Has U20 WJC turned from a development tournament into a national pride one?

[JackSlater]

I shouldn't laugh so much, but I do. Exactly what I meant. People getting crazy illusions. Canada's dominance at WJC is fake news.

Since starting to send rel teams? What does that even mean? Every nation sends the team it wants to send. Oh, I get it, you want to fake out the soviet dominance in the tournament.

You can also claim that Canada was dominant before there was a tournament.

The tournament was dominated by Soviet Union. Then Canada gained becase there was no Soviet Union and Russia struggled altogether in the 90s. Recently Russia, USA and even Finland (winning two times in the last 4 tournaments) have a better record than Canada. Where is the dominance if there was any?

Sending real teams means sending actual national junior teams. Prior to 1981 Canada just sent the Memorial Cup championship team with a few ringers, akin to sending the Windsor Spitfires this year plus Sam Steel and Kale Clague or something like that. It wasn't close to Canada's best (ie no Bossy, Coffey, Bourque, Messier etc. ever playing at the tournament) so it isn't remotely shocking that Canada had a very weak record prior to 1982. Since Canada began sending real teams in 1982 it has won more tournaments than even the other two most successful teams added together, despite missing players due to the NHL in over 200 instances since 1982. For comparison sake, USSR/Russia has missed just over 20 players for the same reason. Less than 10% of the number that Canada missed.

As said, adding the missing players wouldn't always change the results. For instance in 2002 I definitely suspect that the result of the tournament would be unchanged by adding NHLers. Other years it is obvious that there is a very good chance that the result changes, like in 2004 for instance. Regardless of these specific years though, once again adding over 200 players to Canada (Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid, Stamkos, Francis, Hawerchuk, Stevens, Shanahan, Turgeon, Lindros, Pronger, Yzerman, Niedermayer, Thornton, Seguin for instance) would not help the competitiveness of the tournament and would not help the popularity. I do agree that in recent years the competition is much tighter and Canada has not been impressive. For instance there are several years this decade when adding all of the NHLers probably wouldn't help Canada that much. That is a good thing for the tournament overall.

 

[Atas2000]

Sending real teams means sending actual national junior teams. Prior to 1981 Canada just sent the Memorial Cup championship team with a few ringers, akin to sending the Windsor Spitfires this year plus Sam Steel and Kale Clague or something like that. It wasn't close to Canada's best (ie no Bossy, Coffey, Bourque, Messier etc. ever playing at the tournament) so it isn't remotely shocking that Canada had a very weak record prior to 1982.

Why should anybody care? It was Canada's decision. It wasn't forced on them. I can tell you stories about Russia being hit by the political turmoil in the 90s affecting results of U20 national teams(also not sending the best players available). What now? Let's not count the 90s for Russia. Let's just pick the years in which Russia or Soviet Union for that matter were successful.

Since Canada began sending real teams in 1982 it has won more tournaments than even the other two most successful teams added together, despite missing players due to the NHL in over 200 instances since 1982. For comparison sake, USSR/Russia has missed just over 20 players for the same reason. Less than 10% of the number that Canada missed.

1.Yeah just like the Olympics Canada won in the 20s do count when Canadians start the silly talk about who won more Olympics Those WJC wins during the 90s do not count because Russia wasn't sendng the best talent. Your logic.

2.Where do you get the input about how many players Russia/SU missed? You have not enough knowledge about russian hockey to claim that. Anyway, the argument is silly. Tournaments are played by the players who play. No nation never had a perfect roster I would imagine. Arguing about what could have been is just utter nonsense.

But you go on with your crystal ball.

