Olympics: Enjoy it, Canadian fans, while we can...

[Jonimaus]

I'm not sure if North Americans understand how much international hockey would suffer if NHL stars wouldn't be able to go to olympic tournaments and it would be replaced by a world cup.

While everyone who knows a damn about hockey understands the WHC is a gimmic tournament where the result doesn't really mean much, there's a lot of casual fans who enjoy the tournament, it's also a great way for national teams outside of the top 7 to get to play some good hockey on a regular basis, and maybe even grow the game due to it.
The olympics is the olympics. It creates hype. Very few people outside of north america gives a damn about a world cup. It would take MANY years (like, many) for it to be able to replace the olympics, and international hockey would suffer a lot during that time. Unless it's fine that the world cup is basically a show tournament for north america.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

I was referring to the category of best on best World tournaments. The World Cup, if it is played, is a summer invitational tournament, which doesn't fit into the same category. If the NHL doesn't participate in Korea, then the World Hockey Championships are the only alternative to crown a king of hockey.

The World Hockey Championships aren't best on best, you know.. The World Cup of Hockey would be more 'best on best' than the WHC.

Though I really hope the NHL keeps going to the Olympics, nothing comes close to that!

 

[Yakushev72]

I'm not sure if North Americans understand how much international hockey would suffer if NHL stars wouldn't be able to go to olympic tournaments and it would be replaced by a world cup.

While everyone who knows a damn about hockey understands the WHC is a gimmic tournament where the result doesn't really mean much, there's a lot of casual fans who enjoy the tournament, it's also a great way for national teams outside of the top 7 to get to play some good hockey on a regular basis, and maybe even grow the game due to it.
The olympics is the olympics. It creates hype. Very few people outside of north america gives a damn about a world cup. It would take MANY years (like, many) for it to be able to replace the olympics, and international hockey would suffer a lot during that time. Unless it's fine that the world cup is basically a show tournament for north america.

If the NHL brass were smart, and they wanted to generate some summertime interest in sticks and pucks, they would use the World Cup framework to stage a best of 7 series between Canada and the United States. In a World Cup format, this would be the best match-up because there are American referees alongside Canadians in the NHL, so neither side would have to fear nationalistic bias with the whistle. Also, Canadian NHL officials couldn't get away with loading the dice against the Americans the same way that they could against Europeans. I would be tempted to watch that match-up.

 

[JackSlater]

Whatever talent gap exists is not so wide that it couldn't be overcome as soon as Korea.

Not really possible. In 3.5 years no country will be able to match Canada in terms of talent. Further down the road it is a definite possibility, but in 2018 Canada will still have Crosby, Toews, Getzlaf, Giroux, Bergeron, Seguin, Hall, Tavares, Benn, Duchene, Stamkos, Doughty, Pietrangelo, Weber, Keith, Subban, Price and so on. No country has the current players or mature prospects to match that in 2018. The vast majority of the impact players of 2018 will already have been drafted by this point.

I say that because it seems as though there has been a falling off of junior age talent in Canada in the last 6 or 7 years, and that could be a factor in replacing some of the older players from Sochi and Vancouver.

The junior talent has been fine over that period, though less so in the last two - three years in my opinion. Canada can add some of Stamkos, Seguin, Giroux, Hall, MacKinnon, O'Reilly, Couture and so on at forward, so no issue there in replacing players like Kunitz, Sharp, St. Louis and Nash due to age. Defencemen are less promising going forward, but Doughty, Subban and Pietrangelo should be improved in 2018 while Weber and Keith will still only be 32 and 34 years old respectively. Bouwmeester and Hamhuis are probably gone, but that isn't a big deal.

As you have correctly noted, all it takes in an Olympic tournament is a bad bounce or a bonehead play, and even Canada could fall behind in a critical game such as a Quarter- or Semi-Final. If you fall behind Finland even by a single goal, they have a unique ability to completely close down the ice and force a team to throw everything into the offense, which can easily result in a counterattack that creates a two-goal margin.

