Toggle sidebar

How can the World Championship improve as an event?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
True Hockey Fan said:
Fact? You can say this about every tournament ever played, from street hockey tournaments played by kids, to minor tournaments, to tournaments like World Cup. But World Cup and Olympics, unlike WHC, are played with the best players possible. That's a big difference. The winner is the best national team in the world.
Click to expand...
You are still guilty of making far-fetched conclusions: "best in tournament" is not equal as "best in the world". It's a way different thing. It's true that we don't have a better tournament than the ridiculous Olympic tournament, but it still doesn't mean that it determines best team in the world just because it sucks and we don't have anything better.

I think that you could find people who would claim it, and you would definitely find them here if we changed Finland for Russia.
Click to expand...
Even if every Russian would think that they're on the top of the hockey world based on last WHC, why should others care? Should I be offended? No. Russians would have right to be happy as Canadians would be happy of their WJC golds, even though very few in Europe even know that such tournament is ongoing, let alone that someone would care.

As I said, I kinda agree with you here. But my point was that WHC is not a tournament you should include - or give some huge importance to - when discussing what country is better overall. Here's one of the reasons why - (and I think my previous post included the reasons too and was about that, and not about winning one tournament makes your ocuntry #1 without any other things in duscission. But, btw, when Canada won 4 out of the last 5 best-on-best tournaments, it says something):

I'll give you a question: In soccer, If Spain sended their C team to a tournament, and than France, with a near-top roster would win it, because some other teams also sended teams like Spawin, some slightly better, some slightly worse, would it be fair to give ANY importance to that tournament and making this as an argument AGAINST Spain, or FOR France, in global discussion about best soccer nation? Would it, really?
Click to expand...
I don't understand the need to discuss so seriously of something that just can't be determined based on a mini-tournament every four years. Canada has always best (or equivalent) team on paper.

I haven't noticed discussion about which soccer country is best like you described here in Europe. Honestly I don't know anyone who uses soccer World Cup to prove something in that way. Everyone knows that Spain has a lot of good players and it's one of the very top countries.

One or two tournaments don't matter. One reason is that in soccer we have qualifications or tournaments for WC/EC every year. Even the qualifications are a big event and they're like the first round-robin of the tournament itself. We see our soccer teams play national teams every year with top players even during the league seasons. Thus there's better sample rate and sample size to see which teams are really good.
 
Jonimaus said:
People don't care enough. Not sure which countries 'd have people attending so many games for such an unimportant tournament. You'd have a hard time getting people interested for the olympics with such a format.
Click to expand...

For the Olympics? No way. Look how exciting that USA/Russia game was. Oshie got national attention for his shootout prowess and was even on the Today show. I know that wasn't an elimination game but if it was a best of 3 it would make it even more compelling.

For the IIHF Worlds they could make just the championship a best of 3. Doing it just once the entire tournament won't hurt.
 
I'd like to see Canada and the USA pull out of the WC and instead play a 3 game CAN vs USA miniseries in place of the NHL allstar game.
 
JackSlater said:
Why should Canada or USA pull out of the WC? There is no downside to participation.
Click to expand...

There is also very little upside to going and it would get both NA and the IIHF out of the mess they are currently in with the WC. There is no way to make this tournament popular in NA and sometimes to move forward you have to take a step back first. There are lots if great things the IIHF could be doing, but all the negativity around the WC is one of the things that holds them back.
 
Mr Kanadensisk said:
There is also very little upside to going and it would get both NA and the IIHF out of the mess they are currently in with the WC. There is no way to make this tournament popular in NA and sometimes to move forward you have to take a step back first. There are lots if great things the IIHF could be doing, but all the negativity around the WC is one of the things that holds them back.
Click to expand...

There is easily enough upside to justify going. It gives fans extra hockey to watch, and it gives players a practice run before they get to play in big tournaments. I also don't think the popularity of this tournament in Canada should be Hockey Canada's concern. That's more of a TSN issue.
 
