Canada Cup - Best On Best or Not?

[Zine]

In this matter the NHL effectively represents NA, which had over twice as many players and infrastructure as "the rest of the world" in terms of hockey and it is unreaslitic and undemocratic to expect the majority to follow the minority. Almong with the fact that the NHL schedule was there first it was certainly a case of the iihf not accomodating the nhl, not vice versa. By the way, what other leagues adjusted their schedule to accommodate the WC?

When has hockey ever been about democracy?

Nonetheless, Democracy is built on compromise, one where the majority is given more power. However democracy is not a tyranny of the majority. Expecting the minority to fully accommodate the majority is undemocratic.

Unlike the IIHF, the NHL has yet to make a single concession in regards to the WC. You are correct, nothing democratic about it.

 

[Zine]

Tikhonov was being set up to fail. But the plan blew up at the 1977 World Championships & he took over anyway.

Interesting claim, is there any source for this?

Tretiak has since said Kulgain tried to undermine Tikhonov; he had the power to keep some players off the 1976 CC roster.

 

[Theokritos]

They did. It was called the Canada Cup.

That tournament was something Canada asked for, not the Europeans. If anybody made a compromise the Europeans did by taking part.

BTW we were talking about the incompatible schedules affecting the World Championship when your stance was: we are the majority, resistance futile. The Europeans were ready to make a compromise there by rescheduling the World Championship. The NHL was not. Again, it's their choice and they had their priorities, accepted, but don't blame the IIHF for it if you're not willing to blame the NHL at all.

I represent fairness and equality

No you don't. If you really believe that it's a waste of time to discuss with you.

There are obviously three ways to frame it. Option 1: "The NHL was obliged to alter its schedule to accommodate the IIHF and failed to do that, the NHL sucks." Option 2: "The IIHF was obliged to alter its schedule to accommodate the NHL and failed to do that, the IIHF sucks." Option 3: "The schedules were incompatible, both sides are responsible."
Option 2 is your choice. It's obvious this stance does not come closer to fairness and equality.

Absolutely, why wouldn't it be?

Why would it?

I was always under the impression that the WC were intentionally scheduled after the European league playoffs finished.

That of course was the case, but the international schedule didn't remain unchanged throughout the years. Early European leagues changed their schedule to enable participation in the Olympics, just like the NHL does since 1998 which by the way shows that is indeed a matter of choice and not something impossible to ask for. The Soviet League changed its schedule in 1972 to make the Summit Series possible (start of the season was otherwise in September). European top leagues had to adjust their schedules in 1977 when the World Championship was moved back two weeks to accommodate Canada.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

When has hockey ever been about democracy?

Nonetheless, Democracy is built on compromise, one where the majority is given more power. However democracy is not a tyranny of the majority. Expecting the minority to fully accommodate the majority is undemocratic.

Unlike the IIHF, the NHL has yet to make a single concession in regards to the WC. You are correct, nothing democratic about it.

To use your example the IIHF has always operated with the tyranny of the minority, which is even worse.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

That tournament was something Canada asked for, not the Europeans. If anybody made a compromise the Europeans did by taking part.

You must be blind to not realize that the "World" Championships is something Europeans asked for and that North Americans have compromised every year in participating in what is effectively a European tournament. I know many Europeans think that Europe = the World, but let's get real here.

BTW we were talking about the incompatible schedules affecting the World Championship when your stance was: we are the majority, resistance futile. The Europeans were ready to make a compromise there by rescheduling the World Championship. The NHL was not. Again, it's their choice and they had their priorities, accepted, but don't blame the IIHF for it if you're not willing to blame the NHL at all.

We're talking about an organization that was/is controlled by Europeans that showed for years that they wanted to keep North America's best players out of their tournaments, no doubt to increase their own chances of winning and deliberately scheduling their "World" Championship during the NHL playoffs was just another way to achieve their goal.

No you don't. If you really believe that it's a waste of time to discuss with you.

