home is just not supported by the facts.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

The concept was certainly thought out during the time of the ban, but when the IIHF decided to lift that ban in July 1975 the Canada Cup had not even been approved. If anybody was not able to participate in World Championships from then on it was only because of the NHL & not the IIHF.

The Canada Cup was created as a result of negotiations with the soviets in 1974, the iihf's endorsement was good to have but not a requirement. Your last statement is just a load. No one forced players to sign with the NHL or WHA, if the WC was more important to them they could have played in another league. The iihf chose to hold the WC during the NHL playoffs, not the other way round.

 

[Canuckistani]

Sure not every home team wins but home ice is important.

Home ice only seems to be at all important when it comes to Canada since playing at home has historically been an absolute curse.

Take the World Championships since 1977...

- Sweden has hosted five times and won gold once (in 2013 - the first time that home ice translated into gold for anyone since 1986)
- Russia has hosted 4 times, winning gold in 1979 and 1986, but losing twice since (including an 11th disaster in 2000)
- Czechs have one home ice gold (1985) in four tries
- Finland hasn't even won a medal in five hosted events
- Slovakia was 10th in 2011 in Bratislava
- even Canada choked in the final during the only WHC held in Canada back in 2008

Meanwhile at the Olympics, Russia crashed and burned in Sochi and the US came up short in 2002 in SLC. Only Canada has won gold at home since Lake Placid.

At the WJC, Canada has hosted a record 10 tournaments of which it has won four, while Finland is 1/5, Russia 1/4, Czechs 0/5, USA 0/5, Sweden 0/6.

So Canada has done pretty well at home in both NHL and IIHF-run events which, IMO, is due mostly to being the top hockey nation as well as the atmosphere created by rabid fan support (something lacking at many Euro WJCs for example).

 

[Uncle Rotter]

The concept was certainly thought out during the time of the ban, but when the IIHF decided to lift that ban in July 1975 the Canada Cup had not even been approved. If anybody was not able to participate in World Championships from then on it was only because of the NHL & not the IIHF.

They were both in discussion at the same time
http://books.google.ca/books?id=XVR...6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=gunther sabetzki&f=false

 

[VMBM]

Does 1972 ring a bell? The penalties in Game 6 of the Summit Series were 31-4 in minutes for Canada. That's insane, and yet we still won 3-2 on Moscow ice. Do you really want to go back to that type of game? Stahlberg was a decent ref in that tournament, but it was Kompalla who orchestrated Game 6 and then got sneaked in for Game 8. Stahlberg was told to stay at his hotel room. I hope you don't want to go back to those days. There was a Canadian NHL ref for the gold medal game in 2014. That worked out just fine, do you know why? Because it was the best in the world from the best league in the world. I'd want nothing less. If home ice meant the world to teams then Russia would have found a way to get out of the quarter finals against Finland last month.

Does this ring a bell:



Yes, it is 'Russian propaganda', but the clips hardly lie; the refereeing in that round-robin game was a scandal. Period. Even Dan Kelly can't help but describe one of the calls 'ridiculous'. The Soviets must have had a really dirty team in that tournament, since they were so heavily penalized compared to TC!

Josef Kompalla might have disallowed a goal by USSR in game 6 of the Summit Series (apparently the 'old-style netting' stopped Kharlamov's shot); the Soviets certainly thought that they had scored. And after the slash, he failed to throw Bobby Clarke out of the game, like he should have done (a minor penalty for the slash + 10 minute misconduct ). Aren't there always arguments that "Koharski made bad calls against Canada too" (in game 3 of the 1987 final)?

 

[Theokritos]

The Canada Cup was created as a result of negotiations with the soviets in 1974, the iihf's endorsement was good to have but not a requirement.

They were both in discussion at the same time.

Neither NHL owners nor the NHLPA had yet approved the Canada Cup when the IIHF lifted the ban on pros, and negotiations with the Europeans were still ongoing.

No one forced players to sign with the NHL or WHA, if the WC was more important to them they could have played in another league.

Didn't claim otherwise.

The iihf chose to hold the WC during the NHL playoffs, not the other way round.

I should have worded it the way I did above: The schedule issue prevented many of Canada's top players from participating, not a ban by the IIHF.

 

[VMBM]

Home ice only seems to be at all important when it comes to Canada since playing at home has historically been an absolute curse.

Take the World Championships since 1977...

- Sweden has hosted five times and won gold once (in 2013 - the first time that home ice translated into gold for anyone since 1986)
- Russia has hosted 4 times, winning gold in 1979 and 1986, but losing twice since (including an 11th disaster in 2000)
- Czechs have one home ice gold (1985) in four tries
- Finland hasn't even won a medal in five hosted events
- Slovakia was 10th in 2011 in Bratislava
- even Canada choked in the final during the only WHC held in Canada back in 2008

Meanwhile at the Olympics, Russia crashed and burned in Sochi and the US came up short in 2002 in SLC. Only Canada has won gold at home since Lake Placid.

There was very little chance for anyone else than Soviet Union to win the world championship or the gold in the Olympics 1978/9-1990; the Soviets were always the clear favourites, whether the tournament was held in Soviet Union or not. Of course Finland was not going to win the world championship in 1982 even on home-ice, nor West Germany in 1983 etc. After USSR ceased to exist, there have been more candidates for the championship, and 'the curse of the hosting nation' has indeed been quite curious.

 

[tony d]

I think it was and it was also a good precursor to the NHL participation in the Olympics.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm not going to say the Canadians wouldn't have won anything with neutral refs because obviously the would have won a lot and maybe just as much given the players they had. The thing that hurts the credibility of the Canada Cup is: they had European referees (no, not Josef Kompalla, Swede Dag Olsson refereed in 1981, did he do such a terrible job?) first and the moment Canada loses they drop the European refs and refuse to let the winners take the trophy home. What impression does that make on you if you leave aside your Canadian glasses and view it as a neutral observer? Is it hard to appreciate that this was a real blow to the credibility of the CC & that pointing it out is not merely making excuses?

I don't know why that happened. Alan Eagleson was behind the whole idea of the Russians not taking the Canada Cup trophy home. He was being a sore loser, do we really need to have Eagleson represent Canadians from a moral standpoint? I hope not. I'm not sure what the issue was, but if there wasn't an issue with European refs and then not an issue with the NHL refs in these tournaments isn't the common denominator that there wasn't an issue with the refs in these tournaments?

This is simply not true. In 2014 Canada has clearly the best team. However, there are tournaments where the teams are basically equal. Canada beat the USSR in 84' in OT and the final three games of the 87' CC went into OT. Any of those teams could have won. Having home ice advantage, Canadian refs and rules I believe gave Canada a slight edge over the USSR. Considering how close the games were, a slight advantage can result in a victory.

If the games were played in the USSR under their rules and unbiased refs(lets assume for a minute) I believe Canada loses quite easily.

Every year the WJC are played in Canada players and HC state how important it is to lay on Canadian ice.

So what do you want to do? Make every win that happened on home soil irrelevant? Russia had their chance to do more than just a sad sack effort in 2014 and look what happened. No one is holding their hand and feeling sorry for them, they did it to themselves and to be quite honest they just simply were not the best team in the Olympics. Sochi wasn't exactly small town Ontario so can you admit that Canada was clearly on the road here and yet they still won?

1972 is another example. We had the hostile environment in Moscow plus the stories of food and beer being stolen from their rooms as well as a ref that was trying to throw the game and we still won. It doesn't get any better than that. Why couldn't a Soviet team win - or even tie - one of the last three games? They had everything laid out for them. Simple, they weren't the better team, as we saw.

So what I am saying is that home ice isn't all it is cracked up to be. Being the "road" team can bond you together in this type of situation. How did home ice work for Canada in 1981? It didn't. Lastly, if we're going to complain every time a country wins on their home soil then it has to apply to everything then. This means if Russia won in 2014, playing on the ice they are used to, in the culture they are used to, with the food they are used to, with the fans they are used to, it wouldn't have been fair. If you're good enough, you'll win in Argentina.

Does this ring a bell:



Yes, it is 'Russian propaganda', but the clips hardly lie; the refereeing in that round-robin game was a scandal. Period. Even Dan Kelly can't help but describe one of the calls 'ridiculous'. The Soviets must have had a really dirty team in that tournament, since they were so heavily penalized compared to TC!

Josef Kompalla might have disallowed a goal by USSR in game 6 of the Summit Series (apparently the 'old-style netting' stopped Kharlamov's shot); the Soviets certainly thought that they had scored. And after the slash, he failed to throw Bobby Clarke out of the game, like he should have done (a minor penalty for the slash + 10 minute misconduct ). Aren't there always arguments that "Koharski made bad calls against Canada too" (in game 3 of the 1987 final)?

I have actually watched that before. One thing that gets forgotten here is that the penalties in the 3 games in the Canada Cup final were relatively even.

Game 1 penalties: Russia 8 Canada 5
Game 2 penalties: Russia 6 Canada 6
Game 3 penalties: Russia 5 Canada 4

I mean, honestly, why do we even bring this up? The Russians actually asked for Don Koharski, go figure. A lot of NHL fans wouldn't have wanted him there and he was hardly the type to throw a game. He'd be too stubborn to do that. The critics will also rarely bring up Bourque getting hauled down in his own zone that directly led to a Soviet goal in Game 3. Koharski watched that with his own two eyes and called nothing. There were two penalties back to back to Bourque at the end of the second period. After that, there were no penalties called at all in the 3rd period.

If you want to play hockey the way it was meant to be played you are going to have some hitting. Obviously Canada benefits from this since we are more physical. But that isn't our problem that other countries aren't. Unless you'd like to have the refereeing that we often have seen in the World Juniors where a "loud" clean hit is a penalty then you should be thankful the NHL refs are calling these games.

Lastly, we've all learned from things that happened in 1972 geared to throw the games. Stahlberg was told to stay at his hotel room while Kompalla sneaked in to Game 8 under the radar and was not agreed to by the Canadians. Now that's some tricky business right there. This all happened in Communist Russia and we still won. Game 6 was another one of those travesties. The penalty minutes were 31-4 for Canada and we still won 3-2. Man, if there was ever a time when we saw bias refereeing it was 1972. 27 years have passed since 1987. Shouldn't there be stories coming out of the woodwork now of Koharski trying to throw the game in favour of the Canadians?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Didn't claim otherwise.

Yes you did.

If anybody was not able to participate in World Championships from then on it was only because of the NHL & not the IIHF.

No matter how you spin it you can't sell that it was the NHL stopping players from going to the WC. They were the ones fighting to get their players in the WC. By scheduling the WC during the NHL playoffs the IIHF inhibited NHL players from attending, not vice versa.

 

[Theokritos]

He was being a sore loser, do we really need to have Eagleson represent Canadians from a moral standpoint?

As long as we need to have Josef Kompalla represent non-NHL referees from neutral countries, yes, it's only fair. Seriously, Eagleson was in charge of the tournament, approved of by the Canadian government, the NHL, the NHLPA, so if he is not representing Canada in the matter at hand then nobody is. But my point was something else: credibility of the Canada Cup.

I'm not sure what the issue was, but if there wasn't an issue with European refs and then not an issue with the NHL refs in these tournaments isn't the common denominator that there wasn't an issue with the refs in these tournaments?

Sorry, but I don't understand the logic in this one. Simple question: they have European refs and the moment Canada loses they are banned - what impression does that make?

Yes you did.

What you're aiming at is probably that I said "If anybody was not able to participate in World Championships from then on it was only because of the NHL & not the IIHF." I admit it was a one-sided and therefore bad formulation: it's the schedule issue really (see below).