JackSlater said:
There is easily enough upside to justify going. It gives fans extra hockey to watch, and it gives players a practice run before they get to play in big tournaments. I also don't think the popularity of this tournament in Canada should be Hockey Canada's concern. That's more of a TSN issue.
Click to expand...

with ya Jack, don't want to see Canada pull out of the tournament, although I'm all for more cross border events...I would however like to see HC re-prioritize the WHC, making it less of a training exercise for future events and more of a competitive team with a commitment to win now..I would estimate that HC currently views the WHC at about 70% as a training exercise. "Ya winning it would be nice, but not critical in the grand scheme of things." I think in the long-long term this type of approach will prove to be counter-productive and I'd prefer to see HC weight the WHC as a training exercise at about 10-15%...otherwise, I agree with Kanadensisk, there's not much point in continuing with that charade. Sending 1 serious team in a 4 year Olympic cycle is what I call a charade. To win 1 or 2 WHC + Olympic Gold is really not much to ask for, imo.
 
Last edited:
Mr Writer said:
with ya Jack, don't want to see Canada pull out of the tournament, although I'm all for more cross border events...I would however like to see HC re-prioritize the WHC, making it less of a training exercise for future events and more of a competitive team with a commitment to win now..I would estimate that HC currently views the WHC at about 70% as a training exercise. "Ya winning it would be nice, but not critical in the grand scheme of things." I think in the long-long term this type of approach will prove to be counter-productive and I'd prefer to see HC weight the WHC as a training exercise at about 10-15%...otherwise, I agree with Kanadensisk, there's not much point in continuing with that charade. Sending 1 serious team in a 4 year Olympic cycle is what I call a charade. To win 1 or 2 WHC + Olympic Gold is really not much to ask for, imo.
Click to expand...

I like the training ground system. It seems to be working. I'm certain that the players and coaches who make the trip pretty much try their best to win, and over the last few years Canada has been beset by some crappy rosters and in a few of the QF games some misfortune. If the players don't have an attitude that matches the seriousness of the Olympics it is an issue that HC alone cannot fix. Likewise player refusals (still ridiculous that Hall, Seguin and company did not play this year) are an issue for HC, not the WC. It would be nice for Canada to win this tournament, but experience for young players should be their primary goal. Fortunately, those things are not mutually exclusive.
 
JackSlater said:
I like the training ground system. It seems to be working. I'm certain that the players and coaches who make the trip pretty much try their best to win, and over the last few years Canada has been beset by some crappy rosters and in a few of the QF games some misfortune. If the players don't have an attitude that matches the seriousness of the Olympics it is an issue that HC alone cannot fix. Likewise player refusals (still ridiculous that Hall, Seguin and company did not play this year) are an issue for HC, not the WC. It would be nice for Canada to win this tournament, but experience for young players should be their primary goal. Fortunately, those things are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Ya, I think the whole WHC as a training ground for Olympic success is way overstated. I think we can have success at both and we should...

A full time coach to coach at the WHC and who is an assistant with the Olympic team would be a good place to start....and you already know my choice..and he's your choice as well, Andy Murray. But Hockey Canada will cry cheap and say that a professional full time coach is a waste of resources; resources that can be better used in other areas (wink wink executive salaries for the idiots in charge. nudge nudge.... and yet HC will turn around and absolutely extort a king's ransom for the junior tournament where they exploit free labor, lets not forget that...
 
Mr Writer said:
Ya, I think the whole WHC as a training ground for Olympic success is way overstated. I think we can have success at both and we should...

A full time coach to coach at the WHC and who is an assistant with the Olympic team would be a good place to start....and you already know my choice..and he's your choice as well, Andy Murray. But Hockey Canada will cry cheap and say that a professional full time coach is a waste of resources; resources that can be better used in other areas (wink wink executive salaries for the idiots in charge. nudge nudge.... and yet HC will turn around and absolutely extort a king's ransom for the junior tournament where they exploit free labor, lets not forget that...
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the full time coach thing and Murray would be a great choice.
 
The Bad Guy said:
I'm with you on the full time coach thing and Murray would be a great choice.
Click to expand...

Whatever Mike Babcock's annual salary is in Detroit, that's what I would offer Murray. And the bureaucrats at the HC office in Calgary can each take a 10% reduction in pay. And even with that reduction, they'd still be grossly overpaid.
 
Mr Writer said:
Ya, I think the whole WHC as a training ground for Olympic success is way overstated. I think we can have success at both and we should...
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty valuable. Lots of young players get to partake in leadership roles internationally, and players on crappy teams get to play some pressure games. Canada's young players at the Olympics have performed very well at each of the last two tournaments, and I think WC exposure is part of the reason.

Mr Writer said:
A full time coach to coach at the WHC and who is an assistant with the Olympic team would be a good place to start....and you already know my choice..and he's your choice as well, Andy Murray. But Hockey Canada will cry cheap and say that a professional full time coach is a waste of resources; resources that can be better used in other areas (wink wink executive salaries for the idiots in charge. nudge nudge.... and yet HC will turn around and absolutely extort a king's ransom for the junior tournament where they exploit free labor, lets not forget that...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty torn on this. I agree that hiring a permanent coach would improve results at the WC, but that isn't really a meaningful goal in my opinion. The tournament functions as a training ground for coaches as well as players. Canada is currently loaded with talented coaches (I think Babcock was one of the most important people in the 2014 success) and this move would effectively remove Canada's best coaches from getting experience at the senior level. Additionally, while Murray would be a great fit as a proven coach internationally, I would be wary of subsequent coaches. How do we know that his replacement is a legitimately good coach? They play a few games per year, often against weak teams in an uneven tournament. I look at the European teams and they do not seem better coached at the Olympics than Canada has been with Babcock. I think the current system is probably more beneficial as it allows many coaches to get international experience. HC should definitely bring Murray back into the fold in some capacity however, possibly as a Krueger-like scout.
 
Had neglected to think of that.

Yeah, it is a training ground for the coaches too, do we take away that experience for improved results for a so-so tournament in terms of importance? Having a guy like Murray on as an advanced scout maybe a good way to split the difference.

Glad that was brought up, it is another thing to consider.
 
JackSlater said:
There is easily enough upside to justify going. It gives fans extra hockey to watch, and it gives players a practice run before they get to play in big tournaments. I also don't think the popularity of this tournament in Canada should be Hockey Canada's concern. That's more of a TSN issue.
Click to expand...

I think the "experience" thing for young players is completely overrated and really has no meaningful impact on their development. Furthermore having the iihf's marquis tournament either scorned or ignored by the majority of the worlds hockey fans is a negative smudge on the game that needs to be put to an end. The WC will never be popular in NA. The players don't go because North Americans don't care and Hockey CAN / USA should never go down the road if trying to force or pressure players to go.

I have a vision that would actually create more international hockey, that all countries would embrace, but it certainly doesn't include the WC.
 
Mr Kanadensisk said:
I think the "experience" thing for young players is completely overrated and really has no meaningful impact on their development.
Click to expand...

Their development as players in general? Probably pretty small. I certainly think that playing in additional international tournaments helps to prepare players for subsequent international tournaments. They can become more accustomed to the referees, atmosphere, the ice size and potential teammates.

Mr Kanadensisk said:
Furthermore having the iihf's marquis tournament either scorned or ignored by the majority of the worlds hockey fans is a negative smudge on the game that needs to be put to an end. The WC will never be popular in NA. The players don't go because North Americans don't care and Hockey CAN / USA should never go down the road if trying to force or pressure players to go.

I have a vision that would actually create more international hockey, that all countries would embrace, but it certainly doesn't include the WC.
Click to expand...

