Hockey needs Canada to lose...

[discostu]

First of all, I have to disagree with the comment that hockey needs Canada. That statement is just purely false. If all Canadians stopped caring about hockey, the sport would survive. Obviously, without Canada, the sport would take a hit in popularity, and talent levels, but, the sport is well enough ingrained around the world to survive on its own. If the NHL folded, there would be enough hockey occuring overseas, in the European leagues.

I have to disagree that Canada has had it's fill, and others deserve a turn. We only have one gold medal in the last 50 years. That's quite a bruise to an ego to a country that has felt that it has been the best country at the sport for that time period. It's not that we feel that we are entitled to the victory, but, we are honestly puzzled that when we don't win, when the best players are involved.

The Canada Cups (now the World Cup) are nice, as well as the Junior Championships, and even the Women Gold Medals, but, we know that those aren't held to the highest value around the world. The Olympics are the one tournament that all hockey countries see as being an elite tournament. A big part of that is because it's one of the few tournaments that Canada doesn't dominate, but, it still pains a lot of Canadians that they can't point to the one universally recognized achievement in the sport as an example of their hockey prowess.

As Canadians, we just have to suck it up, and look to re-group in 4 years. I think most people can look at the sport now, and realize that at the international level, the sport is extremely competitive, and any time you ice a team that isn't working cohesively, you are going to struggle.

I hope that in 2010 Canada can go on to win the gold, and to make that a start of a run of gold medals that spans 3 or 4 Olympics. The problem is, you can never take that for granted in sports, especially one that is as competitive as international hockey is right now.

 

[Connorrhea]

But you'll notice that didn't happen. We weren't knocked out by an upstart team and none of the teams left are growing hockey nations. They're traditional powers.

Yes, but the point is for Canada not to dominate. If European teams win, then smaller European nations will take notice and their programs will be boosted.

Slosh, I totally agree..lol

 

[Slosh]

Yes, but the point is for Canada not to dominate. If European teams win, then smaller European nations will take notice and their programs will be boosted.

Not quite true. If you were a kid growing up in Latvia (since we started using them as an example ), just because Canada won't win anything this time round doesn't quite compensate for taking home 1 point from 5 games, and being dismantled 9-2 by Russia (instead of Canada).

 

[Connorrhea]

Not quite true. If you were a kid growing up in Latvia (since we started using them as an example ), just because Canada won't win anything this time round doesn't quite compensate for taking home 1 point from 5 games, and being dismantled 9-2 by Russia (instead of Canada).

The point is that if a European team defeats Canada and wins the gold medal, it will influence smaller nations to put more money into their programs and recruit better players because they know it is possible to beat a super power with the right system.

Look at all the European teams that have evolved since Sweden beat Canada in the 1994 Winter Olympics or when the Czech's beat Canada in 1998, nobody remembers the gold medal game, they remember the shootout because the Czech's beat the super power and since then, we have seen many big and small small nations like France, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia and Germany participate. It does make a difference.

 

[octopi]

I think it is logical that Canada doesn't win every tournament. They aren't good enough to win every tournament. They are good enough to win some tournaments. And that they do.

I think they are good enough to win almost all tournaments. However, so are some of the other nations.

 

[Kenadyan]

I think the groundwork for 2002 was started shortly after the 4th place finish in Nagano in 1998.

The disappointment there made Hockey Canada realize they needed to change the make-up of the type of team that they sent to the Olympics. Hence, the 2002 team which won an Olympic Gold.

I think Hockey Canada will now realize that for the next Olympics, they will need their younger, faster players (Crosby, Tanguay, Phaneuf, Staal - hopefully both brothers) to compete with the likes of Ovechkin, Malkin, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg just to name a few.

I believe Gretzky and others (after winning the World Cup in 2004 on NHL-sized ice) took for granted that the faster players on other teams would be able to outwork and outhustle Canada on an Olympic-sized ice rink.

Just MHO.

 

[Slosh]

Look at all the European teams that have evolved since Sweden beat Canada in the 1994 Winter Olympics or when the Czech's beat Canada in 1998, nobody remembers the gold medal game, they remember the shootout because the Czech's beat the super power and since then, we have seen many big and small small nations like France, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia and Germany participate. It does make a difference.

Germany, Swizterland and Italy have all been making regular appearances at olympic tournaments since the mid 80s, and have been achieving similar results back then as they do today. Naturally the Kazakhs and Latvians haven't, for obvious reasons.

It's not about Canada, get off you high horse. The "smaller hockey countries" don't give a toss whether it's Canada, Russia, Sweden, or another hockey superpower that wins the gold. What they care about is whether their own team can beat some of the 7 dominant nations, and perhaps make it to the medal round.

edit: corrected some spelling errors

 

[Connorrhea]

Germany, Swizterland and Italy have all been making regular appearances at olympic tournaments since the mid 80s, and have been achieving similar results back then as they do today. Naturally the Kazakhs and Latvians haven't, for obvious reasons.

It's not about Canada, get off you high horse. The "smaller hockey countries" don't give a toss whether it's Canada, Russia, Sweden, or another hockey superpower that wins the gold. What they care about is whether their own team can beat some of the 7 dominant nations, and perhaps make it to the medal round.

edit: corrected some spelling errors

In the 80's the Olympics never used NHLers and the European nations were just starting to get their programs off the ground. They obviously do give a damn if another European country wins gold because it makes them work that much harder to be better.

The only European team considered to be good was U.S.S.R./Russia until the 90's when Sweden won the Olympic gold and their program got a push, then the Czech's, and now the Fins.

I never said this was ONLY about Canada, I was merely using them as an example of the way we are viewed as the best and what it means to beat or see someone else beat the best.

 

[Slosh]

The only European team considered to be good was U.S.S.R./Russia until the 90's when Sweden won the Olympic gold and their program got a push, then the Czech's, and now the Fins.

The Czechoslovakian hockey program (which later became the Czech hockey program) was the only program aside from the Canadian that could compete with the Soviet program in the 70s and 80s at both the olympics and world championships. The Swedes weren't far off either. It's not like hockey in Europe sprung up in the 90s.

I think the fundamental difference between our opinions is that you divide the hockey world into Canada (the best) and rest of Europe, whereas i think the reality is developing hockey countries see Slovakia, Czechs, Russians, Finns and Swedes as part of the same "major power" as Canada, and they don't identify with them when they beat the Canadians.

 

[Connorrhea]

The Czechoslovakian hockey program (which later became the Czech hockey program) was the only program aside from the Canadian that could compete with the Soviet program in the 70s and 80s at both the olympics and world championships. The Swedes weren't far off either. It's not like hockey in Europe sprung up in the 90s.

I think the fundamental difference between our opinions is that you divide the hockey world into Canada (the best) and rest of Europe, whereas i think the reality is developing hockey countries see Slovakia, Czechs, Russians, Finns and Swedes as part of the same "major power" as Canada, and they don't identify with them when they beat the Canadians.

Did you actually look at the programs coming out of Sweden and Czechoslovakia before 1990? There were mabye 2 or 3 good players out of those countries, but as the 90's went on those countries began to win medals and suddenly they have provided the NHL with loads of talent.

If you don't believe my view of Canada vs. the world, just listen to Ovechkin and many other of the European players that have beaten Canada in Turino. Ovechkin said, "We did it. We beat a great team. All the poeple in my country will be jumping up and down and will drink a lot of vodka."

You see, even a great team like Russia still considers Canada the best of the best. And yes, that is where our views differ. So technically, we agree, yet disagree, but agree to disagree.

 

[Jazz]

As disappointing as it was to witness this all-star roster score in only 11 of the last 12 periods, us Canadian hockey fans have to understand that this is what hockey needs.

Gretzky said it best at the 2002 games when he said the world wanted Canada to lose, and you know what....he was right, but he doesn't seem to understand why.

Like any other sport, hockey needs someone else to take over in order for it to grow. Look at women's hockey. Sweden gets to the finals and now women's hockey will grow in Sweden.

If Canada continues to win all the tournaments, the rest of the world will not care. Just look at what the "miracle on ice" did for U.S. hockey.

Our women won the last two olympics, and men won Salt Lake, then the world cup and we won the last two juniors...that is NOT good for hockey when the rest of the world is sitting there watching Canada win all the time.

Unless, outside of the U.S., you have satellite, it is hard to watch NHL games. So when international tournaments involving NHLers takes place, the influence comes from watching your country succeed in that tournament. Swiss hockey will grow just like Czech and Slovakian hockey has because they upset a few teams.

Like Jim Kelly said on the fan590 yesterday, its not our arrogance as a nation, its our ignorance of not realizing that the rest of the world is just as good as Canada.

Just a thought about the Russia/Canada game...I think we owe Russia a victory. The analysts can say that we have not beaten them in the Olympics since 1980, but come on....how many years to the Russian's have to sit and listen to 1972 and 1987? Now we know how it feels to be on the other end.

