U18: Hlinka Semis

[MeHateHe]

You pointed out something here that both teams will have to be careful of...............getting fixated on thinking it's a two horse race and preparing simply for each other, that would be a huge mistake for both teams.

This is why I roll my eyes every time someone starts yammering on about a 8-game summit series between Canada and the US.

The reason the '72 series was so riveting is because it represented the two countries that had demonstrated that they were head and shoulders above the rest of the world: Canada because it was producing the lion's share of the talent in the best league in the world and the Soviet Union because it just get winning world and Olympic championships.

Mostly because of @Czechboy 's advocacy, I have reluctantly agreed that Canada is probably at the top of the heap, but it isn't so clear cut that Canada is guaranteed anything. There is a top 7, (although I would say that the Slovaks and Czechs are perhaps a slight step behind the other five) who are dangerous on any given night, and the Swiss and Germans are really not that far behind.

So no, it ain't a two-horse race. The US is far from being a clear-cut #2 (much less a 1A) and Canada at #1 doesn't mean they're unbeatable. The difference between those top 5 or top 7 is not so much that it can't be overcome by a hot goaltender or a couple of bad bounces.

 

[Czechboy]

This is why I roll my eyes every time someone starts yammering on about a 8-game summit series between Canada and the US.

The reason the '72 series was so riveting is because it represented the two countries that had demonstrated that they were head and shoulders above the rest of the world: Canada because it was producing the lion's share of the talent in the best league in the world and the Soviet Union because it just get winning world and Olympic championships.

Mostly because of @Czechboy 's advocacy, I have reluctantly agreed that Canada is probably at the top of the heap, but it isn't so clear cut that Canada is guaranteed anything. There is a top 7, (although I would say that the Slovaks and Czechs are perhaps a slight step behind the other five) who are dangerous on any given night, and the Swiss and Germans are really not that far behind.

So no, it ain't a two-horse race. The US is far from being a clear-cut #2 (much less a 1A) and Canada at #1 doesn't mean they're unbeatable. The difference between those top 5 or top 7 is not so much that it can't be overcome by a hot goaltender or a couple of bad bounces.

All of this... Except that Czechs and Slovaks are far behind currently. I'd respectfully argue Czechs are closer as we can field a full NHL team. Till our D improves we aren't close enough. Ironically, out D seems to be improving but we will soon have a C problem.lol. Weaker nation problems.

If we do 8 game series.. I'd love to see a Sweden vs Canada or Finland vs Canada too. I just don't see a massive seperation between us and those 2. I actually dont see a seperation at all and think all those series would go to game 7.

I could also see all 3 beat Canada in an elimination and wouldn't be surprised at all. Canada woukd be the fav but one bad goal allowed and Rinne, Helle or ullmark stand on their head and Canada loses. Small margin.

Canada is 1 for sure .. they have a gold in everything recently and the pipeline is not slowing down.. Makar is a beast, Bedard just went 1OV. They are so damn good that they can overcome average goaltending which is the only flaw I see at every level.

 

[jj cale]

This is why I roll my eyes every time someone starts yammering on about a 8-game summit series between Canada and the US.

The reason the '72 series was so riveting is because it represented the two countries that had demonstrated that they were head and shoulders above the rest of the world: Canada because it was producing the lion's share of the talent in the best league in the world and the Soviet Union because it just get winning world and Olympic championships.

Mostly because of @Czechboy 's advocacy, I have reluctantly agreed that Canada is probably at the top of the heap, but it isn't so clear cut that Canada is guaranteed anything. There is a top 7, (although I would say that the Slovaks and Czechs are perhaps a slight step behind the other five) who are dangerous on any given night, and the Swiss and Germans are really not that far behind.

So no, it ain't a two-horse race. The US is far from being a clear-cut #2 (much less a 1A) and Canada at #1 doesn't mean they're unbeatable. The difference between those top 5 or top 7 is not so much that it can't be overcome by a hot goaltender or a couple of bad bounces.

I think the call for an 8 game series between the U.S and Canada is mostly because of the rivalry and how that would play out on the ice...................and truth be told I think it would play out magnificently.


It would be a great series, possibly one for the ages at this point in time considering the downright hatred between both fan bases and closeness in talent right now.

 

[Mathieukferland]

This is why I roll my eyes every time someone starts yammering on about a 8-game summit series between Canada and the US.

Yes, I can’t stand this idea. It’s North American centric and discounts what is the second biggest hockey nation in terms of history (Russia), the Nordics who have both won best on best, and Czech who has golden generations from time to time and has won best on best. Make this hypothetical tournament for all the top countries or none at all

 

[MeHateHe]

If we do 8 game series.. I'd love to see a Sweden vs Canada or Finland vs Canada too. I just don't see a massive seperation between us and those 2. I actually dont see a seperation at all and think all those series would go to game 7.

Rather than a bunch of eight-game series, how about a collection of games, after which there would be a series of playoffs with one winner at the end. We'll call it a "tournament". Maybe once every four years or so, and for maximum exposure we could co-ordinate this "tournament" with a whole bunch of other winter sports all in one country at the same time.

Nah, that would be too radical.

 

[MeHateHe]

Yes, I can’t stand this idea. It’s North American centric and discounts what is the second biggest hockey nation in terms of history (Russia), the Nordics who have both won best on best, and Czech who has golden generations from time to time and has won best on best. Make this hypothetical tournament for all the top countries or none at all

And people think that it would be this intense, high-drama thing. It would get boring really quick. The only way a long series like that would maintain its intensity is if the games got really chippy, and considering that the players would rightly see this as an exhibition series, with low stakes, the likelihood that any players would risk getting hurt is slim. So what you will have is a lot of excitement for a game or two, and then waning interest until the last game - and only if the series is close. If one team or the other wins four of the first five, who's going to watch games 6, 7 and 8?

 

[jj cale]

"the only way it would be interesting is if the games got chippy"


Canada vs the U.S......................of course it's going to get chippy, and likely a lot more then that..

Think it's going to be a ballroom dance?

 

[MeHateHe]

"the only way it would be interesting is if the games got chippy"


Canada vs the U.S......................of course it's going to get chippy, and likely a lot more then that..

Think it's going to be a ballroom dance?

I think that if it were 19-year-olds it would get chippy. If it's pros playing in September before the regular season starts, guys are going to pull up a little bit because they know they have 82 games plus playoffs in front of them, and tweaking something before their first paid game is a good way to miss out on the big dance in the spring. This is especially true since a lot of guys will be looking across the rink at NHL teammates and friends.

A three game series in a week might be sustainable. Expecting professionals in a low-stakes series to maintain the kind of intensity needed to sustain fan interest for eight games is a recipe for disappointment.

 

[jj cale]

I think that if it were 19-year-olds it would get chippy. If it's pros playing in September before the regular season starts, guys are going to pull up a little bit because they know they have 82 games plus playoffs in front of them, and tweaking something before their first paid game is a good way to miss out on the big dance in the spring. This is especially true since a lot of guys will be looking across the rink at NHL teammates and friends.

A three game series in a week might be sustainable. Expecting professionals in a low-stakes series to maintain the kind of intensity needed to sustain fan interest for eight games is a recipe for disappointment.

I think you're wrong but your opinion is as valid as mine.