As said, adding the missing players wouldn't always change the results. For instance in 2002 I definitely suspect that the result of the tournament would be unchanged by adding NHLers. Other years it is obvious that there is a very good chance that the result changes, like in 2004 for instance. Regardless of these specific years though, once again adding over 200 players to Canada (Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid, Stamkos, Francis, Hawerchuk, Stevens, Shanahan, Turgeon, Lindros, Pronger, Yzerman, Niedermayer, Thornton, Seguin for instance) would not help the competitiveness of the tournament and would not help the popularity. I do agree that in recent years the competition is much tighter and Canada has not been impressive. For instance there are several years this decade when adding all of the NHLers probably wouldn't help Canada that much.

There is no crystal ball/on paper hockey.

A good thing for the tournament overall would be all the top talent participating and it will never happen. Just as I wrote, people forget it is not a best on best top notch tournament. So it is okay the tournament will remain wthout some future stars here and there.

 

[JackSlater]

Why should anybody care? It was Canada's decision. It wasn't forced on them. I can tell you stories about Russia being hit by the political turmoil in the 90s affecting results of U20 national teams(also not sending the best players available). What now? Let's not count the 90s for Russia. Let's just pick the years in which Russia or Soviet Union for that matter were successful.

You're free to do as you like. I said in my post that Canada was by far the most successful nation at this tournament since 1982, when it started sending actual national teams, despite hundreds of instances of missing players due to the NHL. Nothing you said has anything to do with that. The results prior to 1982 "count" and are official, they just don't pertain to my statement.

1.Yeah just like the Olympics Canada won in the 20s do count when Canadians start the silly talk about who won more Olympics Those WJC wins during the 90s do not count because Russia wasn't sendng the best talent. Your logic.

I recommend reading the post if you want to reply. I didn't say that they don't count - I said that Canada has clearly been the most successful country since 1982, when it started to send actual national teams. I don't see what irrelevant hockey tournaments like joke Olympic tournaments from the 1920s have to do with my factual statement. I am also curious to see what "best talent" Russia wasn't sending in the 1990s. By my count there are 9 instances of Russia missing out on a player in the 1990s due to them not being released. Canada missed out on roughly 50 players in the same span.

2.Where do you get the input about how many players Russia/SU missed? You have not enough knowledge about russian hockey to claim that. Anyway, the argument is silly. Tournaments are played by the players who play. No nation never had a perfect roster I would imagine. Arguing about what could have been is just utter nonsense.

I would be very interested in seeing how many players Russia and the Soviet Union missed because they were not released for the tournament. Certainly the top players - Fetisov, Krutov, Makarov, Larionov, Kasatonov, Kamensky, Mogilny, Fedorov and Bure - all played in the WJC even as 19 year olds. Their Canadian counterparts did not. But as I said, I would like to see the list of Soviet or Russian players who were not released for the tournament.

There is no crystal ball/on paper hockey.

A good thing for the tournament overall would be all the top talent participating and it will never happen. Just as I wrote, people forget it is not a best on best top notch tournament. So it is okay the tournament will remain wthout some future stars here and there.

This is the crux, and I disagree for most of the tournament's history anyway. In this decade it may well have been a good thing, as the tournament is more balanced now. I suspect that the tournament would not have been nearly as popular though if the actual best players consistently played and inevitably changed the results in some years.

 

[Yakushev72]

You're free to do as you like. I said in my post that Canada was by far the most successful nation at this tournament since 1982, when it started sending actual national teams, despite hundreds of instances of missing players due to the NHL. Nothing you said has anything to do with that. The results prior to 1982 "count" and are official, they just don't pertain to my statement.



I recommend reading the post if you want to reply. I didn't say that they don't count - I said that Canada has clearly been the most successful country since 1982, when it started to send actual national teams. I don't see what irrelevant hockey tournaments like joke Olympic tournaments from the 1920s have to do with my factual statement. I am also curious to see what "best talent" Russia wasn't sending in the 1990s. By my count there are 9 instances of Russia missing out on a player in the 1990s due to them not being released. Canada missed out on roughly 50 players in the same span.