I love my country and I want them to win, but I know it's better if they take a step back and let someone else take over.

Feel free to agree/disagree.

Great Post!

I can't agree enough. I have been especially interested in International hockey for many years now, and hope the game grows worldwide so we can see more countries develop and eventually compete at the elite level.

Being an admin of an International hockey Forum, I have read about the status of the game in many countries (like New Zealand, Turkey, Britain) and know of the issues they are facing. Seeing hockey suceed in other countries will dispell the notion that is a 'Canadian' game only, and hopefully encourage other nations to put more resources into their programs.

 

[BigE]

I think people like to see teams lose when plenty of their fans feel they're too good for the others.
That's pretty much the same with ther US in basketball. Their fans (not all of them obviously) feel they're so much better than the rest of the world that the rest of the world cheers for their opponents.

Pretty logical if you ask me.

People cheer against the US in everything for reasons reserved for a political forum discussion.

People cheer against Canada in hockey because they're the best.

Never confuse this.

 

[BigE]

First of all, I have to disagree with the comment that hockey needs Canada. That statement is just purely false. If all Canadians stopped caring about hockey, the sport would survive. Obviously, without Canada, the sport would take a hit in popularity, and talent levels, but, the sport is well enough ingrained around the world to survive on its own. If the NHL folded, there would be enough hockey occuring overseas, in the European leagues.

I have to disagree that Canada has had it's fill, and others deserve a turn. We only have one gold medal in the last 50 years. That's quite a bruise to an ego to a country that has felt that it has been the best country at the sport for that time period. It's not that we feel that we are entitled to the victory, but, we are honestly puzzled that when we don't win, when the best players are involved.

The Canada Cups (now the World Cup) are nice, as well as the Junior Championships, and even the Women Gold Medals, but, we know that those aren't held to the highest value around the world. The Olympics are the one tournament that all hockey countries see as being an elite tournament. A big part of that is because it's one of the few tournaments that Canada doesn't dominate, but, it still pains a lot of Canadians that they can't point to the one universally recognized achievement in the sport as an example of their hockey prowess.

As Canadians, we just have to suck it up, and look to re-group in 4 years. I think most people can look at the sport now, and realize that at the international level, the sport is extremely competitive, and any time you ice a team that isn't working cohesively, you are going to struggle.

I hope that in 2010 Canada can go on to win the gold, and to make that a start of a run of gold medals that spans 3 or 4 Olympics. The problem is, you can never take that for granted in sports, especially one that is as competitive as international hockey is right now.

One of the more well-thought-out posts I've read. Nice job.

To be honest I'd much rather take this result now, and a Gold in 2010 than the other way around.

 

[LannysStach]

you're totally right about the global boost to hockey. don't forget the fabulous Fins! they've never won gold and deserve it at least once.

i'm canadian too, and glad as h.e. double-hockey-sticks that we lost! just as a forest fire brings new growth, we had to scorch this whole team in order for us to field a respectable team in 2010 when we are hosting the world.

these glacial dinosaur coaches that couldn't turn a hundred million dollar team into a single goal, and a selection committee picking players who had a good season back in the last century some time, or are on the homer coaches teams, or are simply goons who disgrace the sport and our country. the only way for this obsenity in Canada's name to end is to have this whole crew take a permanent Olympic vacation -- like all the coaches and selectors did after Nagano '98.

and for all of those who rave about Gretzky's "class" i hope he shows some soon and steps aside so that fresh coaches and players can represent when we're the hosts.

as far as i'm concerned, Canada (and hockey) won big-time with that Russian game.

 

[thebodyczech]

It is encouraging for other teams to see hard work have positive results. I think this tourney has encouraged the world--and not even at Canada's expense. The world gains by, as stated above, seeing results. The Canadians benefit by preparing better and finding their love of the game again for 2010.

 

[mr gib]

One of the more well-thought-out posts I've read. Nice job.

To be honest I'd much rather take this result now, and a Gold in 2010 than the other way around.

yes - well said - that was yesterday -

onward to 2010 and gold

( i personally think wayne should take over the whole thing - gm and coach )

 

[jekoh]

Did you actually look at the programs coming out of Sweden and Czechoslovakia before 1990? There were mabye 2 or 3 good players out of those countries, but as the 90's went on those countries began to win medals and suddenly they have provided the NHL with loads of talent.

Czechoslovakia didn't "begin" to win medals in the 90s. They won 3 World Championships in the 70s ans finished ahead of the USSR in the 1976 Canada Cup.

They had a lot of great players at the time, too, the mere fact that they didn't play in the NHL doesn't make them bad players. I mean the NHL didn't have a lot of Russians either...

 

[Connorrhea]

Czechoslovakia didn't "begin" to win medals in the 90s. They won 3 World Championships in the 70s ans finished ahead of the USSR in the 1976 Canada Cup.

They had a lot of great players at the time, too, the mere fact that they didn't play in the NHL doesn't make them bad players. I mean the NHL didn't have a lot of Russians either...

First of all, no olympic medals, second of all, maybe you need to look at who participated in those world championships. The competition in Europe is not at the same level as in the NHL. In Europe, there is less hitting, more room to move and little defense. The medals the Czechs won weren't given the proper acknowledgement because it didn't mean as much based on the level and style of play.

I never said they were bad players, Sweden and the Czechs simply did not have the same type of skilled players as they developed in the 90's. And these players have played on both levels of competition which makes them that more superior than those who played in the 70's. And the U.S.S.R. didn't begin winning until the early 60's the world championships, after Canada had won 19. We are talking about development here. How many great Czech players can you name before 1990? How many Swedes?

Go ahead and throw out all your numbers at us, (did you know the united kingdom won the first world championships, germany second, belgium came in third in 1910) but so what?

When you add NHL players, who are viewed as the best hockey players in the world playing the best league in the world, it makes a difference as to the way the rest of the world views them when they are defeated at International competitions.

Did you also know Canada won an olympic gold medal in 1948 after finishing with more goals than the Czech's? They didn't even have to beat them to win. So if you want to get technical, you will have to analyze all games, in all facets. The rules were different back then, you had to win the round robin to win the gold medal. The best Canadian players played in the NHL and not the world championships or olympics for the majority of those games.

This thread is about Canadians non-domination, being a good thing for the growth of hockey as a sport. Soccer, rugby and even cricket are more popular than hockey in Europe and Asia.

Here's another one for you: After four consecutive gold medals and a 20 straight victories, Canada loses toGreat Britain and finishes second. Ten of the 12 British players live in Canada including goaltender Jimmy Foster, who allows three goals in eight games.

In the first winter olympic games (1924), canada wins all five of its games and wins the gold medal for it. They outscored their opponents 110-3.

More proof of how important beating Canada is...after Forsberg's shootout winner in 1994, Sweden created a stamp featuring his goal.

 

[Icekube]

@georgetown

Just like before 1972 most Canadians thought noone can skate with them due to their ignorance/arrogance (not trying to be offensive but it's true IMO), now you are confusing the hockey history for same reasons. Czechs have been strong long before 1990. The only reasons many Canadians didn't know that are the Iron Wall and lack of interest in european hockey and international competitions by those fans. 1990s is the time when those players from communist countries got a chance to cross the ocean and play in the NHL.

 

[Hemsky4PM]

Umm...Hockey isn't so huge in the world of sports that any result would cause a huge swing in popular appeal. I don't think hockey "needs" a darn thing right now. I enjoy watching it and that's fine by me. If the world prefers other things good on the world. Why this obsession with the way hockey is perceived? Who cares as long as you enjoy it yourself? When the Czechs won in 1998 it was a huge deal for that country, yet soccer remains much more popular there.

 

[Connorrhea]

@georgetown
1990s is the time when those players from communist countries got a chance to cross the ocean and play in the NHL.

Exaclty, that is what I've been trying to say. But also, in the international competitions, NHLers weren't allowed in the olympics or world championships because they were considered professionals, and in the olympics, professional hockey players weren't allowed to play until 1988, but NHLers couldn't participate because of the conflict in the schedule. So to say that those teams were great when they weren't facing the best competition in the world is unfair.

Here's a timeline: http://proicehockey.about.com/od/olympichockey/a/olympictimeline.htm

This is not a popularity contest, this is the expansion of the game to a leve it needs to reach to avoid another lockout. The healthier financially the game is, the better it will be on and off the ice.

 

[Legolas]

I understand the point, but I don't know if I agree. It would be one thing if the game was still at its infancy worldwide, as is the situation in womens' hockey, but it isn't. Whoever wins the medals at these Olympics will be very happy, but I doubt it will translate into visible growth because those countries are already established hockey nations, and I don't know if other European countries will relate marginally more with them. I have a hard time believing that Latvia or Belarus or Switzerland will be all happy because Finland or Russia won the Gold Medal instead of Canada. Switzerland will be inspired by the fact they beat Canada and the Czech Republic, not necessarily by whatever some other country does.

Many countries play hockey, many countries produce many great players and teams. I don't think the loss by Canada has necessarily helped anything. It isn't so simplistic as to say that if Canada loses, then the rest of the world will be inspired, and if Canada wins, they won't be. Along those lines, you could say that all it takes is for one team to beat us and everyone else will be motivated. Therefore, we could have lost in the Gold Medal Game and that would have the same impact. I think the greatest impact would happen if we lost to a lot of teams in a single Olympics, then you'd have a lot of teams celebrating that they beat the supposed best team. Then again, question how long we'd be considered the supposed best if we lost to everyone all the time.

Frankly, our Olympic record hardly suggests that we should be considered dominant at all, but that's another discussion.

 

[Legolas]

This is not a popularity contest, this is the expansion of the game to a leve it needs to reach to avoid another lockout. The healthier financially the game is, the better it will be on and off the ice.

Avoiding another lockout is all about the health of the NHL, not hockey as a global game. Just because the game is booming in Asia or wherever won't stop a lockout or a strike if North American NHL owners and players don't agree on a CBA. Hockey has been very healthy on a global level for some time now and it didn't stop the last lockout from happening.

 

[NyQuil]

I think Hockey Canada will now realize that for the next Olympics, they will need their younger, faster players (Crosby, Tanguay, Phaneuf, Staal - hopefully both brothers) to compete with the likes of Ovechkin, Malkin, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg just to name a few.

Canada was competing fine with the likes of Ovechkin, Malkin and Datsyuk.

It was basically a 1-0 game, and whoever scored first probably would have won.

The round robin means NOTHING.

The only game to evaluate is the Russian one, where we lost by an extremely narrow margin.

 

[Connorrhea]

I understand the point, but I don't know if I agree. It would be one thing if the game was still at its infancy worldwide, as is the situation in womens' hockey, but it isn't. Whoever wins the medals at these Olympics will be very happy, but I doubt it will translate into visible growth because those countries are already established hockey nations, and I don't know if other European countries will relate marginally more with them. I have a hard time believing that Latvia or Belarus or Switzerland will be all happy because Finland or Russia won the Gold Medal instead of Canada. Switzerland will be inspired by the fact they beat Canada and the Czech Republic, not necessarily by whatever some other country does.

Many countries play hockey, many countries produce many great players and teams. I don't think the loss by Canada has necessarily helped anything. It isn't so simplistic as to say that if Canada loses, then the rest of the world will be inspired, and if Canada wins, they won't be. Along those lines, you could say that all it takes is for one team to beat us and everyone else will be motivated. Therefore, we could have lost in the Gold Medal Game and that would have the same impact. I think the greatest impact would happen if we lost to a lot of teams in a single Olympics, then you'd have a lot of teams celebrating that they beat the supposed best team. Then again, question how long we'd be considered the supposed best if we lost to everyone all the time.

Frankly, our Olympic record hardly suggests that we should be considered dominant at all, but that's another discussion.

I'm not saying this olympics alone is going to boost hockey, I'm saying its good for hockey when Canada gets eliminated in tournaments because are viewed as being the best and if Russia beats us, Latvia might say, "hey, if Russia can develop a system good enough to beat Canada, why can't we." And if some of you haven't noticed, the Germans are getting better with each competition. Development takes time, some of you are interpreting that I am saying it happens overnight.

Don't look at Olympics, look at world championships, world juniors, women's hockey, Canada Cup, we dominated the first 60-70 years of the 1900's.

Avoiding another lockout is all about the health of the NHL, not hockey as a global game. Just because the game is booming in Asia or wherever won't stop a lockout or a strike if North American NHL owners and players don't agree on a CBA. Hockey has been very healthy on a global level for some time now and it didn't stop the last lockout from happening.

The NHL is what is keeping hockey alive around the globe. If the NHL folded, and all the players went to Europe, those elite league teams wouldn't have the money to afford such high profile talent. The breeding ground would end because Swedish players who have dreamed to play in the NHL, where they can make lost of money and be free, but instead, decide not to play hockey because they won't make much in the Swedish elite league that could fold at any time. Thus the popularity decreases, the teams lose money and they fold as well.

The growth that needs the most help is in the U.S. If the game was more exciting and able to sell to the people, arenas would be sold out, they'd have enough tv to ad to the revenue sharing (like the NFL and NBA) and the league would be healthy. The U.S. needs to win a major competition for the NHL really survive there. Without that, there is no interest in the game and the NHL cannot make enough money in Canada to stay alive.