Daly: Hope to have World Cup of Hockey 2020

[Elvs]

To add to this, Switzerland has two World Championship silver medals in the last five years. Say what you want about this tournament, but they beat Canada in both these tournaments (2013 and 2018) when Canada had these players:

2013:
Taylor Hall, T.J. Brodie, Jordan Staal, Matt Duchene, Eric Staal, Jordan Eberle, Andrew Ladd, Wayne Simmonds, Claude Giroux, Brian Campbell, Jeff Skinner, P.K. Subban, Ryan O'Reilly

2018:
Aaron Ekblad, Jordan Eberle, Kyle Turris, Josh Bailey, Matt Barzal, Jaden Schwartz, Marc-Edouard Vlasic, Bo Horvat, Colton Parayko, Ryan O'Reailly, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Connor McDavid

Not to mention they forced Sweden to a shootout in the final (2018). And this was a Swedish team that had Klingberg, Ekholm, Backlund, Ekman-Larsson, Arvidsson, Lindholm, Rakell, Hornqvist, Forsberg and Zibanejad.

But I guess even when the evidence is shoved in your face, you'll still deem Switzerland not competitive enough. Again, you seem more concerned with the names on the player's jersey's than actual on ice results. You want a tournament with only NHL'ers, because players outside the NHL does not appeal to you.

 

[Jahara]

I'm gonna quote your post again, because your "facts" about Switzerland are wrong. This is how they've fared against the top 6 nations in the last three Olympics that had NHL'ers.

green = wins
blue = ot/so losses
red = losses

2014:
Sweden - Switzerland 1-0
Switzerland - Czech Republic 1-0

2010:
USA - Switzerland 3-1
Switzerland - Canada 2-3 (SO)
QF: USA - Switzerland 2-0

2006:
Switzerland - Finland 0-5
Czech Republic - Switzerland 2-3
Canada - Switzerland 0-2
QF: Switzerland - Sweden 2-6

The 2006 Olympics is irrelevant now, I'll admit that. But they beat Canada then, and have become better since. The fact that the only blowout losses came in 2006 is also a testament that they got better. Overall, in the past three Olympics (that had NHL'ers), they come out on top against both the Czechs and Canada after two games against each. In the past two tournaments they didn't lose any games by more than two goals, and in the most recent tournament they went +/- 0 against top six competition.

---

And just for fun, here's Slovakia's results in the same Olympic tournaments:

2014:
Slovakia - USA 1-7
Russia - Slovakia 1-0 (SO)
QF: Slovakia - Czech Republic 3-5

2010:
Czech Republic - Slovakia 3-1
Slovakia - Russia 2-1 (SO)
QF: Sweden-Slovakia 3-4
SF: Slovakia-Canada 2-3
BG: Slovakia-Finland 3-5

2006:
Russia-Slovakia 3-5
Slovakia-USA 2-1
Sweden-Slovakia 0-3
QF: Slovakia-Czech Republic 1-3

Again, 2006 is irrelelvant and in contrast to Switzerland, Slovakia has gotten worse since. But even in 2010, when most of their golden generation was either retired or old and washed up, they beat Russia at the group stage, Sweden in the quarter final and only fell one goal short against Canada in the semi final. Overall, in these tournaments, they got blown out once. No other loss had more than a two goal differential.

Yeah, Switzerland has come closer the big six but maybe that is saying something about how countries like Czech, Russia and Finland have lost some edge. I would have preferred Switzerland over Team NA but not over Team Europe in a World Cup.

Ranking formats for future World Cups would be like this.

1. 7 teams (big 6+Team Europe), round-robin, top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
2. 6 teams, round-robin, top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
3. 8 teams (big 6+Team Europe and Switzerland), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
4. 8 teams (big 6+Slovakia and Switzerland), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
5. 8 teams (big 6+Team Europe and Team NA), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
6. 8 teams (big 6+Slovakia and Germany), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
7. 8 teams (big 6+Slovakia and Germany), every team to QF, best of 3 finals.

Maybe more fans should realize how crappy the 2004 format was instead of complaining about the 2016 edition.

 

[JETZZZ]

Yeah, Switzerland has come closer the big six but maybe that is saying something about how countries like Czech, Russia and Finland have lost some edge. I would have preferred Switzerland over Team NA but not over Team Europe in a World Cup.

Ranking formats for future World Cups would be like this.

1. 7 teams (big 6+Team Europe), round-robin, top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
2. 6 teams, round-robin, top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
3. 8 teams (big 6+Team Europe and Switzerland), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
4. 8 teams (big 6+Slovakia and Switzerland), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
5. 8 teams (big 6+Team Europe and Team NA), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
6. 8 teams (big 6+Slovakia and Germany), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
7. 8 teams (big 6+Slovakia and Germany), every team to QF, best of 3 finals.

Maybe more fans should realize how crappy the 2004 format was instead of complaining about the 2016 edition.

Then maybe a 6 team feild for a World Cup is too many then too. Perhaps 3 teams tops?

 

[Jahara]

Then maybe a 6 team feild for a World Cup is too many then too. Perhaps 3 teams tops?

No, having a group stage where every team faces each other once is essential. 5 or 6 games each is a good fit.

 

[Elvs]

Yeah, Switzerland has come closer the big six but maybe that is saying something about how countries like Czech, Russia and Finland have lost some edge.

While that may be true on paper, those conclusions can't be drawn from the results against Switzerland. Aside from the Czechs maybe, it's actually Canada that struggles the most against Switzerland in both Olympic and World Championship events. From the top 6 countries, Russia and Finland seem to handle them the best.

 

[Ducks76]

Yeah, Switzerland has come closer the big six but maybe that is saying something about how countries like Czech, Russia and Finland have lost some edge. I would have preferred Switzerland over Team NA but not over Team Europe in a World Cup.

Ranking formats for future World Cups would be like this.

1. 7 teams (big 6+Team Europe), round-robin, top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
2. 6 teams, round-robin, top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
3. 8 teams (big 6+Team Europe and Switzerland), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
4. 8 teams (big 6+Slovakia and Switzerland), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
5. 8 teams (big 6+Team Europe and Team NA), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
6. 8 teams (big 6+Slovakia and Germany), top 4 to semi, best of 3 finals.
7. 8 teams (big 6+Slovakia and Germany), every team to QF, best of 3 finals.

Maybe more fans should realize how crappy the 2004 format was instead of complaining about the 2016 edition.

Sorry Finland is on paper stronger than ever before(So much young Stars). They could mobilized almost 2 complete NHL-Teams. Swizterland is on paper still far away!

 

[Boonk]

Sorry Finland is on paper stronger than ever before(So much young Stars). They could mobilized almost 2 complete NHL-Teams. Swizterland is on paper still far away!

There isnt even enough Finnish NHL players to mobilize to NHL players.

 

[JETZZZ]

No, having a group stage where every team faces each other once is essential. 5 or 6 games each is a good fit.

Well, you could have a group stage where every team faces each other once with 8 teams. Each team plays 7 games, then the 2 teams with the best record play in a 1 game final.
Or, you could have the 4 teams with the best round robin record play in a semi finals, the 2 winners of that play in a final?

 

[Ducks76]

There isnt even enough Finnish NHL players to mobilize to NHL players.

Oh yes! 43 NHL-Players in the moment!

 

[JackSlater]

The organizing body of the tournament doesn't need to worry about how many teams are legitimate contenders to win. Pick a number - 6, 8 or whatever - and select the best national teams up to that number. As long as the teams have a realistic chance to at least win one game, as in teams like Switzerland or Germany, that's sufficient. The original Canada Cup tournament featured USA, Finland and Sweden even though those teams realistically stood no chance of winning the tournament.

 

[Past Considerations]

More would in September.

Oh, but it is not much different to the Olympics question. While the season is not shut down, it could overlap with the pre-season and there's the threat of injuries.

 

[Jahara]

Well, you could have a group stage where every team faces each other once with 8 teams. Each team plays 7 games, then the 2 teams with the best record play in a 1 game final.
Or, you could have the 4 teams with the best round robin record play in a semi finals, the 2 winners of that play in a final?

You could have that many teams but 8 is too much. Considering how the hockey world looks, 6 or maybe 7 teams is the best.