I would be very interested in seeing how many players Russia and the Soviet Union missed because they were not released for the tournament. Certainly the top players - Fetisov, Krutov, Makarov, Larionov, Kasatonov, Kamensky, Mogilny, Fedorov and Bure - all played in the WJC even as 19 year olds. Their Canadian counterparts did not. But as I said, I would like to see the list of Soviet or Russian players who were not released for the tournament.



This is the crux, and I disagree for most of the tournament's history anyway. In this decade it may well have been a good thing, as the tournament is more balanced now. I suspect that the tournament would not have been nearly as popular though if the actual best players consistently played and inevitably changed the results in some years.

In regard to the Soviet era, top players like Fetisov and Krutov would never be held back to play for CSKA. International tournaments always took precedence. What non-Canadians probably note is Canadians making excuses for lack of performance by saying, "Oh, we didn't have him or him." Unless there are 4 or 5 really superior juniors in the NHL, it usually looks better on paper than it does on the ice. In Canada, McDavid is the next Gretzky or Orr, but in his last WJC appearance in 2015 against Russia, he was mostly nonexistent. The Russians did a great job of shutting him down, except for one play on a breakaway when he was allowed in on goal alone on a bad line change. You forget that these 19-year olds are the best in the World, and you really have to be a superstar to dominate them. Being on an NHL roster is no badge of distinction at all. Teenagers are common there, and most of the lineup are mediocre players just filling out a roster spot. With 31 teams, genuine stars are rare indeed!

 

[JackSlater]

In regard to the Soviet era, top players like Fetisov and Krutov would never be held back to play for CSKA. International tournaments always took precedence. What non-Canadians probably note is Canadians making excuses for lack of performance by saying, "Oh, we didn't have him or him." Unless there are 4 or 5 really superior juniors in the NHL, it usually looks better on paper than it does on the ice. In Canada, McDavid is the next Gretzky or Orr, but in his last WJC appearance in 2015 against Russia, he was mostly nonexistent. The Russians did a great job of shutting him down, except for one play on a breakaway when he was allowed in on goal alone on a bad line change. You forget that these 19-year olds are the best in the World, and you really have to be a superstar to dominate them. Being on an NHL roster is no badge of distinction at all. Teenagers are common there, and most of the lineup are mediocre players just filling out a roster spot. With 31 teams, genuine stars are rare indeed!

I don't think that McDavid is the player to make your point. Coming off injury as a 17 year old he lead the tournament in scoring and as you noted scored in the gold medal game. As a 19 year old he comfortably lead the whole NHL in scoring. Regardless though I do agree that not all players make a difference. For example Canada was once unable to select Kyle Clifford. I highly doubt that he would make a difference, or even that he would have been selected. Generally though it is a bad thing to be missing your 5-6 best players and inevitably results are going to be affected sometimes, perhaps many times.

This is deviating from the original point though. Always having NHLers would probably have hurt the popularity of the tournament, as results would become more lopsided than they were in reality. Would Canada have won every tournament? Nope, but it would have won most and quite possibly a large majority until recently, and that leads to a tournament that isn't very compelling, even in Canada.

 

[Yakushev72]

I don't think that McDavid is the player to make your point. Coming off injury as a 17 year old he lead the tournament in scoring and as you noted scored in the gold medal game. As a 19 year old he comfortably lead the whole NHL in scoring. Regardless though I do agree that not all players make a difference. For example Canada was once unable to select Kyle Clifford. I highly doubt that he would make a difference, or even that he would have been selected. Generally though it is a bad thing to be missing your 5-6 best players and inevitably results are going to be affected sometimes, perhaps many times.

This is deviating from the original point though. Always having NHLers would probably have hurt the popularity of the tournament, as results would become more lopsided than they were in reality. Would Canada have won every tournament? Nope, but it would have won most and quite possibly a large majority until recently, and that leads to a tournament that isn't very compelling, even in Canada.

Now you are being clairvoyant and seeing that part of the past that never existed in the first place. The great thing about the present is, for better or worse, it is real, and pictures are worth a thousand clairvoyant words.