There are obviously three ways to frame it. Option 1: "The NHL was obliged to alter its schedule to accommodate the IIHF and failed to do that, the NHL sucks." Option 2: "The IIHF was obliged to alter its schedule to accommodate the NHL and failed to do that, the IIHF sucks." Option 3: "The schedules were incompatible, both sides are responsible."
Option 2 is your choice. It's obvious this stance does not come closer to fairness and equality.

Option 5, the IIHF didn't want all of NA's best players to be able to attend so they intentionally scheduled a conflict.

Why would it?

It is just common sense and decency. If your friend had a party every year on the same day you wouldn't intentionally schedule one at the same time and just expect them to cancel theirs.

That of course was the case, but the international schedule didn't remain unchanged throughout the years. Early European leagues changed their schedule to enable participation in the Olympics, just like the NHL does since 1998 which by the way shows that is indeed a matter of choice and not something impossible to ask for. The Soviet League changed its schedule in 1972 to make the Summit Series possible (start of the season was otherwise in September). European top leagues had to adjust their schedules in 1977 when the World Championship was moved back two weeks to accommodate Canada.

Maybe I'm missing something about '77. Weren't the Euro league playoffs already finished? What did they have to do to accommodate delaying the start of the WC?

 

[Theokritos]

We're talking about an organization that was/is controlled by Europeans that showed for years that they wanted to keep North America's best players out of their tournaments, no doubt to increase their own chances of winning and deliberately scheduling their "World" Championship during the NHL playoffs was just another way to achieve their goal... the IIHF didn't want all of NA's best players to be able to attend so they intentionally scheduled a conflict.

I don't doubt your subjective honesty (hope that's the correct term in English), but for a guy who wants to be fair and unbiased you spend very little time trying to see things from a perspective other than the traditional Canadian angle.

When the World Championship was introduced in the 1930s and initially scheduled in January/February, very much "during" the NHL regular season actually, no-one in Europa and no-one in Canada even thought of NHL participation. We're really looking at two separate worlds here. Over time the situation (competitiveness of Europeans) changed of course, but to claim that the IIHF intentionally scheduled "a conflict" is ... adventurous to put it mildly.

Maybe I'm missing something about '77. Weren't the Euro league playoffs already finished? What did they have to do to accommodate delaying the start of the WC?

They had to delay the start of their league for two weeks. What would it have taken the NHL to accommodate the IIHF? Cancel the playoffs? Nope. Start the regular season two weeks earlier and voilà, all NHL players become available for the World Championship.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I don't doubt your subjective honesty (hope that's the correct term in English), but for a guy who wants to be fair and unbiased you spend very little time trying to see things from a perspective other than the traditional Canadian angle.

When the World Championship was introduced in the 1930s and initially scheduled in January/February, very much "during" the NHL regular season actually, no-one in Europa and no-one in Canada even thought of NHL participation. We're really looking at two separate worlds here. Over time the situation (competitiveness of Europeans) changed of course, but to claim that the IIHF intentionally scheduled "a conflict" is ... adventurous to put it mildly.

I get why Europeans and the IIHF acted the way they did, I just am not willing to sugar coat it to say it is alright. The WC has always been meant to be a European tournament and the better the European teams do the more successful the tournament will be.

They had to delay the start of their league for two weeks. What would it have taken the NHL to accommodate the IIHF? Cancel the playoffs? Nope. Start the regular season two weeks earlier and voilà, all NHL players become available for the World Championship.

I still don't get it. The WC was after the end of the Euro season. What does that have to do with when the Euro season starts? Are you suggesting that some Euro leagues delayed starting their season because they preferred not to have a gap between the end of their playoffs and the start of the WC? If that is the case it is really a completely different situation.

 

[Theokritos]

I get why Europeans and the IIHF acted the way they did

Yeah, because they had the insidious intention to screw Canada over ... in other words: you don't get it.

Are you suggesting that some Euro leagues delayed starting their season because they preferred not to have a gap between the end of their playoffs and the start of the WC?

Exactly, just like the NHL preferred to not start the regular season two weeks earlier. What makes it a completely different situation in your eyes?

BTW many of the leagues in question didn't have playoffs at that time, just regular season.