Canada and USA should stop going because the WC is not ideal or popular in North America? That doesn't make sense. There is no downside to participation. There are benefits. Thus, they should go.
 
JackSlater said:
Their development as players in general? Probably pretty small. I certainly think that playing in additional international tournaments helps to prepare players for subsequent international tournaments. They can become more accustomed to the referees, atmosphere, the ice size and potential teammates.



Canada and USA should stop going because the WC is not ideal or popular in North America? That doesn't make sense. There is no downside to participation. There are benefits. Thus, they should go.
Click to expand...

Prepping for the ice size I can maybe see, but the obvious and much more effective solution would be to have most of the team playing together on the big ice in the 3 game CAN-USA miniseries I mentioned (preceding whatever tournament you are preparing for).

The huge downside is that if you don't "rip the bandaid off" now we will still be talking about the same problems 20 years from now. In the short term it might make NHL - IIHF relations worse but not having the IIHFs main tournament scheduled during the nhl playoffs in the long term would be a huge positive boost to hockey.
 
Mr Kanadensisk said:
Prepping for the ice size I can maybe see, but the obvious and much more effective solution would be to have most of the team playing together on the big ice in the 3 game CAN-USA miniseries I mentioned (preceding whatever tournament you are preparing for).

The huge downside is that if you don't "rip the bandaid off" now we will still be talking about the same problems 20 years from now. In the short term it might make NHL - IIHF relations worse but not having the IIHFs main tournament scheduled during the nhl playoffs in the long term would be a huge positive boost to hockey.
Click to expand...

I hope your vision for growing international hockey isn't a Canada-USA mini series in place of the IIHF Worlds.
 
Xokkeu said:
I hope your vision for growing international hockey isn't a Canada-USA mini series in place of the IIHF Worlds.
Click to expand...

Nope, in the long term I would have every league break at the same time, around January and eliminate All-Star games. I would have an IIHF organized best on best once very four years, alternating the host city between NA and Europe. I would have a European championship once every 4 years, offset by 2 years from the best on best I mentioned above, at the same time I would have a canada vs USA mini series. In the other 2 years I would have 3 game mini series and mix up the opponents, say one year have CAN vs RUS, USA v SUI, CZE vs SVK, SWE vs FIN, next time make different matches. I would hold the WJC at the OG just so hockey still gets the exposure to new fans the OG bring. The WC for the other divisions could continue on as is making sure the top one or two teams have a chance to qualify for the big best on best tournament.

The problem is that most people cant handle so many changes at once, so the first CAN-USA miniseries is just part of staging the whole process. Since all those players would be from the nhl it doesn't require coordination with other leagues so it is a natural way to start.
 
Mr Kanadensisk said:
Nope, in the long term I would have every league break at the same time, around January and eliminate All-Star games. I would have an IIHF organized best on best once very four years, alternating the host city between NA and Europe. I would have a European championship once every 4 years, offset by 2 years from the best on best I mentioned above, at the same time I would have a canada vs USA mini series. In the other 2 years I would have 3 game mini series and mix up the opponents, say one year have CAN vs RUS, USA v SUI, CZE vs SVK, SWE vs FIN, next time make different matches. I would hold the WJC at the OG just so hockey still gets the exposure to new fans the OG bring. The WC for the other divisions could continue on as is making sure the top one or two teams have a chance to qualify for the big best on best tournament.

The problem is that most people cant handle so many changes at once, so the first CAN-USA miniseries is just part of staging the whole process. Since all those players would be from the nhl it doesn't require coordination with other leagues so it is a natural way to start.
Click to expand...

Have to strictly disagree. You problably talking from the perspective that Canada seems to be ahead of the rest of the world now. But generally reducing competition just to separate matches, and what is even worse matches between similar type of teams would have serious impact on hockey development in almost every country. Giving one example with czech junior hockey. On national level they split up league to two divisions : Bohemia and Moravia.On national level, czech teams played mostly nonsense matches against their neighbours. Than we faced Canada once a year and got smashed. Since the czech association had arranged more matches with top teams we can finally see some slow progress (U18 silver). So I do not see any benefit from watching SLO -CZE serie or RUS-CZE etc...