 

[SotasicA]

WJC is by far my favourite international tournament.

 

[Xokkeu]

Having players suit up together on a national team for two weeks a year was never about development. Nobody develops anything in two weeks. It was about entertainment and part of that is obviously cheering for your national team.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Having players suit up together on a national team for two weeks a year was never about development. Nobody develops anything in two weeks. It was about entertainment and part of that is obviously cheering for your national team.

When you place your best young players vs their counterparts from all around the world, it's about development. What way you show them their real place in hockey otherwise?

 

[Yakushev72]

I don't think that McDavid is the player to make your point. Coming off injury as a 17 year old he lead the tournament in scoring and as you noted scored in the gold medal game. As a 19 year old he comfortably lead the whole NHL in scoring. Regardless though I do agree that not all players make a difference. For example Canada was once unable to select Kyle Clifford. I highly doubt that he would make a difference, or even that he would have been selected. Generally though it is a bad thing to be missing your 5-6 best players and inevitably results are going to be affected sometimes, perhaps many times.

This is deviating from the original point though. Always having NHLers would probably have hurt the popularity of the tournament, as results would become more lopsided than they were in reality. Would Canada have won every tournament? Nope, but it would have won most and quite possibly a large majority until recently, and that leads to a tournament that isn't very compelling, even in Canada.

The last year that all Canada junior age players went to the WJC because of an NHL player strike was 2013. With ALL of its best players available and on the roster, Canada finished 4th, off of the medal podium. There was tremendous hype about Nugent-Hopkins, but he looked to be the most disappointed of all as the Russian anthem was being sung by the crowd in Ufa.

 

[Xokkeu]

When you place your best young players vs their counterparts from all around the world, it's about development. What way you show them their real place in hockey otherwise?

Development comes from the entire year of practice and games at their junior club. The u20 tournament is just a fun thing for fans and players. But it's two weeks a year.

 

[JackSlater]

The last year that all Canada junior age players went to the WJC because of an NHL player strike was 2013. With ALL of its best players available and on the roster, Canada finished 4th, off of the medal podium. There was tremendous hype about Nugent-Hopkins, but he looked to be the most disappointed of all as the Russian anthem was being sung by the crowd in Ufa.

Correct. That's actually the only year that Canada had all of its players. In 2005 Canada had the greatest WJC team ever and in 1995 one of the top 3 or 4 most dominant WJC teams ever, easily winning the tournament both of the other years when NHL interference was minimal. Some years the players missing aren't as significant as others. For instance in 2002 Canada was missing only Hartnell and Blackburn, two players who I doubt would significantly impact the tournament. Other years, most in fact, the players missing are far better than the top players present. In any event, the NHL has made the results of this tournament more spread out, which as I said it a good thing for the tornament's popularity.

 

[jj cale]

The same people that are discounting the amount of players Canada misses over the years in the WJC compared to other countries are the same people I have seen in threads using the same argument of missing players when it came to Russian entries and the results because of it in such tournaments as the 76 and 91 Canada cups.

I mean which one is it? Does it make a difference to not actually have all your best players or does it not?

let's be honest, of course it makes a difference far more often then not, nothing is garunteed but on HIGH average the more you have the best talent available the better you do. That's just how it works in sports,.............and life for that matter.



let's cut the bullshit based on hate for your rivals folks.

I hate it when posters refuse to be honest based on nothing more then grudges and hard feelings and it happens far too often on this site whether it be on National or NHL teams or individual players .

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

It's just annoying to see ''you only won because player x was missing''. There will never be a true best-on-best tourney. Someone is injured or having an off-year.

 

[Xokkeu]

I actually think the player's getting called up and missing the U20s hurts other nations far more than Canada. Canada has the deepest player pool so when they lose Taylor Hall or Conor McDavid or whatever they have a much better replacement than a team like Finland that loses Patrik Laine or whatever. The US is starting to really out pace the Europeans in depth development so even they have an easier time replacing guys like Jack Eichel and Auston Matthews. But the missing players hurt European teams way more it just happens less often.

The Russians have an advantage because they are keeping more of their players domestically so miss out less on elite players the year after their draft.

 

[jj cale]

I actually think the player's getting called up and missing the U20s hurts other nations far more than Canada. Canada has the deepest player pool so when they lose Taylor Hall or Conor McDavid or whatever they have a much better replacement than a team like Finland that loses Patrik Laine or whatever. The US is starting to really out pace the Europeans in depth development so even they have an easier time replacing guys like Jack Eichel and Auston Matthews. But the missing players hurt European teams way more it just happens less often.

The Russians have an advantage because they are keeping more of their players domestically so miss out less on elite players the year after their draft.

It very well may, the thing is that has only been happening to other countries with any frequency at all in the last little very short while,and most of that has been more American players missing not the rest of the countries. it is only now that a country like Finland for example is getting touched by that stuff.

And that's the point. And yes.....................of course it makes and has made a difference in results. It's just common sense that it would.

But like slater said, it has probably helped the tournament overall by making it more competitive and thus increasing the profile of the tournament in places where it was hardly cared for in the past.

But it is just silly to have people saying all those missing players in all those years for Canada don't make a difference, anyone being honest knows it does, maybe not every year and slater also acknowledged that, but in many years it would have, better talent available normally always makes a difference. To deny that is just plain dishonesty.

 

[JackSlater]

I actually think the player's getting called up and missing the U20s hurts other nations far more than Canada. Canada has the deepest player pool so when they lose Taylor Hall or Conor McDavid or whatever they have a much better replacement than a team like Finland that loses Patrik Laine or whatever. The US is starting to really out pace the Europeans in depth development so even they have an easier time replacing guys like Jack Eichel and Auston Matthews. But the missing players hurt European teams way more it just happens less often.

The Russians have an advantage because they are keeping more of their players domestically so miss out less on elite players the year after their draft.

In some years it may hurt other nations more, though for most of the tournament's history it was Canada losing 5+ players and other nations missing usually zero, maybe one or two. This has changed in recent years, absolutely, as other development in other nations has improved. USA in particular has nearly matched Canada in quality of missing players in the last five years.

My purpose is not to derail the thread with this particular topic, as it is bound to come up in December anyway. I said, in response to a specific post, that NHL involvement has leveled the playing field somewhat which is good for the popularity of the tournament. That much is obvious. In recent years it is becoming less true however as many teams are actually missing their best players in recent years. Last year 17 players were missing due to the NHL. I think that is the biggest number since 1985 when Canada missed 17 players, USA missed 6 and Czechoslovakia missed 1.

 

[garbageteam]

I'm not sure if globally it's considered bigger than the worlds, but absent NHL players in the Olympics I think it's the most important international hockey event going on right now. I watch the piss out of it every Christmas holiday and so do most of my colleagues, where most of us skip watching the bulk of regular season NHL games sans highlights.

While the players are only a "snapshot" of what the national picture is, the results are honestly not far off that you can use it to extrapolate how the overall national team might be faring - or at least, be the strongest indicator of how hockey development is progressing in one country vs. another. The top 6 are still the top 6. Switzerland and Slovakia are clearly the strongest outsiders. The only anomaly really is Denmark, where it speaks to how strong its youth programs have been.

Perhaps what might not match senior men's talent directly has been Canada's underwhelming performances over the past 10 years - which has of course made it more exciting and entertaining to watch when they aren't guaranteed to win the thing every year - or even medal anymore. The past five years they've produced 1 gold and silver - and a 6th place finish to boot. The senior team's done better in the same time period.