 

[YMB29]

Any tournament that all teams have their best available should be labelled as a best on best. In 1998 Canada had some injuries in the Olympis, that dosn't mean the tournament isn't best on best because of that.

I think it boils down to the fact that there was opportunity for each country to send their best. Canada had a combination of injuries, strange selections and a couple of them just flat out turning it down like Bourque. That being said, it was still "Team Canada" in my eyes. I mean, Canada was missing some top players in 2014 with Stamkos, Giroux, Staal, Thornton and initially St. Louis. There isn't going to be a tournament where there aren't some complicated selections out there. 1991 was one of those years that just had more of the top stars missing, heck, 1996 was like that with Canada too to an extent. But if you are playing in a tournament where 90% of your best players are there, it is about as good as you can get. Even in 2002 or 2010 there was a player or two missing and I would classify those Canadian teams as some of the best full capacity teams.

Well the Soviet team did not have 90% of their best players at the Canada Cup in 1976 and 1991.
I understand that it does not matter if a few players are not playing because of injury, bad selections or refusal to play, but this does not apply to the Soviet teams for those Canada Cups.

 

[Canuckistani]

Well the Soviet team did not have 90% of their best players at the Canada Cup in 1976 and 1991.

Comparing the 1976 Canada Cup roster to the Soviets gold-medal roster of that year's Olympics, one does see some big names missing, but not 90%.

On defense they were without Gennady Tsygankov and Yuri Liapkin, while at forward they were missing Vladimir Petrov, Boris Mikhailov, Vladimir Shadrin, Alexander Yakushev and Valeri Kharlamov (though he was out to due to car accident injury).

Serious losses, no doubt. Yet not that much worse than Canada being without Patrick Roy, Mario Lemieux, Paul Kariya, Ron Francis, Al MacInnis and Ray Bourque in 1996. In fact I'd say Canada's losses in 96 were worse. Best goalie and Stanley cup MVP of the previous season (the Soviets at least had Tretiak in 76), the top three Canadians in scoring the previous year, and two of the top defencemen.

It's in 1991 were Soviet losses were more serious, mostly due to defections and/or players not being invited.

Goal: Arthur Irbe (refused to play), Sergei Mylnikov
Defence: Vyacheslav Fetisov, Vladimir Konstantinov
Forward: Igor Larionov, Vladimir Krutov, Sergei Makarov, Alexei Kovalev, Valeri Kamensky (injured in exhibition game), Pavel Bure, Alexander Mogilny, Vyacheslav Bykov, Sergei Nemchinov, Andrei Khomutov, Dmitri Khristich

They definitely wouldn't have finished fifth had they played at full strength.

Ironically, five years later at the first World Cup, Russia sent their strongest team in years, one that was missing only Vladimir Konstantinov (injury), German Titov (decllined), Valery Kamensky (no NHL contract), and Pavel Bure (injury). They finished a disappointing fourth.

Two years later in Nagano they sent a team that was almost as depleted by no-shows as 1991 and got the silver. Go figure!

 

[YMB29]

I did not say that 90% of the best Soviet players were missing.
I meant that the percentage of the best players who played on those Soviet teams was less than 90, since it was suggested that a national team can be considered fortunate if 90% of its best players play.

 

[VMBM]

On defense they were without Gennady Tsygankov and Yuri Liapkin, while at forward they were missing Vladimir Petrov, Boris Mikhailov, Vladimir Shadrin, Alexander Yakushev and Valeri Kharlamov (though he was out to due to car accident injury).

Serious losses, no doubt. Yet not that much worse than Canada being without Patrick Roy, Mario Lemieux, Paul Kariya, Ron Francis, Al MacInnis and Ray Bourque in 1996. In fact I'd say Canada's losses in 96 were worse. Best goalie and Stanley cup MVP of the previous season (the Soviets at least had Tretiak in 76), the top three Canadians in scoring the previous year, and two of the top defencemen.