You probably forgot that there is also Euro hockey tour during the season consists of several tourneys with CZE,SWE,FIN and RUS and despite the less fans attention it is generally well accepted as a good test for best european players. So while it seems to me that NA fans would like to reduce or restructure amount of int competition, european fans already watch or are interested in a lot international games.

The reason could be that top european leagues, except russian, are burglatized when aprox. 50 - 80 or even more players from top european hockey countries are playing abroad. So any higher level competition is welcomed. So if I had best league in the world in my country I could probably have diff. opinion. But from my perspective - it would be definetelly step back...
 
Jablkon said:
Have to strictly disagree. You problably talking from the perspective that Canada seems to be ahead of the rest of the world now. But generally reducing competition just to separate matches, and what is even worse matches between similar type of teams would have serious impact on hockey development in almost every country. Giving one example with czech junior hockey. On national level they split up league to two divisions : Bohemia and Moravia.On national level, czech teams played mostly nonsense matches against their neighbours. Than we faced Canada once a year and got smashed. Since the czech association had arranged more matches with top teams we can finally see some slow progress (U18 silver). So I do not see any benefit from watching SLO -CZE serie or RUS-CZE etc...

You probably forgot that there is also Euro hockey tour during the season consists of several tourneys with CZE,SWE,FIN and RUS and despite the less fans attention it is generally well accepted as a good test for best european players. So while it seems to me that NA fans would like to reduce or restructure amount of int competition, european fans already watch or are interested in a lot international games.

The reason could be that top european leagues, except russian, are burglatized when aprox. 50 - 80 or even more players from top european hockey countries are playing abroad. So any higher level competition is welcomed. So if I had best league in the world in my country I could probably have diff. opinion. But from my perspective - it would be definetelly step back...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't change anything at the junior level (U20, U18, etc) other than making the OG the U20 tournament once every fours years which would greatly increase the status of junior hockey. As for Euro Hockey or any competitions meant for euro based players I am fine with those continuing. Even if you still wanted to have a European Championship every year in place of the WC I don't really care, but having them too often makes them less special in my view. The whole point should be to create competitions that all sides take seriously, and the more evenly matched games the better.
 
Mr Kanadensisk said:
I wouldn't change anything at the junior level (U20, U18, etc) other than making the OG the U20 tournament once every fours years which would greatly increase the status of junior hockey.
Click to expand...
How would the Olympic status raise the status of junior hockey? Juniors have been playing in Olympics in soccer and what's the status of it? Almost nobody watches it and the status of the tournament is near zero.

I don't see any reason why junior hockey should have higher status anyway. Of course we all know that junior hockey is respected and popular in Canada/NA, but it doesn't mean that it should have Olympic status only because of that.
 
roto said:
How would the Olympic status raise the status of junior hockey? Juniors have been playing in Olympics in soccer and what's the status of it? Almost nobody watches it and the status of the tournament is near zero.

I don't see any reason why junior hockey should have higher status anyway. Of course we all know that junior hockey is respected and popular in Canada/NA, but it doesn't mean that it should have Olympic status only because of that.
Click to expand...

I understand nhl and nba owners who want the Olympics to be u23 so that they don't lose their players. It's a money thing.

Why North American fans in both sports would ever want to destroy top level competition. I have no idea.
 
There is only one international competition the World pays attention to, so for the game's sake let's hope the NHL will send their players for the long run if it aims to promote the game. Watching U-23 players amongst the terrific Olympians would be an insult to those sportsmen to have kids like those amongst them who don't have a clue of what sport and the Olympic spirit is about. Football can do it because it's the World's game, they can do anything. Hockey can't, being such a minority sport, it needs all the exposure it can get. And that only comes through the Olympics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom