Hypothetical Russia WJC

[jcbio11]

Are you trying to say that it would be more correct to compare the performance of the teams that played to the performance of the team that didn't play?

As for how long I'd say until there is a notable drop off in talent producing comparing to those years, as being a WJC powerhouse is about the ability to produce elite talent on a consistent basis, as you just can't win the WJC without it (doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to win it though and that's what makes the WJC exciting). And yes, the current state of hockey is that elite hockey talent is consistently produced by 5 countries (with all respect to Czechia there had been a bit of a drop off in that area particularly for 2001-2003 borns, but hopefully they are getting back on the right track), therefore if a team like Slovakia has a strong crop in some year and wins a gold I don't think it will be enough to be considered them suddenly becoming a powerhouse, but like 5 years of consistently contending for gold even without one would mean more in that regard.

I'm saying to be considered a powerhouse at this level you need to have the gold medals to show for it. That's all.

3 teams have combined for the last 10 tourney wins. In fact, those 3 teams have combined for the last 12 gold medals.

So yes, I'm calling them powerhouses.

 

[Caser]

I'm saying to be considered a powerhouse at this level you need to have the gold medals to show for it. That's all.

3 teams have combined for the last 10 tourney wins. In fact, those 3 teams have combined for the last 12 gold medals.

So yes, I'm calling them powerhouses.

Obviously you are free to have your own opinion, but I honestly can't think of any hockey fan aside of you and EyeOfRa who currently would think of Finland as the WJC powerhouse and wouldn't have Sweden in the same tier.

 

[jcbio11]

Obviously you are free to have your own opinion, but I honestly can't think of any hockey fan aside of you and EyeOfRa who currently would think of Finland as the WJC powerhouse and wouldn't have Sweden in the same tier.

My tier list in case you're interested. I consider the ability to go all the way to be crucial. Being strong on paper isn't enough.

Tier A WJC countries: Canada, USA, Finland (aka powerhouse countries)
Tier A- : Sweden
Tier B: Czechia
Tier B-: Slovakia, Switzerland
Tier C: The rest, I believe all of them have the elevator status, none of them are consistently in the elite division

Banned tier: Russia

 

[Hanji]

Russia is welcome to come back to these tournaments, it's entirely in their own control. Stop invading their neighbor, withdraw to international boarders, pay reparations. Once they do that then they'll be back IMO, weird to complain about a ban that is 100% in control of the banned nation.

Please read my initial post. Stop with the political bullshit.

We all know why Russia is banned. Bringing it up gets us into territory that tends to ruin good hockey conversation. Enough already.

 

[Hanji]

I'm saying to be considered a powerhouse at this level you need to have the gold medals to show for it. That's all.

3 teams have combined for the last 10 tourney wins. In fact, those 3 teams have combined for the last 12 gold medals.

So yes, I'm calling them powerhouses.

So by that rationale, a country with 5 silvers and 5 bronzes is less of a powerhouse than a country with 2 golds and 8 ninth-place finishes?

 

[Czechboy]

Are you trying to say that it would be more correct to compare the performance of the teams that played to the performance of the team that didn't play?

As for how long I'd say until there is a notable drop off in talent producing comparing to those years, as being a WJC powerhouse is about the ability to produce elite talent on a consistent basis, as you just can't win the WJC without it (doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to win it though and that's what makes the WJC exciting). And yes, the current state of hockey is that elite hockey talent is consistently produced by 5 countries (with all respect to Czechia there had been a bit of a drop off in that area particularly for 2001-2003 borns, but hopefully they are getting back on the right track), therefore if a team like Slovakia has a strong crop in some year and wins a gold I don't think it will be enough to be considered them suddenly becoming a powerhouse, but like 5 years of consistently contending for gold even without one would mean more in that regard.

I'd say we fell off a cliff two decades ago to be honest. Feels like it is improving. I get some can be attributed to missing a team like Russia and that is fair. However, even without results.. the teams just look better the last few years and the next two years seem to have good squads too.

Anyways, carry on...

 

[Mathieukferland]

Which country in the tourney is currently invading another country and killing 1000s of people a day?

Stop. You’re going to get the thread locked. Anything that doesn’t involve hockey, don’t talk about it

 

[Czechboy]

So by that rationale, a country with 5 silvers and 5 bronzes is less of a powerhouse than a country with 2 golds and 8 ninth-place finishes?

Using this logic and the 2000's

Czechs = 2 gold medals
Sweden = 1 gold medal

No one in their right mind would argue the Czechs have been better the last 24 years in Junior hockey than Sweden.lol

 

[jcbio11]

Using this logic and the 2000's

Czechs = 2 gold medals
Sweden = 1 gold medal

No one in their right mind would argue the Czechs have been better the last 24 years in Junior hockey than Sweden.lol

Did I make that argument? No.

Did I put Sweden in the same tier as Czechia? No, I put Czechia lower.

But if 3 countries combined for the last 12 tourney wins then they are in a tier of their own in the WJC tier list.

 

[WayTooCold]

Canada wins all the gold medals anyway. Even if Russia comes back they are maximum playing for bronze.

For example Canada and Sweden played 5 times in row in WJC gold medal match. Canada won them all.

There's nothing more than silver and bronze medals up for grabs for other countries.

 

[Czechboy]

Canada wins all the gold medals anyway. Even if Russia comes back they are maximum playing for bronze.

For example Canada and Sweden played 5 times in row in WJC gold medal match. Canada won them all.

There's nothing more than silver and bronze medals up for grabs for other countries.

And this is why I enjoyed eliminating Canada in the quarters last year so much.lol Don't worry, next 3 tourneys are all in North America so you guys got a chance again

 

[Bocephus86]

Stop. You’re going to get the thread locked. Anything that doesn’t involve hockey, don’t talk about it

Understood, my apologies.

 

[NyQuil]

And this is why I enjoyed eliminating Canada in the quarters last year so much.lol Don't worry, next 3 tourneys are all in North America so you guys got a chance again

There’s no way the guy you quoted is Canadian.

He’s just a troll - his post history says it all.

He’s clearly a Finn with significant insecurity issues.

 

[Czechboy]

There’s no way the guy you quoted is Canadian.

He’s just a troll - his post history says it all.

He’s clearly a Finn with significant insecurity issues.

Fair.. and you know my history as well. If it was JJ saying that we'd be on page 72 right now.haha

 

[Eye of Ra]

Canada wins all the gold medals anyway. Even if Russia comes back they are maximum playing for bronze.

For example Canada and Sweden played 5 times in row in WJC gold medal match. Canada won them all.

There's nothing more than silver and bronze medals up for grabs for other countries.

Typical Canadian fan

 

[Hanji]

But if 3 countries combined for the last 12 tourney wins then they are in a tier of their own in the WJC tier list.

In that same time frame Finland has:
-two 7th place finishes
-a 6th place
-a 9th place

They played in the relegation round twice in this time span.

Finland is not a tier above Sweden or Russia despite their 3 golds. Powerhouses don't regularly finish so low, let alone get sent to the relegation round twice.