Has group B had an advantage this tournament?

[behemolari]

Edited the quoted post by leaving out unnecessary comments considering heureka moments for easier reading.

That's true, the rink size is a factor, well above the travel or home ice advantage.

But in this case it is no secret that Finland played themselves a "home ice advantage" by:

A) Not choosing to travel between locations themselves
B) By choosing a different sized rink for the different group

So?

simple enough?

This just might be true.

Finns are very good at hiding corruption and injustice.

that's true, in hockey we call it "seventh player on the ice". we are smallest.. weakest.. blablabla anything justices it goes fine

 

[DrunkPerrinFan]

It wasn't us, it was the reptilians.

 

[behemolari]

It wasn't us, it was the reptilians.

I heard reptilians drafted Auston Matthews, so it indeed was Putin

 

[Tryblot]

Maybe it was just the better group?

When one group has usa, Sweden, Canada and Switzerland in it and the other has Finland, Russia, Czech republic and Slovakia in it - it's pretty obvious to see who has the better group.

 

[Hagged]

So?

simple enough?

So your "It was all set up of course. Glad you figured it out!" comment was a bit unnecessary and came a bit offensive considering the question in the OP was legit, and the thread name has a questionmark next to it. You could have chosen a more righteous path with a more humane approach.

 

[novon04]

It was all set up of course. Glad you figured it out!

Then again, next year NA nations has an advantage to euro teams has no time enough to adapt into smaller rink.

Small rink prefers NA, large rink prefers euro. Nothing new here.

Yeah cuz they will play on an international sized rink in the group play obviously.

The point was about switching rink size for an elimination game after playing the whole tournament on another rink size, should be pretty easy to get..

 

[IamherefortheFinn]

The two arenas are located 2,2 km away from each other. It takes literally 5 minutes by car to go from the other arena to the other. So travel between places was a non issue here. And since these kids have been in plenty of different kinds of ice halls i dont think that they were bothered by the chancing of the overall facilities.

Finland and Russia got probably a slight edge against the NA teams because of the rink size chanced as those teams played their first game against them in the full sized rink in this tournament. But the Swedes? Come on, these guys have been playing in the big rink all their lives.

And the reason why this was set up so was probably purely economical and for the convenience. You can sell over 5k more tickets to the Hartwall Areena so Finland played every match there and it is convenient to have the other arena so close by.

 

[IamherefortheFinn]

And furthermore it's not like they went from the small rink to the big one. The rink in the Helsinki Ice Hall is a hybrid one.

 

[novon04]

Don't take it like that, it's just an observation.

No team that switched arena won their next game (Czech, Slovakia, Denmark, Canada, Sweden, USA, Belarus). Some of those were expected losses but it's still interesting.

 

[Wooren]

It definitely did help that one team that had the advantage of arena. Not sure how much, but you have to change the tactics to make it work there.

I still think SWE, USA > FIN, RUS after all.

 

[Tissotti]

A) Not choosing to travel between locations themselves
B) By choosing a different sized rink for the different group

I know you are not saying this, but just wanna point out that naturally Finland playing its games in Hartwall was always going to happen. While opting to go for the second largest ice rink in greater Helsinki, that's also only 1.2 miles away from Hartwall makes a lot of sense. I guess Metro Arena could have been another option as the 3rd largest arena in greater Helsinki, though I don't know how its rink size correlates with Hartwall.

Hopefully by the time of next WJC's are held in Finland, HIFK will have its new arena in place of Helsinki Ice Hall.

 

[Crosbyfan]

I think just familiarity with the particular rink itself, especially for the goalies, the sightlines and everything, would have been more of a factor than the extra meter of width on each side of the rink.

But that is simply part of tournament play. Something to consider in game preparation for the teams themselves than something for the organizers to lose any sleep over.

 

[Statsy]

Meh, I think rink size is overrated.

 

[wloff]

I feel (some) people here are drawing way too many conclusions from a minuscule sample size. I mean, it was two semi-final games and one QF game that were won by slight underdogs, and all of them were decided by one goal. Meanwhile, Denmark very nearly pulled off a massive upset against Russia - after switching from one rink size to another, while Russia played the whole tournament in the same arena.

If anything, the Ice Hall should have favored the NA teams against Sweden and Switzerland: it's closer to NHL rink size, and the Swedes and Swiss are used to playing almost exclusively on the biggest sized rinks.

I mean, absolutely, there is some advantage from not having to change rinks mid-tournament, but I don't think it's very significant at all.

 

[DrunkPerrinFan]

So your "It was all set up of course. Glad you figured it out!" comment was a bit unnecessary and came a bit offensive considering the question in the OP was legit, and the thread name has a questionmark next to it. You could have chosen a more righteous path with a more humane approach.

You have no place on that high horse after spouting these laughable conspiracy theories. Games were played in the two largest arenas in the city, Finland played its games in the bigger of the two. That's all there is to it.

 

[Tulipunaruusu*]

Finland had Teemu Selänne to throw into the rink and Sweden brought Peter Forsberg so the advantage was there.

 

[FiLe]

E: Whoops. Misremembered a bit.

 

[Hagged]

You have no place on that high horse after spouting these laughable conspiracy theories. Games were played in the two largest arenas in the city, Finland played its games in the bigger of the two. That's all there is to it.

The higher the horse, the smoother the ride but the fall will be more painful. You have chosen the lower one and while I applaude your choice, I wouldn't choose a different horse given the chance.

 

[Antonglk]

I wonder why we didn't have such a topic last year.

 

[psycho_dad*]

It definitely did help that one team that had the advantage of arena. Not sure how much, but you have to change the tactics to make it work there.

I still think SWE, USA > FIN, RUS after all.

In the great tournament of your imagination, you can give the medals to who ever you favor.

 

[Wooren]

In the great tournament of your imagination, you can give the medals to who ever you favor.

What an awkward response.
Should I praise only Finland and Russia, just because they are in the final? I don't think so...

 

[Canada4Gold]

I wonder why we didn't have such a topic last year.

probably because the 2 rinks were the same size last year.

 

[psycho_dad*]

What an awkward response.
Should I praise only Finland and Russia, just because they are in the final? I don't think so...

No you can praise anyone you want, you are allowed to think that for example Denmark and Slovakia were better than Finland and Russia in this tournament. You have the right to be wrong. Just like the religious people of this world.

I mean...you can praise and think that all you want but the results on the board, here in reality, heavily suggest your assessment is absolutely baseless.

So go ahead and praise who ever it is you wish. It doesn't change reality. The games were played already to their conclusion and the results are in.