Most people retain the last image that they process, so there is a tendency to conclude that because the Gold Medal game in Sochi was a relatively easy win, that the next games will also be pushovers. It isn't necessarily true. If the core of the Vancouver and Sochi Canadian teams are still intact in Korea, its going to be hard for those guys to conjure up the fear of losing which is such an essential and critical part of being motivated to win. I'm not saying that Canada won't win a third consecutive Gold, but its a far more arduous psychological feat to accomplish than the first or second.

I completely agree that Canada could lose. That's hockey. There is no reason to expect it to be easy, as pretty much every big country could be in better shape by 2018.

 

[Get North]

If the NHL brass were smart, and they wanted to generate some summertime interest in sticks and pucks, they would use the World Cup framework to stage a best of 7 series between Canada and the United States. In a World Cup format, this would be the best match-up because there are American referees alongside Canadians in the NHL, so neither side would have to fear nationalistic bias with the whistle. Also, Canadian NHL officials couldn't get away with loading the dice against the Americans the same way that they could against Europeans. I would be tempted to watch that match-up.

What?

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

What?

I agree Y72. You're really reaching now.

 

[xxxx]

I was referring to the category of best on best World tournaments. The World Cup, if it is played, is a summer invitational tournament, which doesn't fit into the same category. If the NHL doesn't participate in Korea, then the World Hockey Championships are the only alternative to crown a king of hockey.

That's nice, but I'm glad that you are just a fan and that the actual players, who we, fans, watch mainly, actually care about the tournament as much as about the olympics.

 

[xxxx]

I think it's ridiculous to think that there is any bias towards Canada and the US from the NHL referees.

Just from the World Cup 2004, Finland beat the US 2-1, when the Finnish winning goal was scored right after a situation where the NHL referee should've clearly made a call on Finns. There really ends the argument for me.

Not to mention that the 2010 and 2014 olympic tournemants looked more than ok in terms of referring.

 

[Yakushev72]

Not really possible. In 3.5 years no country will be able to match Canada in terms of talent. Further down the road it is a definite possibility, but in 2018 Canada will still have Crosby, Toews, Getzlaf, Giroux, Bergeron, Seguin, Hall, Tavares, Benn, Duchene, Stamkos, Doughty, Pietrangelo, Weber, Keith, Subban, Price and so on. No country has the current players or mature prospects to match that in 2018. The vast majority of the impact players of 2018 will already have been drafted by this point.



The junior talent has been fine over that period, though less so in the last two - three years in my opinion. Canada can add some of Stamkos, Seguin, Giroux, Hall, MacKinnon, O'Reilly, Couture and so on at forward, so no issue there in replacing players like Kunitz, Sharp, St. Louis and Nash due to age. Defencemen are less promising going forward, but Doughty, Subban and Pietrangelo should be improved in 2018 while Weber and Keith will still only be 32 and 34 years old respectively. Bouwmeester and Hamhuis are probably gone, but that isn't a big deal.



I completely agree that Canada could lose. That's hockey. There is no reason to expect it to be easy, as pretty much every big country could be in better shape by 2018.

No doubt that Crosby (the best player in hockey without question) and Toews are great players and great leaders who create so much positive flow when they're out there. Stamkos is a prolific goal scorer, although less so in international play than in the NHL. Getzlaf and Doughty were important in Sochi. The other guys you named are interchangeable parts with some other Canadian forwards, and don't make a decisive contribution to winning a Gold Medal. Of the juniors, the best in the last 6 or 7 years are probably Nugent-Hopkins, who is a great assist man who can really deliver the soft pass, and MacKinnon, although I think that if someone pressures Nugent-Hopkins they can really limit his game, and MacKinnon matured physically at such an early age that it will be interesting to see if he continues to improve beyond where he is now. If there is an Olympic tournament involving NHL players, Canada will deservedly come in as the favorite, but it will be a tougher fete psychologically and physically to win.

 

[Get North]

No doubt that Crosby (the best player in hockey without question) and Toews are great players and great leaders who create so much positive flow when they're out there. Stamkos is a prolific goal scorer, although less so in international play than in the NHL. Getzlaf and Doughty were important in Sochi. The other guys you named are interchangeable parts with some other Canadian forwards, and don't make a decisive contribution to winning a Gold Medal. Of the juniors, the best in the last 6 or 7 years are probably Nugent-Hopkins, who is a great assist man who can really deliver the soft pass, and MacKinnon, although I think that if someone pressures Nugent-Hopkins they can really limit his game, and MacKinnon matured physically at such an early age that it will be interesting to see if he continues to improve beyond where he is now. If there is an Olympic tournament involving NHL players, Canada will deservedly come in as the favorite, but it will be a tougher fete psychologically and physically to win.