No matter how you spin it you can't sell that it was the NHL stopping players from going to the WC.

The NHL wasn't actively stopping players, but neither was the IIHF from 1975 on. The schedule issue = incompatible schedules of IIHF and NHL prevented players from participating.

They were the ones fighting to get their players in the WC.

I must have missed that. When did the NHL fight for that exactly?

 

[canucksfan]

Home ice only seems to be at all important when it comes to Canada since playing at home has historically been an absolute curse.

Take the World Championships since 1977...

- Sweden has hosted five times and won gold once (in 2013 - the first time that home ice translated into gold for anyone since 1986)
- Russia has hosted 4 times, winning gold in 1979 and 1986, but losing twice since (including an 11th disaster in 2000)
- Czechs have one home ice gold (1985) in four tries
- Finland hasn't even won a medal in five hosted events
- Slovakia was 10th in 2011 in Bratislava
- even Canada choked in the final during the only WHC held in Canada back in 2008

Meanwhile at the Olympics, Russia crashed and burned in Sochi and the US came up short in 2002 in SLC. Only Canada has won gold at home since Lake Placid.

At the WJC, Canada has hosted a record 10 tournaments of which it has won four, while Finland is 1/5, Russia 1/4, Czechs 0/5, USA 0/5, Sweden 0/6.

So Canada has done pretty well at home in both NHL and IIHF-run events which, IMO, is due mostly to being the top hockey nation as well as the atmosphere created by rabid fan support (something lacking at many Euro WJCs for example).

Canada plays better on Canadian soil. The stats back that up. Canada didn't even medal in 06' and 98'. There are definitely examples where Canada can win in Europe and lose on Canadian soil but overall Canada does better at home.

Looking at teams that rarely win tournaments and claiming they didn't get home ice advantage doesn't hold a lot of weight.

The Canada Cup was a great tournament and produced a lot of great games. However, looking back I think it is a shame that the tournament favoured Canada more than any other nation. After 81' Canada had its own refs, played all their games on Canadian soil and played under their rules. In 84' and 87' those advantages likely caused Canada to narrowly beat the USSR.

 

[YMB29]

So what I am saying is that home ice isn't all it is cracked up to be. Being the "road" team can bond you together in this type of situation. How did home ice work for Canada in 1981? It didn't. Lastly, if we're going to complain every time a country wins on their home soil then it has to apply to everything then. This means if Russia won in 2014, playing on the ice they are used to, in the culture they are used to, with the food they are used to, with the fans they are used to, it wouldn't have been fair. If you're good enough, you'll win in Argentina.

The advantages Canada had in most of the Canada Cups were not the same advantages a home team usually has in a tournament. It was not just about playing in front of a home crowd or on the smaller ice. Canada had favorable officiating and also advantages in things like scheduling, which other home teams don't usually have.

I have actually watched that before. One thing that gets forgotten here is that the penalties in the 3 games in the Canada Cup final were relatively even.

Game 1 penalties: Russia 8 Canada 5
Game 2 penalties: Russia 6 Canada 6
Game 3 penalties: Russia 5 Canada 4

This just shows that Canada had a slight advantage when it came to being penalized. However, this meant that Canadian players often got away with serious fouls, while the Soviet players were called for minor infractions or things that were not penalties at all.

I mean, honestly, why do we even bring this up? The Russians actually asked for Don Koharski, go figure. A lot of NHL fans wouldn't have wanted him there and he was hardly the type to throw a game.

I don't know if the Soviets really selected Koharski, but they did not have much of a choice. He was actually better than the other NHL referees in that tournament until the final game.

The critics will also rarely bring up Bourque getting hauled down in his own zone that directly led to a Soviet goal in Game 3. Koharski watched that with his own two eyes and called nothing.

That is because it was not a penalty. This was discussed in another thread not that long ago.