 

[Yakushev72]

Correct. That's actually the only year that Canada had all of its players. In 2005 Canada had the greatest WJC team ever and in 1995 one of the top 3 or 4 most dominant WJC teams ever, easily winning the tournament both of the other years when NHL interference was minimal. Some years the players missing aren't as significant as others. For instance in 2002 Canada was missing only Hartnell and Blackburn, two players who I doubt would significantly impact the tournament. Other years, most in fact, the players missing are far better than the top players present. In any event, the NHL has made the results of this tournament more spread out, which as I said it a good thing for the tornament's popularity.

There is no evidence, and really no reason to believe your premise. In 1995, for instance, when Russian hockey was in a shambles, Canada had no competition. The same was more or less true in 2005, when Canada had its best group of juniors in history, the group that formed the basis for success in the last 2 Olympics. As Brent Sutter, coach of 2005 whose 2014 team was sent home with an empty chest, put it, the balance of competition in the WJC greatly changed in that decade, which is why Canada has had less success and is content with Bronze and Silver since 2010.

 

[JackSlater]

There is no evidence, and really no reason to believe your premise. In 1995, for instance, when Russian hockey was in a shambles, Canada had no competition. The same was more or less true in 2005, when Canada had its best group of juniors in history, the group that formed the basis for success in the last 2 Olympics. As Brent Sutter, coach of 2005 whose 2014 team was sent home with an empty chest, put it, the balance of competition in the WJC greatly changed in that decade, which is why Canada has had less success and is content with Bronze and Silver since 2010.

The premise is so obvious that it really shouldn't even need to be said. When a team has its best players, it generally attains better results. Canada has hundreds of instances of missed players over the course of 35 tournaments. If the NHL always released the players, no nation would have benefited more than Canada. This would inevitably have translated into more wins, and the popularity of the tournament would probably have taken a hit.

With the 1995 tournament, your explanation makes no sense. Even if we assume falsely that Russia was the only relevant country, Canada still didn't perform nearly as well in the years before or after 1995. The 2005 tournament was indeed the height of a very strong group, but Canada has had similarly talented groups that didn't perform nearly as well, in large part because the elite players were in the NHL. The 2005 team won in dominating fashion because of the NHL lockout. They may still have won without the lockout, but it would not have been nearly as strong a team. The reason is fairly obvious - teams are stronger when they can use their best players. Not to ignore the 2013 Canadian team, which had all available players and still sucked. I have little doubt that that team, as poor as it was, would have been even worse. Without the NHL lockout the team would have been without its top centre (and the tournament leading scorer) plus another top line forwards and its number one defenceman.

 

[Xokkeu]

I'm not sure if globally it's considered bigger than the worlds, but absent NHL players in the Olympics I think it's the most important international hockey event going on right now. I watch the piss out of it every Christmas holiday and so do most of my colleagues, where most of us skip watching the bulk of regular season NHL games sans highlights.

While the players are only a "snapshot" of what the national picture is, the results are honestly not far off that you can use it to extrapolate how the overall national team might be faring - or at least, be the strongest indicator of how hockey development is progressing in one country vs. another. The top 6 are still the top 6. Switzerland and Slovakia are clearly the strongest outsiders. The only anomaly really is Denmark, where it speaks to how strong its youth programs have been.

Perhaps what might not match senior men's talent directly has been Canada's underwhelming performances over the past 10 years - which has of course made it more exciting and entertaining to watch when they aren't guaranteed to win the thing every year - or even medal anymore. The past five years they've produced 1 gold and silver - and a 6th place finish to boot. The senior team's done better in the same time period.

Weirdly for me the worlds now take on an uber significance. It's now the only senior level international hockey we have left.

 

[Yakushev72]

The premise is so obvious that it really shouldn't even need to be said. When a team has its best players, it generally attains better results. Canada has hundreds of instances of missed players over the course of 35 tournaments. If the NHL always released the players, no nation would have benefited more than Canada. This would inevitably have translated into more wins, and the popularity of the tournament would probably have taken a hit.

