Toggle sidebar

Has your stance on the World Cup changed for the better?

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Chimp said:
Ok. Will you support me financially for the trip?

The NHL doesn't decide which tournament holds the most prestige. But sure, it's not like the next olympic hockey tournament will hold as much skill as it should. But the medals will hold more prestige than winning the Mickey Mouse pre-season cash grab All-Star tournament. And the NHL players will hate the league they play for, that they refused them to play.
Click to expand...

The Olympics will hold less clout than an Olympic medal in Men's soccer if NHL players don't participate.

The NHL doesn't decide which tournament holds the most prestige, but if scrubs show up, then that tournament gets none from me. This is coming from a fan who LOVES the Spengler cup. It will be a fun little tournament, but nothing special. (Like the World Juniors.)
 
mouser said:
$1m to winning team, $500k to 2nd place team.

Also, the PA is getting 50% of the profits, so the union can decide how to disperse that money to their membership.
Click to expand...

Id be interested in knowing this. Have seen some say its worth about $20,000 if split equally
 
A lot more competitive than I initially thought. Usually pre season tournaments are 'who cares' variety. I enjoyed the quality of hockey and watching different brands of hockey played by different teams. It's always interesting and cultural learning experience how different nations have distinctly different philosphy. I dont think it's better than playoff in terms of intensity but still very very good for September.

I also wouldn't say it's better than Olympics. It's still a fairly arbitrary tournament with very little history and prestige. It beats world championship for sure though.
 
It depends... the product quality (so far) has been fantastic and I have to admit that it is very exciting to have a team of skilled youngstars on one team. But the format is still too gimmicky for me to consider it a legitimate international, best-on-best tournament. So in short, great entertainment, gimmicky for an "international" tournament.
 
Sure it's not the olympics but any time you play a tournament with a best on best format, it matters when forming an opinion on the hockey prowess of a country.

Any one tournament isn't the end all be all.
 
Not at all. I knew it was going to be awesome the second they announced it and it has lived up to the expectations.

Only disappointment for me has been USA, but being able to cheer for team NA has tempered that quite a bit.
 
It's the closest to "best on best" that any international tournament has ever been.

Didn't watch the WHC, haven't really watched the Olympics since Vancouver, but I've watched most of these games. Small ice is the biggest selling point, but not having fodder teams there helps as well. The additions of NA and EU also alleviate some of the BS nationalism and allow me cheer solely for skill instead, which is the most/only important thing in sport.

Now please just nobody get hurt before the NHL season.
 
Confucius said:
Sure it's not the olympics but any time you play a tournament with a best on best format, it matters when forming an opinion on the hockey prowess of a country.
Click to expand...
It's not best on best. Finland for example has much better players in the KHL than some they had to take. I don't care if that would make any difference to results - just pointing it out.
 
We're hockey junkies...we'd watch a 60 minute documentary on determining the correct tire pressure on a Zamboni.
 
HopsHunting said:
Watching Team North America play was so much fun. I'm enjoying this :yo:
Click to expand...

You would have loved this tournament back in the day when the countries hated each other and there was some passion to it. Canada vs. Russia in 1987. Never better. I'd like to tell you that in an alternate universe the Lemieux goal still happens if they used this current format but it wouldn't have. Lemieux wouldn't have even made Team Canada.

So yeah, I loved Team Canada dominating and will be happy if we win it all. But on the flip side you can't look anywhere without the whole North American team being jammed down our throats. I, as a Canadian have been reduced to hating this team so much that I am cheering for the Russians to win tonight. That's what this tournament has done to me. It has become so illegitimate that I am just hoping for the Under 24 team to fail so that they aren't in the semis and we can sort of forget this whole silly thing happened in the first place.

So no, if anything it has strengthened my disdain for the gimmick teams.
 
Likely Team NA vs Team Europe in one semi.

Then we have the finals be a country(likely canada) vs a joke team(Likely NA), and not only that, there's a good chance players will be playing against their own country in the finals.
 
syz said:
It's the closest to "best on best" that any international tournament has ever been.

Didn't watch the WHC, haven't really watched the Olympics since Vancouver, but I've watched most of these games. Small ice is the biggest selling point, but not having fodder teams there helps as well. The additions of NA and EU also alleviate some of the BS nationalism and allow me cheer solely for skill instead, which is the most/only important thing in sport.

Now please just nobody get hurt before the NHL season.
Click to expand...