 

[Big Phil]

I hope it happens..............but I hope it happens right. I am glad Canada won in 2016 but those gimmick teams were horrible and that tournament was the most passionless, boring high level tournament of all-time. Put it this way, I had tickets to see the Blue Jays and Red Sox at Fenway Park on the day of what would have been Game 3 of the final, which it never got to. I had the tickets and didn't bother to think that I might miss that game because it was just a second rate tournament. The 1996 World Cup and prior? I wouldn't have missed a game if you killed me.

What does that say about a lifelong hockey fan when he brushes off this tournament as just an exhibition. Also, I don't think people realize how close it was to being a Canada vs. North American Young Guns final. You've got McDavid and MacKinnon and co. trying to beat..................their own country? It almost happened, that's how much of a joke this was. As it was, we had to play the European castaway nations team. I'm sorry, I just don't have any anger towards Slovakia, Denmark, Belarus and other countries that never pose a threat to us. It was a joke.

 

[Jahara]

I hope it happens..............but I hope it happens right. I am glad Canada won in 2016 but those gimmick teams were horrible and that tournament was the most passionless, boring high level tournament of all-time. Put it this way, I had tickets to see the Blue Jays and Red Sox at Fenway Park on the day of what would have been Game 3 of the final, which it never got to. I had the tickets and didn't bother to think that I might miss that game because it was just a second rate tournament. The 1996 World Cup and prior? I wouldn't have missed a game if you killed me.

What does that say about a lifelong hockey fan when he brushes off this tournament as just an exhibition. Also, I don't think people realize how close it was to being a Canada vs. North American Young Guns final. You've got McDavid and MacKinnon and co. trying to beat..................their own country? It almost happened, that's how much of a joke this was. As it was, we had to play the European castaway nations team. I'm sorry, I just don't have any anger towards Slovakia, Denmark, Belarus and other countries that never pose a threat to us. It was a joke.

And what would be the "right" World Cup then? 8 teams and a half pointless group stage where everyone reaches the QF? The 96 and 04 edition was more or less the same thing structurally beside the QF stage.

You say boring and passionless. Remembering the 2014 Olympics, it is those words that comes to my mind. Well, well...the memory is short, as we say in Sweden.

 

[Big Phil]

And what would be the "right" World Cup then? 8 teams and a half pointless group stage where everyone reaches the QF? The 96 and 04 edition was more or less the same thing structurally beside the QF stage.

You say boring and passionless. Remembering the 2014 Olympics, it is those words that comes to my mind. Well, well...the memory is short, as we say in Sweden.

The 2014 Olympics was not exciting hockey for the reason that it was on the big ice. That leads to more boring hockey. 2010 was NHL ice. The 1996 World Cup did not have everyone make the quarterfinals. The top 3 in each division made it. One from each division missed out. In fact, Canada needed to beat Slovakia on the last game of the round robin to secure a playoff spot.

2004 everyone made it, which was a little anti-climactic that way but at least it gave the best team in each division the easier match up. Canada faced Slovakia in the quarter finals. 2004 had some moments, it was a bit like 1991, but when you compare it to 2016 it looked like the 1987 Canada Cup. 2016 had gimmick teams, no hitting, no hunger, no animosity and had the feel of more of an All-Star game. No other tournament has ever had this. Even the 2014 Olympics with Canada controlling the pace of every game they played in at least had countries playing against one another.

Keep this in mind, if the old Canada Cups had the silly format the 2016 version had Gretzky and the Oilers would be on the "Young Guns" team in 1984. Lemieux would too in 1987. Crosby would be in 2010. Hopefully that makes my point quite clear.

 

[Nino33]

I'd prefer the old Canada Cup format where everyone plays everyone in the round robin, anything else is less than ideal from the start (6 teams seems right to me).

no hitting, no hunger, no animosity and had the feel of more of an All-Star game.

Sounds like modern hockey in general!

You say boring and passionless. Remembering the 2014 Olympics, it is those words that comes to my mind. Well, well...the memory is short, as we say in Sweden.

Olympic big ice hockey is incredibly boring hockey to many (2014 was definitely boring hockey to me).



The lower ranked teams play a style of hockey that contributes to the boring hockey, and so some want as few as possible & the idea that teams might not even play each other once sucks (for example, 2014 in Russia and Russia/Canada don't even play a game against each other!); teams not playing everyone once in the round robin also makes it easier for lower teams to advance (fewer games to have to come up with the upset).

 

[Nino33]

It is not insulting and it is just the facts. Slovakia and Switzerland might reach a semifinal at best if they do have a good generation but just look at the results from the Olympics and World Cups and realize that they are a level below. Even a country like Czech Republic can barely challenge these days.

I'm gonna quote your post again, because your "facts" about Switzerland are wrong. This is how they've fared against the top 6 nations in the last three Olympics that had NHL'ers.

Switzerland didn't even make the semifinal in 2014, 2010 or 2006

 

[Nino33]

To add to this, Switzerland has two World Championship silver medals in the last five years. Say what you want about this tournament, but they beat Canada in both these tournaments (2013 and 2018) when Canada had these players:

2013:
Taylor Hall, T.J. Brodie, Jordan Staal, Matt Duchene, Eric Staal, Jordan Eberle, Andrew Ladd, Wayne Simmonds, Claude Giroux, Brian Campbell, Jeff Skinner, P.K. Subban, Ryan O'Reilly

2018:
Aaron Ekblad, Jordan Eberle, Kyle Turris, Josh Bailey, Matt Barzal, Jaden Schwartz, Marc-Edouard Vlasic, Bo Horvat, Colton Parayko, Ryan O'Reailly, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Connor McDavid

Not to mention they forced Sweden to a shootout in the final (2018). And this was a Swedish team that had Klingberg, Ekholm, Backlund, Ekman-Larsson, Arvidsson, Lindholm, Rakell, Hornqvist, Forsberg and Zibanejad.

But I guess even when the evidence is shoved in your face, you'll still deem Switzerland not competitive enough. Again, you seem more concerned with the names on the player's jersey's than actual on ice results. You want a tournament with only NHL'ers, because players outside the NHL does not appeal to you.

You know the Worlds don't matter to NA right?

Beating your chest by listing off Canadian players you beat (few would even be on a best-on-best team) in a tournament that matters as much as exhibition games in NA doesn't help your case IMO

 

[Elvs]

Switzerland didn't even make the semifinal in 2014, 2010 or 2006

His "facts" are that Switzerland can't compete based on results, when they in fact come out on top against both the Czech Republic and Canada if the last 2 games combined (best on best) against each.

 

[Jahara]

The 2014 Olympics was not exciting hockey for the reason that it was on the big ice. That leads to more boring hockey. 2010 was NHL ice. The 1996 World Cup did not have everyone make the quarterfinals. The top 3 in each division made it. One from each division missed out. In fact, Canada needed to beat Slovakia on the last game of the round robin to secure a playoff spot.

2004 everyone made it, which was a little anti-climactic that way but at least it gave the best team in each division the easier match up. Canada faced Slovakia in the quarter finals. 2004 had some moments, it was a bit like 1991, but when you compare it to 2016 it looked like the 1987 Canada Cup. 2016 had gimmick teams, no hitting, no hunger, no animosity and had the feel of more of an All-Star game. No other tournament has ever had this. Even the 2014 Olympics with Canada controlling the pace of every game they played in at least had countries playing against one another.

Keep this in mind, if the old Canada Cups had the silly format the 2016 version had Gretzky and the Oilers would be on the "Young Guns" team in 1984. Lemieux would too in 1987. Crosby would be in 2010. Hopefully that makes my point quite clear.

2016 had exciting games and was entertaining. Team NA was probably the most entertaining team but I agree that they should not have been there. It is totally wrong that Canada and in this case mostly USA didn't have access to all their best players. But overall the strength in 2016 was bigger than 2004 and several games was fun.

Nino33 is totally right that the big teams should play each other more times. Just look at Swedens route with hard matches before the Olympic final 2014. A weak Czech team and a 1 goal victory against Switzerland. Then it was just a victory against Finland before the final. The 2006 Olympics was more fun with more games and more big teams facing each other.

 

[Nino33]

His "facts" are that Switzerland can't compete based on results, when they in fact come out on top against both the Czech Republic and Canada if the last 2 games combined (best on best) against each.

Except the poster he quoted said "Switzerland might reach a semifinal at best"

When they played a top nation in a game that mattered they lost both (2-0 to the US, 6-2 to Sweden). When they played "lesser teams" in a game that mattered they won one of two (beating Belarus 3-2, losing to Latvia 3-1).

Winning a group game and acting like that really matters is something that a "lower team" would do actually...it doesn't make your team a legitimate threat


And just top be clear, in my ideal "6 team everyone plays everyone in round robin and then playoffs tournament" I have no problem with the last team (after Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland and the US) being Switzerland or any other team...maybe a "play in" (personally, I don't really care how they do it). I'd be OK with 7 or 8 teams too (as long as everyone played everyone once in the round robin).

But just like other wishes I have (like fewer NHL teams/games), I don't think it's likely I'll see what I want HaHa


P.S. I didn't like the most recent World Cup, and didn't even bother watching most games...but the Olympic hockey in 2014 wasn't any more exciting to watch for me

 

[Rob]

Back in 2016 I was in Toronto and had the chance to take in Canada vs Czech in the round robin. It was a difficult decision but I decided to pass. I just couldn't support the tournament (the NHL) with its ridiculous format. If they have the gimmick teams in 2020 I will be taking a pass again.

 

[Elvs]

You know the Worlds don't matter to NA right?

Beating your chest by listing off Canadian players you beat (few would even be on a best-on-best team) in a tournament that matters as much as exhibition games in NA doesn't help your case IMO

You complain about Canada missing some of their best players, when in fact no other team can handle it as well as Canada. Not even close. The differance on paper between your typical Canadian IIHF and your typical IIHF Czech team, is actually far bigger then if these nations go up against each other best on best. Not the other way around.

Anyway, you're totally contradicting yourself. You complain about missing some of your best players, yet you say they don't care when they show up. With that logic, you should be advocating for less stars and more 2nd rate talent on your national team. Or are you saying the World Championship doesn't matter to the likes of Wayne Simmonds, Jeff Skinner, Jordan Staal, T.J. Brodie etc? Surely, those guys didn't play in the World Championship to win right. No motivation, because they are so sure they'll make Canada's Olympic roster and then win Olympic gold.





Yes, evidently from goal and gold celebrations, north american players don't care about winning the World Championship. This is how they celebrate in exhibition games home in North America as well. Jack Eichel and Johnny Gaudreau just feels like Cologne, Germany, is the place to be. So they go there for vacation and have no desires winning when they are there.

Being motivated is part of winning. If you're players are unmotivated, the joke's on them or your coaching staff or the GM for selecting those players. Doesn't take away anything away from the teams that are winning. Sorry, but this is seriously a lame excuse for losing.

 

[Nino33]

You complain about Canada missing some of their best players.....You complain about missing some of your best players

Wow, did you miss the point! I didn't "complain" in any way because to complain I'd have to care.....I was trying to point out the Worlds are meaningless in NA (no one cares/they don't prove anything).

I was pointing out that pointing to the results in the Worlds (or group games in the Olympics) isn't really "proof" of much to the average NA hockey fan

YMMV

 

[Elvs]

Except the poster he quoted said "Switzerland might reach a semifinal at best"

He said that, and then he said the other stuff I said that he said... In the same sentence, with no point or comma. But whatever.

When they played a top nation in a game that mattered they lost both (2-0 to the US, 6-2 to Sweden). When they played "lesser teams" in a game that mattered they won one of two (beating Belarus 3-2, losing to Latvia 3-1).

They've won big games in the World Championship, but of course we will never come to common ground on what that means. Switzerland in the World Cup wouldn't be a punching bag and in a short tournament they are far from a guarantee to be the last placed team in the tournament. And if they can reach the semifinal, that should be enough for them to participate, imo.

Winning a group game and acting like that really matters is something that a "lower team" would do actually...it doesn't make your team a legitimate threat

And just top be clear, in my ideal "6 team everyone plays everyone in round robin and then playoffs tournament" I have no problem with the last team (after Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland and the US) being Switzerland or any other team...maybe a "play in" (personally, I don't really care how they do it). I'd be OK with 7 or 8 teams too (as long as everyone played everyone once in the round robin).

But just like other wishes I have (like fewer NHL teams/games), I don't think it's likely I'll see what I want HaHa

P.S. I didn't like the most recent World Cup, and didn't even bother watching most games...but the Olympic hockey in 2014 wasn't any more exciting to watch for me

I don't disagree with your six nation round robin idea. It's 1000x better than team Europe and team North America playing, which is something I've said earlier (or maybe that was in the EHT thread). Though I'm curious why the Czech Republic is not on your list of invites.