With that said, it is a shame to see how casual an approach is taken to this tournament by the Canadians. They should be sending teams to these tournament to compete, not to get some junior players a bit of experience for when it really matters. I'd hope the Canadians would actually have a bit of pride.
Hockey Canada does usually send players to compete - it's just that players who have never played at an Olympics feel the need to get international experience if they ever want to get in an Olympics. Most of the time these are younger players. I don't think Hamhuis or Smith are on the Olympic team if they weren't at the 2013 Worlds (and playing as the #1D and #1G respectively).
Its so obviously ironic it makes me laugh.
"We could send 5 teams to Olympics to compete for the gold!"
Another early exit in WHC.. "Our best players are in SC Playoffs!"
First of all, not all best players play in playoffs, best team do and all top teams have that same "problem".
The Canadian team at the last Worlds could compete for gold though - they just didn't win, but they were good enough to. A shootout loss to the gold medallists in the QF? They score one more goal there and they have favourable matchups against Finland and Switzerland for the gold.
Apologies in advance for my ignorance. But I had no clue that Middle Eastern and African countries participated in international hockey tournaments. Are there hockey clubs in these countries or do guys just train abroad?
They have rinks in tropical countries nowadays. A lot of these are in Arab countries where they have tons of oil money to spare.
TC treats the WHC like a development or try out tournament, to see what they have in their stable for the next potential Olympics or World Cup. It's a revolving door of players and coaches while Russia, Finland and Sweden keep having their core group of go to guys (including legit superstars, at least 1 or 2) coming back year after year.
Russia is the only country where their superstars show up with any consistency. Sweden or Finland often don't send their best team either, and the USA certainly doesn't.
I'm just saying you can't discredit the worlds, because the best on best is also missing some of the best players who could've made all the difference.
Crosby, Toews, Doughty, and Keith were obliged by contract to play for their NHL teams while the 2013 Worlds were going on - they simply had another hockey tournament to play in at the time. They weren't injured.
Injuries are a fact of life. Best on best is an indicator of theoretical player
availability. If a tournament is scheduled at such a time that it conflicts with no club team commitments, it is a best-on-best tournament. (whether 2004 World Cup, 2005 World Championships, 2014 Olympics)
The World Championships are not even televised in the USA. (Not sure if it is televised in Canada). We are watching the Stanley Cup at that time.
TSN shows it, and they do actually take it seriously and broadcast all the important games even when Canada isn't playing. It just happens in the morning when everyone's at work, so no one really pays attention. And unlike Olympics they can't replay it at night, because Stanley Cup is going on.
I don't know what group A is but you're right. They're essentially just a tool for seeding tournaments.
It's just that some people seem to misunderstand it and think that it's a slight on Canada by the IIHF or gives Europeans bragging rights or whatever, when it's just the same mathematical formula that it's been for decades. Who cares or remembers who was #1 in the rankings in 2006? I sure as hell don't, but I do remember who won the gold that year.
Yep. Who cares about a ranking? No one remembers who was #1 in the ranking.
