I wouldn't be surprised if Russia soon gets a gold medal, even though they aren't there. 
IIHF Power Rankings right now
- Thread starter Eye of Ra
- Start date
Eye of Ra
Grandmaster General of the International boards
Why is Sweden going minus when we won Bronze? IIHF ranking is a big joke
It’s really weird. The biggest joke is freezing Russia at bronze average. Almost like being rewarded for not being there.
Czechboy
Náš f*cken barák!
- Apr 15, 2018
- 28,508
- 25,710
Nothing odd about that. What's weird is to think that finishing third once should somehow be decisive when it comes to a rating that covers multiple years.
Prior to the tournament Sweden was 6th, now they have been overtaken by the two finalists, while moving ahead of Germany, thus making them 7th. In that list the 2023 tournament gave points at a 100% rate, while the 2022 tournament and Olympics came in at 75% each, with the 2021 and 2020 tournaments going down to 50% and 25%. Now everything moved down one slot. This tournament counts 100%, 2023 75%, 2022 and the Olympics 50% and 2021 25%.
Sweden was just barely ahead of Switzerland, with not much of a buffer on Czechia either. While everyone ahead, apart from Germany, had a significant lead. Then you have to take into consideration that Sweden lost further ground due to the 2020 tournament not counting anymore.
Nothing unusual about beeing overtaken by someone who outperformed you in the current tournament, while you didn't get to make enough headway to overtake many others.
Last edited:
Eye of Ra
Grandmaster General of the International boards
The entire IIHF ranking system is outdated and not granular.
You shouldn't award points for placement alone, it makes very little sense. Points should be awarded for each game. An Elo-based or Elo-inspired system would be more fair.
The only issue with that is that in hockey it's hard to standardize the way points are being weighed. We all know that a best-on-best is much more important than the World Champs, but without NHLers the Olympics should weigh even less than the Worlds. Friendlies are typically played by C or D teams in the mid-season, etc. Many issues with that as well.
You shouldn't award points for placement alone, it makes very little sense. Points should be awarded for each game. An Elo-based or Elo-inspired system would be more fair.
The only issue with that is that in hockey it's hard to standardize the way points are being weighed. We all know that a best-on-best is much more important than the World Champs, but without NHLers the Olympics should weigh even less than the Worlds. Friendlies are typically played by C or D teams in the mid-season, etc. Many issues with that as well.
Remember that the whole thing was created back in 2004 mostly to avoid issues with seeding.
For those of you too young to remember, the groups used to be based on the previous year's standing. But the US had a terrible tournament in 2003, ending up fighting against relegation, which resulted in very unbalanced group in 2004. Canada and Czechia had it easy on one side while the 5 other contenders were fighting for 4 quartfinal spots on the other side. Russia ended up out of the top 8 (For further context, Slovakia was as good as the top teams back then, while Switzerland and Germany were nowhere close to regularly beating the big teams).
The first ranking was published right after that tournament and we've had balanced groups ever since. So in my opinion, the question to ask is, is it really worth it to increase the level of complexity of something that does the job while staying simple? The rankings are used for seeding and to decide who qualifies directly for the Olympics, that's literally the only way in which they have any consequence, so unless there are obvious issues with these two things, I don't think it's worth tinkering with them.
ELO ratings for hockey would be fun though. But I don't dare to imagine the debates we'd see here if one was ever published.
Regarding Russia and Belarus, I don't like the idea of giving them points for the rank they last achieved, but I imagine it was done to see in which division they will rejoin when the time comes. I would have suggested another solution, like having them join an 8 team second tier, or have a mid season tournament with Russia, Belarus, the worst top tier teams and the best second tier teams to decide who qualifies for the next WC. I know many want them to start from the bottom like the new teams did in the 90s, but back then there were only 3 tiers, all with a reasonably competitive level. Nowadays, from a purely hockey perspective (not debating the merit of further punishing Russia), there is no point in having them destroy division IV amateur players.
For those of you too young to remember, the groups used to be based on the previous year's standing. But the US had a terrible tournament in 2003, ending up fighting against relegation, which resulted in very unbalanced group in 2004. Canada and Czechia had it easy on one side while the 5 other contenders were fighting for 4 quartfinal spots on the other side. Russia ended up out of the top 8 (For further context, Slovakia was as good as the top teams back then, while Switzerland and Germany were nowhere close to regularly beating the big teams).
The first ranking was published right after that tournament and we've had balanced groups ever since. So in my opinion, the question to ask is, is it really worth it to increase the level of complexity of something that does the job while staying simple? The rankings are used for seeding and to decide who qualifies directly for the Olympics, that's literally the only way in which they have any consequence, so unless there are obvious issues with these two things, I don't think it's worth tinkering with them.
ELO ratings for hockey would be fun though. But I don't dare to imagine the debates we'd see here if one was ever published.
Regarding Russia and Belarus, I don't like the idea of giving them points for the rank they last achieved, but I imagine it was done to see in which division they will rejoin when the time comes. I would have suggested another solution, like having them join an 8 team second tier, or have a mid season tournament with Russia, Belarus, the worst top tier teams and the best second tier teams to decide who qualifies for the next WC. I know many want them to start from the bottom like the new teams did in the 90s, but back then there were only 3 tiers, all with a reasonably competitive level. Nowadays, from a purely hockey perspective (not debating the merit of further punishing Russia), there is no point in having them destroy division IV amateur players.
That's the thing, the groups are inherently unbalanced now. With Russia gone, one of the groups is always easier.
We like to talk about the big 4, big 5 or big 7, but the truth is that Sweden, Canada, the US, Czechia and Finland in usual circumstances are stronger than either one of Switzerland or Germany.
This year was not a great example of that, as Finland sent an historically bad roster, while Swiss had most of their key players available. However, usually you would not get that.
Whichever team ends up with Switzerland + Germany/Slovakia, has a) an easier road to the play-offs b) has a better chance of avoiding a top-ranked team in the QFs.
If the only point of the system is to avoid USA being relegated, then it does work as intended, but the 2-group preliminary round is by no means balanced right now.
Using an Elo-based system would improve things a little. Having Sweden ranked 6th or 7th does not make any sense to anyone actually watching hockey. And it does affect the seeding. Would you prefer having Germany or Sweden in your group?
Based on Elo, the IIHF rankings would be:
1. Sweden
2. Canada
russia
3. Czechia
4. USA
5. Finland
6. Switzerland
7. Germany
8. Slovakia
9. Latvia
belarus
10. Denmark
11. Norway
12. Kazakhstan
13. Austria
14. Slovenia
15. France
16. Hungary
This just immediately feels right to me.
We all know Sweden is theoretically better than Germany, but the fact is, we can't rank teams based on feelings. Germany actually outperformed Sweden between 2021 and 2023 and was rightfully seeded higher than them.
If you assume that Canada, Sweden, Czechia, Finland and the US are the top five teams, then you will have a group with 3 of them and a group with 2 of them.
This year, you had one group with 2 of the teams you mention as contenders and another with 3, but the group with only 2 also had Slovakia and Latvia, arguably the weakest top 8 team and the non top 8 team that was the most likely to reach the quarterfinals. Who it favoured is very debatable. In the Ostrava group, Sweden and the USA had an easy path to the top 2 while Latvia, Slovakia and Germany were left fighting for 2 spots, while in the Prague group, the top 4 was clearer. The result is that it was harder to finish in the top 2 and avoid Sweden and the USA, two of the strongest teams on paper, while Denmark and Austria were left with little chance to progress.
Plus there's the fact that team strength can vary from year to year, making it impossible to get a 100% fair seeding system based on past results anyway.
If you assume that Canada, Sweden, Czechia, Finland and the US are the top five teams, then you will have a group with 3 of them and a group with 2 of them.
This year, you had one group with 2 of the teams you mention as contenders and another with 3, but the group with only 2 also had Slovakia and Latvia, arguably the weakest top 8 team and the non top 8 team that was the most likely to reach the quarterfinals. Who it favoured is very debatable. In the Ostrava group, Sweden and the USA had an easy path to the top 2 while Latvia, Slovakia and Germany were left fighting for 2 spots, while in the Prague group, the top 4 was clearer. The result is that it was harder to finish in the top 2 and avoid Sweden and the USA, two of the strongest teams on paper, while Denmark and Austria were left with little chance to progress.
Plus there's the fact that team strength can vary from year to year, making it impossible to get a 100% fair seeding system based on past results anyway.
It is interesting to see what they will do once Belarus and Russia is welcomed back. I think either have a year with no promotion (but that would hurt the Div 1A teams) or play a tournament with 18 teams and have 4 teams relegated (but that has the consequence of prolonging the tournament that year)
Yes, I think the way it is done now is the only fair way. You can't rank on subjective feelings. Sweden is still paying for that disastrous 2021 tournament. And this is the only year we've medalled in the years included. If Sweden has a good home tournament next + 2021 tournament going out of score, we will see Sweden rise to a more reasonable position. Of course if we don't get past the quaters next year, that won't happen. But if we don't make it past the quaters, maybe 7th is the correct ranking after all
BruinLVGA
Next: CZ SP-01 Tactical!