With the 1995 tournament, your explanation makes no sense. Even if we assume falsely that Russia was the only relevant country, Canada still didn't perform nearly as well in the years before or after 1995. The 2005 tournament was indeed the height of a very strong group, but Canada has had similarly talented groups that didn't perform nearly as well, in large part because the elite players were in the NHL. The 2005 team won in dominating fashion because of the NHL lockout. They may still have won without the lockout, but it would not have been nearly as strong a team. The reason is fairly obvious - teams are stronger when they can use their best players. Not to ignore the 2013 Canadian team, which had all available players and still sucked. I have little doubt that that team, as poor as it was, would have been even worse. Without the NHL lockout the team would have been without its top centre (and the tournament leading scorer) plus another top line forwards and its number one defenceman.

I should have included the fact that Sweden and Finland made huge improvements to their junior hockey programs from 2008-17. Russia made a similar degree of improvement, and as Brent Sutter made reference to, parity had set in to the point where Canada could no longer dominate WJC tournaments as in 2005. Most of the teens on NHL rosters played in the WJC the year before and made little or no difference in helping Canada to win a Gold Medal. Just because they were placed on a depleted NHL roster does not mean that they are better players than they were at the same time the previous year. Normally Canada has more than enough talent to match what they had to offer in the first place. Canada has a harder time winning because parity has caught up with them. Ask Brent Sutter.

 

[JackSlater]

I should have included the fact that Sweden and Finland made huge improvements to their junior hockey programs from 2008-17. Russia made a similar degree of improvement, and as Brent Sutter made reference to, parity had set in to the point where Canada could no longer dominate WJC tournaments as in 2005. Most of the teens on NHL rosters played in the WJC the year before and made little or no difference in helping Canada to win a Gold Medal. Just because they were placed on a depleted NHL roster does not mean that they are better players than they were at the same time the previous year. Normally Canada has more than enough talent to match what they had to offer in the first place. Canada has a harder time winning because parity has caught up with them. Ask Brent Sutter.

You aren't speaking about most of what I said. There is absolutely more parity now, though the biggest issue for Canada is a country that you didn't mention - USA. Your other points are nonsense. Of course the 19 year old version of a player is almost always better than the 18 year old version of the same player. That is usually why the player makes his NHL one year and not the year before. The number of professional players who peak at 18 is tiny. I recall you making the asinine claim before that this isn't the case, but I can't believe that you are serious about it. I know why you are trying to say that Canada missing hundreds of players doesn't matter, as Russia has rarely missed players and still hasn't won as often as Canada, but it really is a ridiculous point. A team missing its top players nearly every year is obviously going to affect the results of the tournament in some instances. If the most successful team had been even more successful, it likely would have negatively impacted the popularity of the tournament.

 

[Yakushev72]

You aren't speaking about most of what I said. There is absolutely more parity now, though the biggest issue for Canada is a country that you didn't mention - USA. Your other points are nonsense. Of course the 19 year old version of a player is almost always better than the 18 year old version of the same player. That is usually why the player makes his NHL one year and not the year before. The number of professional players who peak at 18 is tiny. I recall you making the asinine claim before that this isn't the case, but I can't believe that you are serious about it. I know why you are trying to say that Canada missing hundreds of players doesn't matter, as Russia has rarely missed players and still hasn't won as often as Canada, but it really is a ridiculous point. A team missing its top players nearly every year is obviously going to affect the results of the tournament in some instances. If the most successful team had been even more successful, it likely would have negatively impacted the popularity of the tournament.

I apologize if I offended you! I know how important pride in hockey is to a Canadian, and my comments were not intended to denigrate Canadian hockey. It has been since 2008 that Canada last won a Gold Medal on the road in Europe, but they won one at home in 2015, and they are the home team for the next several years (Buffalo has always been a home game for Canada), so you guys certainly have an excellent shot.