There were two penalties back to back to Bourque at the end of the second period. After that, there were no penalties called at all in the 3rd period. If you want to play hockey the way it was meant to be played you are going to have some hitting. Obviously Canada benefits from this since we are more physical. But that isn't our problem that other countries aren't. Unless you'd like to have the refereeing that we often have seen in the World Juniors where a "loud" clean hit is a penalty then you should be thankful the NHL refs are calling these games.

The problem was not NHL referees not calling a big clean hit; it was them not calling a dirty hit or an obvious hook.

Game 6 was another one of those travesties. The penalty minutes were 31-4 for Canada and we still won 3-2. Man, if there was ever a time when we saw bias refereeing it was 1972.

Simply stating the penalty minutes is not proof of biased officiating.

27 years have passed since 1987. Shouldn't there be stories coming out of the woodwork now of Koharski trying to throw the game in favour of the Canadians?

You think Koharski or someone involved would admit that the officiating was not fair? Why does it matter anyway? It is not like we can't watch the games and see this.

 

[VMBM]

I mean, honestly, why do we even bring this up? The Russians actually asked for Don Koharski, go figure. A lot of NHL fans wouldn't have wanted him there and he was hardly the type to throw a game. He'd be too stubborn to do that. The critics will also rarely bring up Bourque getting hauled down in his own zone that directly led to a Soviet goal in Game 3. Koharski watched that with his own two eyes and called nothing. There were two penalties back to back to Bourque at the end of the second period. After that, there were no penalties called at all in the 3rd period.

Why did they ask for Koharski? Probably simply because he was less bad an option than the referee in the round-robin game (Mike Noeth) and whoever it was in the 2nd final (disallowed 2 goals by the Soviets; the other one was probably scored with a high stick, but the other one is still a mystery to me, as it was for the Canadian commentators). Summa summarum, USSR didn't have too many choices; does that seem clear to you now?

It is also interesting that Dan Kelly and Ron Reusch - who by no means never even pretended to be just 'objective observers' - did not see anything questionable with Khomutov's goal (i.e. Bourque falling & losing the puck), even though the play was replayed at least a couple of times. And if Koharski missed something, he also missed Khomutov being hit by a Canadian player right after that goal - or just didn't care about it: NHL hockey, yeah!

Lastly, we've all learned from things that happened in 1972 geared to throw the games. Stahlberg was told to stay at his hotel room while Kompalla sneaked in to Game 8 under the radar and was not agreed to by the Canadians. Now that's some tricky business right there. This all happened in Communist Russia and we still won. Game 6 was another one of those travesties. The penalty minutes were 31-4 for Canada and we still won 3-2. Man, if there was ever a time when we saw bias refereeing it was 1972. 27 years have passed since 1987. Shouldn't there be stories coming out of the woodwork now of Koharski trying to throw the game in favour of the Canadians?

I just reviewed the penalties that were called against the Canadians in that game, and I couldn't find a single one that was questionable. Please help me with this and name those penalties that Canada did not deserve. I mean, if you come out with a bad-ass attitude, swing your stick all night and complain about everything - like Team Canada did in that game - you can expect to get many penalties. Watch e.g. Phil Esposito's 'nice little checks' in the 1st period (on Shatalov) and 2nd period (on Ragulin), or Valeri Kharlamov being roughed up all night.

Bobby Clarke slashes the ankle of USSR's best forward and he gets a minor penalty + 10 minute misconduct; I think Team Canada got a gift with that call; obviously Clarke should have been thrown out of the game.

If there were some missed calls against the Russians, that's another thing, but I'd like at least one Canadian person to admit that TC played very dirty in that game, and their attitude simply stank right from the start.

 

[Canuckistani]

Canada plays better on Canadian soil. The stats back that up.

Canada does indeed play better on home ice. This applies to both NHL and IIHF events, so obviously NHL-run Canada Cup scheduling and refereeing isn't the full story. Allow the IIHF to decide everything and Canada still wins more than most.

I agree that the Canada Cup favoured Canada, both in terms of refs and scheduling in addition to fan support.

I would argue, however, that Canada's advantages in the Canada Cup paled in comparison to the advantages of the Soviets and Czechs at IIHF events of that era. All WHC's were played in Europe, with the Communist states having their A-squads (who trained together year round) against Canadian teams thrown together at a week's notice. The advantage in terms of talent and team chemistry was immense.

At the WHC from 1977-1991, Canada beat the USSR only once (1985), and ended up with no golds and three silvers. The Soviets, meanwhile, won 2/3 Olympics in that time, plus 8/12 WHC (Czechs and Swedes split the remaining four).

It's rather revealing that Russian dominance in IIHF events suddenly dissappeared when they found themselves playing with the same handicaps as everyone else, while Canada has remained pretty consistent at best-on-best events even with the IIHF running the show.

 

[Tree-hugger]

The idea of these programs is to try and help people who are in trouble, kind of hard to fault them in that.

Mother of god.

It's extremely easy to fault them. So easy that it is not even worth the trouble.

LA screwed up. Plain and simple.

You have a diamond you try to hone it. What you don't want to do is to smash it. What a terrible failure.

 

[Theokritos]

And if Koharski missed something, he also missed Khomutov being hit by a Canadian player right after that goal - or just didn't care about it: NHL hockey, yeah!

"The way hockey is meant to be played" in the eyes of some, and that's exactly why they fail to see anything wrong with the ban on european refs in the Canada Cup. Homer glasses.

I'd like at least one Canadian person to admit that TC played very dirty in that game, and their attitude simply stank right from the start.

Seems to be hard, just as hard as admitting that keeping the Cup in Canada and banning european referees in 1981 doesn't reflect very well on the Canada Cup. Even though admitting it wouldn't take away anything from the fact that Canada was still the leading hockey nation etc.

I would argue, however, that Canada's advantages in the Canada Cup paled in comparison to the advantages of the Soviets and Czechs at IIHF events of that era. All WHC's were played in Europe, with the Communist states having their A-squads (who trained together year round) against Canadian teams thrown together at a week's notice. The advantage in terms of talent and team chemistry was immense.

Absolutely, it would be very unreasonable to take Team Canada's record in the 1977-1991 WHC at face value and consider it a fair point for comparison with the USSR. Canada was obviously much better than that.

 

[Pominville Knows]

oops, wrong thread.

 

[canucksfan]

Canada does indeed play better on home ice. This applies to both NHL and IIHF events, so obviously NHL-run Canada Cup scheduling and refereeing isn't the full story. Allow the IIHF to decide everything and Canada still wins more than most.

I agree that the Canada Cup favoured Canada, both in terms of refs and scheduling in addition to fan support.

I agree with the bolded. My point is because the USSR and Canada were close having those advantages that I have stated most likely caused Canada to win in 84' and 87'.

I would argue, however, that Canada's advantages in the Canada Cup paled in comparison to the advantages of the Soviets and Czechs at IIHF events of that era. All WHC's were played in Europe, with the Communist states having their A-squads (who trained together year round) against Canadian teams thrown together at a week's notice. The advantage in terms of talent and team chemistry was immense.

At the WHC from 1977-1991, Canada beat the USSR only once (1985), and ended up with no golds and three silvers. The Soviets, meanwhile, won 2/3 Olympics in that time, plus 8/12 WHC (Czechs and Swedes split the remaining four).

I agree. The WHC back then aren't a great way to compare Canada and the USSR.

It's rather revealing that Russian dominance in IIHF events suddenly dissappeared when they found themselves playing with the same handicaps as everyone else, while Canada has remained pretty consistent at best-on-best events even with the IIHF running the show.

Russian talent declined lots. Look at the WJC from 82' to 90'. The USSR was the better team. In the Canada Cups and Challenge Cup the USSR had no advantages and they still were equal to Canada.