This is YOUR question: „Would you prefer having Germany or Sweden in your group“
Now do Switzerland and Sweden at the GROUP STAGE. Since 2021, in group play,
Switzerland:
28 games… 22 wins, 2 ot wins, 1 ot loss, 3 losses.
Sweden:
28 games… 20 wins, 2 ot wins, 3 ot losses, 3 losses.
Your system should show a dramatic difference in favor of Sweden, being Sweden number one, and Switzerland number six.
The rankings I posted were based on Elo, not feelings.
If your feelings were hurt, maybe you're not into having a more realistic take on the rankings for some other reason.
Your evidence is based on recent performance. The rankings are based on recent performance. If you're trying to make a point connecting these two together, what you have created is circular reasoning.
The entire point here is that recent performance at the Worlds alone is not a good way of measuring the strength of each national team.
aquaregia
Registered User
World Ice Hockey Elo Ratings
Ratings for national ice hockey teams based on the Elo rating system.
www.eloratings.net
Oi we're ahead of Hungary! (for now) but yeah definitely agree that these make a lot more sense than the IIHF's weighted tournament-ranking system.
Only problem is it doesn't distinguish between the NHL and non-NHL Olympics, but pretty much impossible to account for that without being arbitrary somewhat; to account for rosters being 'best-on-best' or not, you'd have to have some way of deciding who makes up that 'best'. Perhaps not impossible but an orders-of-magnitude more difficult system to come up with than Elo, for sure.
I have literally no idea what makes you think I didn't understand you posted ELO rankings, and what makes you think some ranking is hurting my feelings while my whole point is that those ranking are used for seeding and are not supposed to prove anything.
I don't care about the actual "strength" of each national team, what counts is to win actual hockey games that matter. You don't think Canada would trade their first place in the ranking for the gold medal? You think Czechia would prefer to lead the ranking rather than win the gold medal?
Once again, the rankings are used for seeding and for direct qualification to the Olympics, those are their only purposes. I don't really care who's 1st, 2nd or 6th, winning tournaments is all that matters.
And who exactly has said that the rankings are about "the strength of each national team"?
That's absolutely not the purpose of these rankings. These rankings exist to have a rating which can be used to set groups in tournaments and the qualification paths for the Olympics.
Its job is literally to measure the recent performance at the World Championships and Olympics, and nothing else. It's not the rankings fault that you try to read something into them they aren't in any way meant to say.
And what's with acting like a douche towards someone who made a perfectly reasonable and logical argument?
Why in the hell is Sweden ahead of Canada??? Canada has won gold 4 times and silver 3 time in the last 10 championship and Sweden has 2 golds and 2 bronze yeah let's put them a head of Canada that seem right to you?? Hahaha
At least how I can see it happening
If they are welcomed back in different years
Just one team will be promoted from Div 1A, while two will be relegated. The other place will be then given to a returnee.
If they are welcomed back in the same year
In addition to the above, an extra game will be added to WC, played between those who were 7th in their group. QF/SF/BMG overtime rules, the winner will stay and the loser will be relegated.
With the current schedule, presumably, the game would be played at noon on a quarterfinal day.
Yozhik v tumane
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2019
- 2,050
- 2,195
Here’s an explanation for how the Elo rating was achieved.
Had Canada beat Sweden in the bronze match, they would have been ahead.
Feel free to try your hand at a more proper adjustment of team strength.
Czechboy
Náš f*cken barák!
- Apr 15, 2018
- 28,508
- 25,710
Politics aside, I honestly don't notice their absence at all. This worlds was stacked and very competitive.. the 3 headed monster of Canada/US/Sweden got one medal. Not like this is women's hockey were the scores are 5-0 in the semi finals. This was a great tourney and competitve.
If I wasn't on HF and constantly reading about asterisks I wouldn't even mention them and not because of hate or politics but because I don't notice the diference. Probably less of a headache as I was getting tired of seeing U18 teams at U20 tourneys and jerseys without flags and weird names and no anthems. More sanctions than gold medals.lol
Nah Canada is a strong team then Sweden, this Elo system needs to be thrown in the thrash is ridiculous Lolll
Yozhik v tumane
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2019
- 2,050
- 2,195
I honestly mean it when I suggest that you could try to weigh the rankings in a way that reflects this more accurately.