I agree with you that guys like Gretzky, Crosby and McDavid who go to the NHL at age 17 or 18 would make a huge contribution if they were allowed to play in the WJC. I just don't see any basis to conclude that your argument that if 3 or 4 guys, mostly 19-year olds, were available instead of in the NHL, that the tournament would be so "lopsided" in favor of Canada that the World would lose interest, as you claim. That sounds like a put-down of those countries who have been winning Gold lately, implying that the only reason that Canada lost was that it was missing 3 or 4 key players.

Someone (I actually think it was you) produced a chart, going all the way back to the 1990's, that showed how many players were unavailable for the WJC because they were playing in the NHL. What jumped off the chart as far as I was concerned was that it showed that during the periods when Canada was most dominant in the WJC, winning almost every year, there seemed to be a much larger group of eligible kids playing in the NHL - as many as 12 to 14. And now when there are no more 3 or 4 kids missing in any given year, the additional 8 to 10 NHHL-caliber stars don't seem to make a difference in bringing home the Gold. Its kind of the reverse of what you are saying.

 

[JackSlater]

I apologize if I offended you! I know how important pride in hockey is to a Canadian, and my comments were not intended to denigrate Canadian hockey. It has been since 2008 that Canada last won a Gold Medal on the road in Europe, but they won one at home in 2015, and they are the home team for the next several years (Buffalo has always been a home game for Canada), so you guys certainly have an excellent shot.

I agree with you that guys like Gretzky, Crosby and McDavid who go to the NHL at age 17 or 18 would make a huge contribution if they were allowed to play in the WJC. I just don't see any basis to conclude that your argument that if 3 or 4 guys, mostly 19-year olds, were available instead of in the NHL, that the tournament would be so "lopsided" in favor of Canada that the World would lose interest, as you claim. That sounds like a put-down of those countries who have been winning Gold lately, implying that the only reason that Canada lost was that it was missing 3 or 4 key players.

Someone (I actually think it was you) produced a chart, going all the way back to the 1990's, that showed how many players were unavailable for the WJC because they were playing in the NHL. What jumped off the chart as far as I was concerned was that it showed that during the periods when Canada was most dominant in the WJC, winning almost every year, there seemed to be a much larger group of eligible kids playing in the NHL - as many as 12 to 14. And now when there are no more 3 or 4 kids missing in any given year, the additional 8 to 10 NHHL-caliber stars don't seem to make a difference in bringing home the Gold. Its kind of the reverse of what you are saying.

I'm not particularly offended, I am far more amused at the dancing going on to avoid the obvious - better players generally lead to better results. I am certainly not trying to "denigrate" recent winners, particularly as, as previously noted in the thread, things are much more spread out right now than they were 15-35 years ago in terms of talent. I'm not even saying that the winners of any given year didn't deserve their wins, as a winner is valid as long as the tournament was held and the games were conducted fairly. I am saying that it is obvious that results would have been different in some years if all of the players had been available, and the change in results would have increased Canada's winning percentage and turned down interest both inside and outside of Canad, not that interest has traditionally been big outside of Canada historically.

Your opinion that it takes a player like Gretzky or Crosby to make a huge contribution at these tournaments is absurd. Take a look at the players who have won the tournament MVP at the WJC and you can clearly see that it takes a player far below that level to make a big impact. I actually don't think that Canada would have walked all over the tournament last year even if NHLers were available given who USA was also missing. When a team loses 6 players or so (the average situation for Canada) and replaces them with inferior players, as is almost always the case when players who made the NHL are replaced with those who do not, there is clearly very decent potential for a significant drop in play. For instance remove Mogilny/Fedorov/Bure/Malkin/Ovechkin/Kuznetsov/Tarasenko/Panarin etc from Soviet and Russian teams, and I somehow suspect that their respective teams would have performed somewhat worse. Of course this much is obvious to anyone, but it is rather inconvenient to admit, so I don't expect that thought to be given much consideration.