If you just compare the missing players name by name, maybe Canada's losses were worse. But I think Canada had more good/great hockey players to choose from in 1996 than the Soviet Union had in 1976 (i.e. clearly more depth), and thus were probably less-affected.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Yeah, because they had the insidious intention to screw Canada over ...

Well, they'd been doing a pretty good job up to that point.

 

[Theokritos]

Well, they'd been doing a pretty good job up to that point.

The ban on pros that caused Canada's boycott from 1970 on? I've said it before and I have no problem repeating it, simply because it's the truth: There is no doubt that this ban put Canada at an unfair disadvantage. It's very understandable that they felt screwed over and didn't want to participate anymore. We certainly agree on that.

However, if you tried to realize the situation the IIHF was in during that period of time instead of refusing to see the issue from any viewpoint other than the Canadian, you would hesitate to claim it was the objective of IIHF policy to screw Canada over. The ban on players who were openly professional was a precept decreed by the IOC, its observance was required if hockey didn't want to lose its spot at the Olympic Games, the biggest stage for international hockey, in fact the biggest stage for hockey other than the NHL. The IIHF argued with the IOC over this matter and tried to open the way for North Americans pros but their initiative was met with uncompromising rejection by the IOC, especially its longtime president Avery Brundage, an American. The dilemma of the IOC stance and the Canadian stance was a lose-lose situation for the IIHF.

 

[ForumNamePending]

The ban on pros that caused Canada's boycott from 1970 on? I've said it before and I have no problem repeating it, simply because it's the truth: There is no doubt that this ban put Canada at an unfair disadvantage. It's very understandable that they felt screwed over and didn't want to participate anymore. We certainly agree on that.

However, if you tried to realize the situation the IIHF was in during that period of time instead of refusing to see the issue from any viewpoint other than the Canadian, you would hesitate to claim it was the objective of IIHF policy to screw Canada over. The ban on players who were openly professional was a precept decreed by the IOC, its observance was required if hockey didn't want to lose its spot at the Olympic Games, the biggest stage for international hockey, in fact the biggest stage for hockey other than the NHL. The IIHF argued with the IOC over this matter and tried to open the way for North Americans pros but their initiative was met with uncompromising rejection by the IOC, especially its longtime president Avery Brundage, an American. The dilemma of the IOC stance and the Canadian stance was a lose-lose situation for the IIHF.

Exactly... Canada got screwed but the IIHF didn't screw Canada for the sake of screwing Canada. Hockey being, especially back then, a niche sport the IIHF valued the international exposure and prestige the Olympics could bring it. At the time the the IIHF had to make a decision on what would benefit the sport more... The participation of the sport itself on a massive global platform or the participation of players that almost no one outside of Canada and a select few American cities have heard of on a much smaller platform.

Even if the IIHF was maliciously shafting Canada back then to continue to dwell on it present day seems silly. All of the major decision makers who were 'out to get Canada' have one way or the other moved on and currently HC and the IIHF seem get along rather famously.

As far as the NHL goes in all this I am pretty sure the people running the league (AKA the owners) would love it if the IIHF reverted back to 'amateurism' (AKA screwing Canada).

 

[Pominville Knows]

...

Yeah well you know they spent their everyday life cheating to be "amatures" in the WHC, so one needs not be surprised when they also cheated in a true best on best. Only this time it was more to protect their allready dirty heritage, when going up against true best-on-best.

 

[Theokritos]

Yeah well you know they spent their everyday life cheating to be "amatures" in the WHC, so one needs not be surprised when they also cheated in a true best on best. Only this time it was more to protect their allready dirty heritage, when going up against true best-on-best.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, care to explain?

 

[Pominville Knows]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, care to explain?

They chose not to send all their best to at least the 1976 Canada Cup, but also to some extent in 1991 although there was other problems then as well.
Becouse of these actions threads like this happen in 2014, questioning the Canada Cup as a best on best.

 

[Big Phil]

They chose not to send all their best to at least the 1976 Canada Cup, but also to some extent in 1991 although there was other problems then as well.
Becouse of these actions threads like this happen in 2014, questioning the Canada Cup as a best on best.

Canada was - for various reasons - without the likes of Lemieux, Bourque, Roy, Yzerman, Neely, Oates, Recchi, etc. I think Canada takes the cake in 1991 don't you think?

 

[Theokritos]

They chose not to send all their best to at least the 1976 Canada Cup, but also to some extent in 1991 although there was other problems then as well.

What does it have to do with cheating?

 

[Zine]

Canada was - for various reasons - without the likes of Lemieux, Bourque, Roy, Yzerman, Neely, Oates, Recchi, etc. I think Canada takes the cake in 1991 don't you think?

I'm not sure.

The Soviets played with only 2-3 forwards that would've made the hypothetical "A" team (Fedorov, Semak, and maybe Lomakin as a defensive specialist).

 

[Big Phil]

I'm not sure.

The Soviets played with only 2-3 forwards that would've made the hypothetical "A" team (Fedorov, Semak, and maybe Lomakin as a defensive specialist).

I guess what I am saying is that for the countries that had players missing, Canada definitely wins at the top end and I would think that one would agree Canada itself had some insane names missing.

 

[Yakushev72]

The inducement for the Soviet Union to participate in the Canada Cup was largely financial. They sent what was at the time a "B" team in 1976. After the Soviets won by a big margin in 1981, Alan Eagleson changed the protocol to forbid European referees from working the medal round in 1984, 1987 and 1991. Despise the fact that the fix was on in 1984/87, the Soviets outscored the Canadians during the course of 2 games in'84 by an 8-6 margin, and, in 4 games in '87, finished behind Canada by a grand total of 1 goal, 20-19.

The Soviets were smart enough to see the obvious - the field was tilted against them to create a Canadian coronation on Canadian soil. Why did the Soviets play along anyway? Because the Canada Cup was an exhibition series, not a recognized World Championship, and put simply, they could really use the cash.

There is no similar financial need on the part of Russia these days, and because of conflicts with the KHL schedule and an unwillingness to promote the NHL at the expense of the KHL, there will no Russian participation in any future World Cup unless the NHL could negotiate a mid-season series in which a large percentage of the profit goes to the KHL and/or the Russian Federation.

 

[Big Phil]

The inducement for the Soviet Union to participate in the Canada Cup was largely financial. They sent what was at the time a "B" team in 1976. After the Soviets won by a big margin in 1981, Alan Eagleson changed the protocol to forbid European referees from working the medal round in 1984, 1987 and 1991. Despise the fact that the fix was on in 1984/87, the Soviets outscored the Canadians during the course of 2 games in'84 by an 8-6 margin, and, in 4 games in '87, finished behind Canada by a grand total of 1 goal, 20-19.

The Soviets were smart enough to see the obvious - the field was tilted against them to create a Canadian coronation on Canadian soil. Why did the Soviets play along anyway? Because the Canada Cup was an exhibition series, not a recognized World Championship, and put simply, they could really use the cash.

There is no similar financial need on the part of Russia these days, and because of conflicts with the KHL schedule and an unwillingness to promote the NHL at the expense of the KHL, there will no Russian participation in any future World Cup unless the NHL could negotiate a mid-season series in which a large percentage of the profit goes to the KHL and/or the Russian Federation.

Man that is some fix isn't it? If not for a great defensive play by Coffey in 1984 and timely save after timely save in overtime of Game 2 in 1987 by Fuhr the Soviets would have won. They sure looked like they were trying to win rather than just "playing along". And if this so-called fix is real then the usual mastermind of Eagleson wasn't very good at it was he? And I can't imagine Eagleson not being good at doing something evil. What I am saying is that this sounds like sour grapes to me. 1987 was probably the best hockey we've ever seen to this day. This was not an exhibition by any means. If so, then the Soviets were pretty darn good actors as well as Tikhonov. They sure looked like they wanted to win and were scolded when they lost.

 

[Pominville Knows]

What does it have to do with cheating?

Choosing not to send all your best becouse of political reasons does not give anyone an option to give excuses. They sat in their boat=They get to live with it. Not anyone else like us in this thread.