I don't think it will be a tougher to win. Let's take a look at the potential roster:

Stamkos, Giroux, Tavares, Benn, Seguin, these players are going to be even better than they were in 2014, plus we can add a Stamkos to our roster. Now, Crosby, Getzlaf, Perry, Begeron, Toews are going to be around the same pace they are right now. MacKinnon, Couture, Hall are in my mind going to make the roster and they'll be better than they are today.

The defence group should get better with guys like Doughty, Pietrangelo, Subban and defencemen who should be able to stay at the same pace in Weber, Bouwmeester and Keith.

We're excluding McDavid who'll be 21 when the tournament comes up.

Canada will have guys like Stamkos, Giroux, Tavares, Benn, Doughty, Pietrangelo, Subban, Seguin, Toews, MacKinnon, Hall who'll be at the top of their game.

 

[Jonimaus]

That's nice, but I'm glad that you are just a fan and that the actual players, who we, fans, watch mainly, actually care about the tournament as much as about the olympics.

They do? You asked them?

 

[JackSlater]

No doubt that Crosby (the best player in hockey without question) and Toews are great players and great leaders who create so much positive flow when they're out there. Stamkos is a prolific goal scorer, although less so in international play than in the NHL. Getzlaf and Doughty were important in Sochi. The other guys you named are interchangeable parts with some other Canadian forwards, and don't make a decisive contribution to winning a Gold Medal. Of the juniors, the best in the last 6 or 7 years are probably Nugent-Hopkins, who is a great assist man who can really deliver the soft pass, and MacKinnon, although I think that if someone pressures Nugent-Hopkins they can really limit his game, and MacKinnon matured physically at such an early age that it will be interesting to see if he continues to improve beyond where he is now. If there is an Olympic tournament involving NHL players, Canada will deservedly come in as the favorite, but it will be a tougher fete psychologically and physically to win.

I'm not going to get into breaking down the potential players at this point, particularly a player as unlikely to make the team as Nugent-Hopkins, but these players that you casually brush off (Tavares, Seguin, Weber etc.) would be the best players on almost any other team. Canada can lose even with full NHL participation in 2018, and in fact Canada losing might even be probable. The roster will be far more talented than any other in the tournament though. We won't know the result until the games are played.

 

[xxxx]

They do? You asked them?

The point is that the players consider the World Cup as a best-on-best tournament, just like the olympics.

 

[Yakushev72]

I'm not going to get into breaking down the potential players at this point, particularly a player as unlikely to make the team as Nugent-Hopkins, but these players that you casually brush off (Tavares, Seguin, Weber etc.) would be the best players on almost any other team. Canada can lose even with full NHL participation in 2018, and in fact Canada losing might even be probable. The roster will be far more talented than any other in the tournament though. We won't know the result until the games are played.

If you start naming the teams that Tavares, Seguin, etc., would be the best player, you could not credibly include Sweden, Russia, Finland or the United States. Tavares is an excellent blue-collar forward who mucks out 30 to 40 goals a season, but few would consider him to be a world-beater, and he is the best of the lot that you mentioned. Weber is a big, physical defenseman, but that commodity is less valuable in international play.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

Weber was no 1b of a defense corps that was the most dominant unit in the olympics since it has included NHL players. I would have to think a defenseman of Webers ilk seems to be pretty darn important in international play. I know he would have been Russias number 1 d-man that's for sure, would they have ever loved to have been able to include him in their lineup.

And Tavares is not just some blue collar guy, he is one of the best players in the world.Tavares would indeed be considered the best player for the U.S or Sweden or at least a tie in the case of the U.S with Pat Kane.Russia he would not be I agree.

As for Seguin I would agree he would not be considered the best player for either the U.S,Russia or Sweden but he did not even make Team Canada and would have been an automatic choice for any of Russia,Sweden or the U.S, that says something.

 

[JackSlater]

If you start naming the teams that Tavares, Seguin, etc., would be the best player, you could not credibly include Sweden, Russia, Finland or the United States. Tavares is an excellent blue-collar forward who mucks out 30 to 40 goals a season, but few would consider him to be a world-beater, and he is the best of the lot that you mentioned. Weber is a big, physical defenseman, but that commodity is less valuable in international play.

Do you actually watch hockey? Honest question.

Tavares is one of the most intelligent players in hockey. You are probably the first person to ever call him a blue collar forward mucking goals, so congratulations on that I guess. He's a player who consistently raises the games of his linemates, as evidenced by the contracts of PA Parenteau and Matt Moulson. This is a player who was seventh in NHL scoring at 21, an MVP finalist the next year, and second in NHL scoring the year after before being injured at the Olympics. He's easily better than any any Finnish forward right now, probably better than any single American or Swede right now, and comfortably better than any Russian since Ovechkin/Malkin. You're right that he (or Seguin) would not be the unquestioned best player for those teams, and my point was lost because what I said was too strong. These are players that would be possibly the very best for any other country and yet you say they are pieces who would not contribute to gold. That is the (ridiculous) point.

Seguin would pretty easily be the projected top line centre for any of Finland, USA or Sweden by 2018 (if not already in the first two cases) and once again, Russia does not have a player under 25 near his quality. Russia even picked his vastly inferior (for now at the very least) linemate Nichushkin to play at the Olymipcs. Seguin is easily better than any Russian centre not named Malkin or Datsyuk.

Your analysis of Weber is almost as funny as your analysis of Tavares. Canada's number one defenceman for each of the last two Olympics, Olympic all star in 2010 (equally deserving in 2014), best defenceman at the 2009 WC (last time he participated) but not really a valuable commodity in international hockey. Quite possibly the best defenceman in hockey, and worlds better than any defenceman available to at least Finland or Russia, but not a valuable international commodity. Thank you for the expert analysis.

I honestly do not believe that you actually watch NHL hockey if these are your opinions, and I'm starting to doubt whether or not you even watched the Olympic games other than those featuring Russia. Please provide a list of forwards from 1) USA 2) Sweden 3) Russia 4) Finland better than Tavares or even Seguin (forget about Giroux, Hall and the others for now) and more comically the defencemen from those countries who are more valuable commodities in international hockey.

 

[Yakushev72]

Do you actually watch hockey? Honest question.

Tavares is one of the most intelligent players in hockey. You are probably the first person to ever call him a blue collar forward mucking goals, so congratulations on that I guess. He's a player who consistently raises the games of his linemates, as evidenced by the contracts of PA Parenteau and Matt Moulson. This is a player who was seventh in NHL scoring at 21, an MVP finalist the next year, and second in NHL scoring the year after before being injured at the Olympics. He's easily better than any any Finnish forward right now, probably better than any single American or Swede right now, and comfortably better than any Russian since Ovechkin/Malkin. You're right that he (or Seguin) would not be the unquestioned best player for those teams, and my point was lost because what I said was too strong. These are players that would be possibly the very best for any other country and yet you say they are pieces who would not contribute to gold. That is the (ridiculous) point.

Seguin would pretty easily be the projected top line centre for any of Finland, USA or Sweden by 2018 (if not already in the first two cases) and once again, Russia does not have a player under 25 near his quality. Russia even picked his vastly inferior (for now at the very least) linemate Nichushkin to play at the Olymipcs. Seguin is easily better than any Russian centre not named Malkin or Datsyuk.

Your analysis of Weber is almost as funny as your analysis of Tavares. Canada's number one defenceman for each of the last two Olympics, Olympic all star in 2010 (equally deserving in 2014), best defenceman at the 2009 WC (last time he participated) but not really a valuable commodity in international hockey. Quite possibly the best defenceman in hockey, and worlds better than any defenceman available to at least Finland or Russia, but not a valuable international commodity. Thank you for the expert analysis.

I honestly do not believe that you actually watch NHL hockey if these are your opinions, and I'm starting to doubt whether or not you even watched the Olympic games other than those featuring Russia. Please provide a list of forwards from 1) USA 2) Sweden 3) Russia 4) Finland better than Tavares or even Seguin (forget about Giroux, Hall and the others for now) and more comically the defencemen from those countries who are more valuable commodities in international hockey.

I'm not arguing that John Tavares isn't an outstanding player. In the NHL, he has averaged 22 goals and 29 assists per season, for an average of 51 points per season. Those aren't NHL record numbers, but they are better than guys who score less than 20 goals and less than 50 points per year.

Our different outlooks on the subject seem to revolve around different perspectives of international hockey in comparison to the NHL day in and day out play. I don't know what John Tavares' numbers against the Winnipeg Jets are, but I do believe that you are talking about apples and oranges when you seem to equate teams like the Jets to Olympic national teams. As I compare Team Canada at Sochi to the Winnipeg Jets, I honestly believe that it would be much easier to score and be dominant against Winnipeg than against the Canadian Olympic Team. So projecting probable performance against national teams based on performances against the Winnipeg Jets may be relevant against Austria or Norway, but not relevant against Sweden, the United States, Russia, Finland, and even the Czechs. So I do tend to be incredulous when you base arguments about talent imbalance based on performance that only satisfies a standard of being better than most others.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

I'm not arguing that John Tavares isn't an outstanding player. In the NHL, he has averaged 22 goals and 29 assists per season, for an average of 51 points per season. Those aren't NHL record numbers, but they are better than guys who score less than 20 goals and less than 50 points per year.

Your numbers aren't right. He has 315 points over 5 seasons - one which was strike shortened and one was Olympic injury shortened. Even then, he has averaged 63 points per season. He averages 0.9 points per game, at the age of 23, on one of the worst teams in hockey.

 

[1Gold Standard]

Your numbers aren't right. He has 315 points over 5 seasons - one which was strike shortened and one was Olympic injury shortened. Even then, he has averaged 63 points per season. He averages 0.9 points per game, at the age of 23, on one of the worst teams in hockey.

None of the numbers he dishes out are anywhere near close to reality at any time. The other day he said Stamkos is not as prolific a scorer in international play as in the NHL, but yet his goals per game average wearing the red maple leaf is in fact higher than when he wears the lightening bolt. 16 goals in 22 games sounds pretty prolific to me...and he's only getting started. granted if he played a 100 international games over the course of the next 7-8 years, his international stats would pretty much even out with with his NHL stats, or maybe he'll be able to maintain a notch above his NHL standard given the level of players he'll be playing with... Stammer cracks 100 pts this season...

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Do you actually watch hockey? Honest question.

Your numbers aren't right. He has 315 points over 5 seasons - one which was strike shortened and one was Olympic injury shortened. Even then, he has averaged 63 points per season. He averages 0.9 points per game, at the age of 23, on one of the worst teams in hockey.

None of the numbers he dishes out are anywhere near close to reality at any time. The other day he said Stamkos is not as prolific a scorer in international play as in the NHL, but yet his goals per game average wearing the red maple leaf is in fact higher than when he wears the lightening bolt. 16 goals in 22 games sounds pretty prolific to me...and he's only getting started. granted if he played a 100 international games over the course of the next 7-8 years, his international stats would pretty much even out with with his NHL stats, or maybe he'll be able to maintain a notch above his NHL standard given the level of players he'll be playing with... Stammer cracks 100 pts this season...

Come on, Y72. If you're just trolling, that's fine (God knows I can make trouble with the best of them), but if you're serious and you don't want to lose all credibility...

 

[xxxx]

I'm not arguing that John Tavares isn't an outstanding player. In the NHL, he has averaged 22 goals and 29 assists per season, for an average of 51 points per season. Those aren't NHL record numbers, but they are better than guys who score less than 20 goals and less than 50 points per year.

It is clear that you are trying to put Tavares down and make him look like he's a slightly above-average NHL player at best. Dude, every person here with a bit of common hockey sense must see this, you are being ridiculous.

Of course you forgot to add that it includes one non-complete NHL season that really misrepresents your numbers that are not even right. And, he was also injured last season and missed 23 games, but I assume it's not important to mention. Are you serious?

Tavares is starting to reach his potential just about now, he will be just 24 years old in September. And I think it was certainly a coincidence that you forgot he had 113 points in his last 107 games.

He could even become as good as Malkin or Stamkos and therefore, in 2018, he could definitely be the first center in any hockey country, other than Canada. IMO, he would be a first liner in any national team even now. Maybe even in Russia. Now I'm not talkin about first center, but first-liner. There is certainly still a chance that Tavares will play at wing for Canada in 2016/2018.

You are talkin about a player who was named into the All-star team when he was 21 y.o., was nominated for the Hart Trophy last year, and was third in NHL scoring this season before he got injured (with 66 points in 59 games), and won the olympic gold medal.

According to your statement 'he has averaged 22 goals and 29 assists per season, for an average of 51 points per season. Those aren't NHL record numbers, but they are better than guys who score less than 20 goals and less than 50 points per year.' it really doesn't look like we are talking about the same player.

Our different outlooks on the subject seem to revolve around different perspectives of international hockey in comparison to the NHL day in and day out play. I don't know what John Tavares' numbers against the Winnipeg Jets are, but I do believe that you are talking about apples and oranges when you seem to equate teams like the Jets to Olympic national teams. As I compare Team Canada at Sochi to the Winnipeg Jets, I honestly believe that it would be much easier to score and be dominant against Winnipeg than against the Canadian Olympic Team. So projecting probable performance against national teams based on performances against the Winnipeg Jets may be relevant against Austria or Norway, but not relevant against Sweden, the United States, Russia, Finland, and even the Czechs. So I do tend to be incredulous when you base arguments about talent imbalance based on performance that only satisfies a standard of being better than most others.

WTF?

 

[Frank the Tank]

I agree Y72. You're really reaching now.

As was pointed out earlier this thread, the biased Canadian officials conspiracy theory is the only excuse Canada bashers have left to cling to. The Sochi win eliminated all the others.

 

[Yakushev72]

Your numbers aren't right. He has 315 points over 5 seasons - one which was strike shortened and one was Olympic injury shortened. Even then, he has averaged 63 points per season. He averages 0.9 points per game, at the age of 23, on one of the worst teams in hockey.

I took the numbers from his Wikipedia page. If they are incorrect, that is on whoever compiled his page.

 

[Yakushev72]

None of the numbers he dishes out are anywhere near close to reality at any time. The other day he said Stamkos is not as prolific a scorer in international play as in the NHL, but yet his goals per game average wearing the red maple leaf is in fact higher than when he wears the lightening bolt. 16 goals in 22 games sounds pretty prolific to me...and he's only getting started. granted if he played a 100 international games over the course of the next 7-8 years, his international stats would pretty much even out with with his NHL stats, or maybe he'll be able to maintain a notch above his NHL standard given the level of players he'll be playing with... Stammer cracks 100 pts this season...

In regard to Stamkos, I wasn't so much talking about goal production in the WC, as some of those goals are going to come against teams like France, Italy, and so on. I was really talking more about scoring goals and dominating the stage in a way that takes his team to the brink of a championship. He hasn't done it in the WC in at least two outings that I am aware of to my knowledge.

 

[1Gold Standard]

In regard to Stamkos, I wasn't so much talking about goal production in the WC, as some of those goals are going to come against teams like France, Italy, and so on. I was really talking more about scoring goals and dominating the stage in a way that takes his team to the brink of a championship. He hasn't done it in the WC in at least two outings that I am aware of to my knowledge.

No matter what I think of the WHC as a bottom of the barrel, 3rd rate tournament that the IIHF tries to peddle off as a credible World Hockey Championship... no matter that particular opinion, I don’t expect 19, 20 and 23 year old players to singlehandedly lead their team to the brink of a championship… in 2013, a 23 year old Stamkos, I admit, it would have been nice, but not really expected.

But since you brought up the topic and Russia has managed to win a few of these 3rd rate, bottom of the barrel tournaments over the past few years, perhaps you’d like to pick out for us the young Russian player of a similar age to Stamkos who has dominated the grand stage leading his team to the brink of a championship and highlight his stat line…A young Kuznetsov perhaps?