See and that's the thing right there. 1976, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010 and 2014. They were ALL best on best. No gimmicks. Just one nation against the other and seeing who was best. That's it. No one even asked if it was best on best, it just was. This is the problem with this one, we have to actually acknowledge the fact that it does not hold the same water as the other tournaments in the past. That ticks me off because if Canada dominates the whole way through it will irritate me that with such a great team we had the NHL and the NHLPA had to de-legitimize this tournament for their own pockets.

So that's what us "old timers" get mad about. Anyone over 30 can remember when this was REAL hockey.
 
crowi said:
It's not best on best. Finland for example has much better players in the KHL than some they had to take. I don't care if that would make any difference to results - just pointing it out.
Click to expand...

It is the highest overall talent level that has ever been in one tournament.
 
The tournament does matter. As I said it is only one tournament and much like a test in school yeah it matters but it's not going to be everything. Even the Olympics isn't everything.
 
Big Phil said:
See and that's the thing right there. 1976, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010 and 2014. They were ALL best on best. No gimmicks. Just one nation against the other and seeing who was best. That's it. No one even asked if it was best on best, it just was. This is the problem with this one, we have to actually acknowledge the fact that it does not hold the same water as the other tournaments in the past. That ticks me off because if Canada dominates the whole way through it will irritate me that with such a great team we had the NHL and the NHLPA had to de-legitimize this tournament for their own pockets.

So that's what us "old timers" get mad about. Anyone over 30 can remember when this was REAL hockey.
Click to expand...

I'm 38. And this is good hockey. You being jaded and hung up on format doesn't change that fact.
 
I never watch NHL games in full because the entertainment value isn't there anymore, I don't really cheer on any one team and there is no much must watch player. I just graze the action in 2-5 mins bits when I'm watching tv for something else.

I do make a point of watching international hockey. I watch the World Cup championships over the NHL playoffs. I like the World Cup action but it shouldn't be called the World Cup with the gimmicky teams. Plus, international tourneys shoudn't be run by a league. Olympics & World Juniors are more meaningful.

If I was the IIHF, I would start phasing out the World Championships for the A teams on an annual basis. Then, at most play a true World Cup every 2 years with 8 teams and never during a Olympic year. Qualifying ex the top 4-6 teams can take place in the spring. Play it also during September to get best on best and this also means playing in North America every other time.
 
I'll dispute the argument that the hockey has been great. Some of the hockey has been good, but that Europe/Czech game today was dull - certainly not a lot of intensity. The Russia/Sweden game had its moments, but Russia struck me as kind of disinterested, almost as if there's not a lot in it for them.

Overall, I'll say this: I love international sports. I'll watch Canada play anything competitive, even when we don't have much hope of winning (Hello, Canadian Soccer Association: please get your act together!). But this tournament doesn't pass muster. The US team is weaker than it should be because its best players are mostly playing on the U-23 team and Canada's team is a bit weaker because it can't pick from its full selection. And yes, I like having teams like Slovakia and Latvia and Switzerland and Belarus and Germany because they are there to keep the top squads honest - has there been a best-on-best Olympics where one of the teams hasn't been upset by one of those guys? They scare the crap out of me when Canada plays them because they up their level and usually push the Canadians to improve.

And on the flip side, the point of international tournaments is to get the world together around one sport and see what happens. So you get an Iceland sending England home from the Euro, for example. This business of keeping it to six teams and then throwing in a few other players is nonsensical.

To answer the original question: my opinion is the same. It's an interesting tournament which will result in some decent hockey. It isn't a true World Cup by any stretch and I'm not particularly invested in it. If it was played across the street, I might buy tickets. I might watch the final on TV, but it doesn't bother me much whether or not Canada wins.
 
crowi said:
It's a meaningless exhibition tournament to me so I don't think so. You won't change my position and I won't change yours so leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Nah dude who ever wins is the best country at hockey.
 
Big Phil said:
See and that's the thing right there. 1976, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010 and 2014. They were ALL best on best. No gimmicks. Just one nation against the other and seeing who was best. That's it. No one even asked if it was best on best, it just was. This is the problem with this one, we have to actually acknowledge the fact that it does not hold the same water as the other tournaments in the past. That ticks me off because if Canada dominates the whole way through it will irritate me that with such a great team we had the NHL and the NHLPA had to de-legitimize this tournament for their own pockets.

So that's what us "old timers" get mad about. Anyone over 30 can remember when this was REAL hockey.
Click to expand...

There's a laundry list of hockey players at every Olympics who have no business being mentioned in a "best on best" scenario. There are no such players here, and the game is better for it.
 
syz said:
There's a laundry list of hockey players at every Olympics who have no business being mentioned in a "best on best" scenario. There are no such players here, and the game is better for it.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between all star weekend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom