I'm sorry, but does this seem alittle bit hollow to anyone else

[xander]

alright, alright, i'm going to restructure my argument, since some of you have made alot of sense.

Yes, other turnaments are played with international rules and in other countries and rarely in North America. So I can understand the need for a turnament like this.

I guess my mane objection is to the Nominclature. If your going to say from the get go that the turnament is always going to be played in North America (atleast the final two rounds of it) then why not just go back to calling it the Canada Cup? How can you call it the world cup when there is clearly an advantage given to 2 teams?

Maybe this is all just a result of listening to Barry Melrose advocate the superiority of North American hockey in between every period.

 

[chicpea*]

I still call it the Canada Cup.

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

Maybe this is all just a result of listening to Barry Melrose advocate the superiority of North American hockey in between every period.

This was, indeed, very trying. I never want to see or hear Barry Melrose again after this tourney. Ugh.

 

[xander]

No.

2. There is a home team in every tournament. This one actually allowed the U.S., Swedes, Finns, Germans and Czechs to play some games at home. The reason all of Canada's games were at home was because they had the best record. If it hadn't been they could have played a playoff game in the U.S., just like they did in 1996.

1. Actually, they said on the broadcast that Canada was designated to be the 'home' team based on a coinflip prior to the game (to determine what jerseys they would wear.) This would mean that the location of the final game was already set.
2. I don't see how Canada's record should at all determine that all 3 of they're round robin games be held in Canada.
3. It was my understanding that the final of the 1996 world cup was held in Montreal, but i won't swear by that.

 

[HeavyD]

I guess my mane objection is to the Nominclature. If your going to say from the get go that the turnament is always going to be played in North America (atleast the final two rounds of it) then why not just go back to calling it the Canada Cup? How can you call it the world cup when there is clearly an advantage given to 2 teams?

U still have a weak argument. It has been said and I will say it again. Almost every single player in the tourney except a couple here and there play hockey full-time in north america. Where is the advantage? All of these guys are used to playing HERE! BTW. Why is there even international sized rinks/rules? We invented the game, if anything u could make an argument they have the advantage in that situation...but then again who is "they"? I don't see european born NHL players having an advantage on bigger ice when they spend all their time in NA. Bottom line is, Canada was expected to win, not because of the location or rules, because they are Canada...end of story.

I agree with the hollow thing however, it just isn't as fufilling when u never really face adversity. It was a great time however.

 

[Augustus]

Canada won the 2004 world cup playing by NHL standards (north american).

Canada won the 2002 olympic gold medal playing by international standards (european).

Hollow? Hardly.

Actually, I much prefer the european rinks and style but it will never come to the nhl.

 

[xander]

U still have a weak argument. It has been said and I will say it again. Almost every single player in the tourney except a couple here and there play hockey full-time in north america. Where is the advantage? All of these guys are used to playing HERE! BTW. Why is there even international sized rinks/rules? We invented the game, if anything u could make an argument they have the advantage in that situation...but then again who is "they"? I don't see european born NHL players having an advantage on bigger ice when they spend all their time in NA. Bottom line is, Canada was expected to win, not because of the location or rules, because they are Canada...end of story.

I agree with the hollow thing however, it just isn't as fufilling when u never really face adversity. It was a great time however.

you don't think home ice advantage counts for anything?

 

[Augustus]

you don't think home ice advantage counts for anything?

not that much in hockey and as the only Leaf playing was playing for Finland, one can't say the ACC was a home ice advantage either. All the players were pretty much equally familiar with ACC boards and lousy ice conditions.

A coin flip decided home team for final - and last change - not the fact that the game was played in Canada.

 

[HeavyD]

you don't think home ice advantage counts for anything?

Nope....take a look at the NHL regular season and playoff stats these days, its been evident home ice has really become almost a nil factor in the outcome of a game. Besides, when u are expected to win the game, and anything other than victory is a failure, it becomes more of a burden than a benefit in my mind. Its not like the old days when crowds were able to sway the momentum of games, im not sure why, but its not.

 

[oilers_guy_eddie]

-as others have mentioned, most players on all of the teams play in the NHL, so I don't see the NHL rink being an advantage to the Nort American teams.

-further, given the defensive style employed by the Finns and Czechs in this tournament, I'd suggest the smaller rink might have actually worked in *their* favor. Not a whole lot of room to pass the puck in the neutral zone, for sure.

-the home ice advantage might have counted for something. Then again, Team USA played most of their hockey on home ice, and it didn't help them a whole lot.


Edit: but yeah, given the impending labour dispute, it seemed a little hollow.

 

[Ann#81]

The Czechs defensive style??

 

[xerburt]

As a Canadian, I actually have to agree with xander here - for the most part.

The whole idea of this tournament being a "world cup" does seem like a bit of an oxymoron. If I look at the tournament as it is, it is more of an invitational as opposed to a true "world" event. That is, invitational tournaments tend to be staged by a host with their own rules, whereas "world" events tend to follow international rules.

Were it not for the event being staged by the NHL/PA, and it being the son of the old Canada Cups, international rules would have made more sense to me.

I agree that it would have made more sense to have the event centred in one nation. The fact that the Finns won their pool and still didn't have "home ice" advantage in the Finland-US semi seems to accent this fact. Had the entire tournament been held in one country, only the host nation would have that advantage - and a deserved advantage, since it is the host and is putting the effort into holding the event. The way the tournament was organized, I agree, advantages (although small) were in favour of Canada and the US.

For example, flying across the continent for two of the countries - Finland and the Czech Republic - seemed to me like an unnecessary (and preventable) nuisance. The format of the tournament in 1996 made more sense compared to 2004.

In the end, this was an NHL/PA event. It was basically a stage to show off their product, and make a quick profit. I personally think it was poorly marketed and organized, but that's just me.


Anyways, like xander, I'm sure I'll be ripped for this. We all have our opinions.

 

[Colt.45Orr]

The place would be half-empty if it was in the States and the USA wasn't in the Finals.

They couldn't even sell out USA home games.

How many Americans would watch Slovakia vs. Finland?
The ACC would still sell out.
Nowhere in the USA can claim the same.

Why the hell wouldn't the tournament organizers want a great atmosphere for the final game?

They didn't know what the final game would be.

Live in the best hockey nation and reap the rewards as far as I am concerned.

 

[chicpea*]

The place would be half-empty if it was in the States and the USA wasn't in the Finals.

I think that's being overly optimstic.

 

[Freudian]

Let me preface this by saying that I am not Canadian (i'm american) but that I have nothing agains our neighbors to the north. Infact I rather like both Canada and Canadians and have always enjoyed my time up north. I'm not trying to start a flame war here...

...but doesn't this victory seem a bit hollow to anyone else? Doesn't this seem alittle unfair?

Wouldn't you expect Canada to win a tournament where you use a set of rules that suit the style of 2 (canada and the US) out of the 8 teams and then decide to hold ALL of team Canada's games in Canada? Meanwile everyother team except the US (who still had to go to Montreal to play team Canada) has to travel half way around the world to play.

Doesn't this seem alittle hollow?

The NHL wants Canada/US to win. This is a marketing effort for the NHL and the north american markets are the most important. So that should explain why the playing field is tilted towards the north american teams.

Of course if the Canadians were the ones with 7-8 hours jetlag meeting Czech or the Finns, there is a pretty good chance they would lose. Which is why Canada get to play all games at home.

 

[stv11]

When has the world champinships been held in Canada or the US? Never.
I guess that the Winter games gold was hollow too then (In salt lake USA)

You seem to think that it's a choice of the IIHF to always play the world championnships in Europe, where in fact Canada and the US never apply to host the tournament. The U20, U18 and women tournaments are often held in North America, and the main tournament would be as well if there was more interest.

BTW, the 1962 world championnships were held in Denver.

 

[ceber]

The fact that the Finns won their pool and still didn't have "home ice" advantage in the Finland-US semi seems to accent this fact.

They did have home ice advantage in that game. They got the last change. That's the most important advantage there is. Anyone think the players can't play well in an unfamiliar building or without the majority of the fans rooting for them? These guys are premier, tip-top of the pyramid atheletes! In my opinion, there is no serious home-ice advantage apart from getting the last change.

 

[Panopticon]

-further, given the defensive style employed by the Finns and Czechs in this tournament, I'd suggest the smaller rink might have actually worked in *their* favor. Not a whole lot of room to pass the puck in the neutral zone, for sure.

What was against the Finn style of play, though, was the NHL 2-line pass rule.

 

[Zine]

I do think the tournament was a bit slanted in Canada's favor. To play every single game at home with Canadian referees is proof to this.
I'm sure many North Americans would be quite upset if the Russians got to play every game at home with Russian refs. I'm not saying Canada didn't deserve to win, but this is supposed to be the "World Cup".

For me this tourney did seem a bit hollow - mainly due to the sheer amount of quality players not participating. It was a bit hard to get pumped up about the tourney when it seemed like everyday an elite level player announced they weren't going to participate.

 

[ShootOut]

You're right.

The tourney should be held on the Azores Islands.

Well, I hear it's like in Miami up there, with the weather and all, but only with more people in the stands. Could be worth a try.

 

[Legolas]

1. I highly doubt Canada would not be "expected" to win regardless of where the tournament is held. The tournament could have been in Helsinki, Stockholm, Moscow or Boston and Canada would still be the favoured team, certainly here in Canada that would be the expectation and everywhere else would likely grudgingly acknowledge that...more importantly, if Finland beat Canada on home ice in Finland, there certainly would be a lot of people calling it an "upset" so regardless of where the game is played and under what rules system, Canada will always be expected to win. The fact they won and were expected to does not make this a "hollow" victory.

2. Calling the tournament the "World Cup" is probably more accurate than calling it the "Canada Cup" or any other nation-specific title. The overwhelming majority of the teams include NHL players. The other teams' coaching systems were European obviously, but the fact that the tournament was played by NHL rules is likely much more fair than playing it by international rules, which would obviously disadvantage two teams - Canada and the U.S. - who never play by those rules. More importantly, just because the tournament is called the "World Cup" has nothing to do with whether Canada's victory was "hollow" or not.

3. While the support for Canada was obviously strong at all of its home games, there wasn't necessarily a huge home ice advantage, particularly in the final few games in Toronto. If anything, as Pat Quinn alluded to, playing in Canada was perhaps a disadvantage since there's far more media scrutiny and distractions for the players as opposed to being able to concentrate only on hockey. The CBA negotiations were held in Montreal and Toronto following all of Canada's games, and there was more Canadian media in Minnesota than American media. Winning in Canada was great for the players, but playing here probably brought more pressure than if the games were played in neutral sites.

Bottom line, Canada's victory when placed in the proper context should be savoured. Not only did they go undefeated, the only teams they didn't play were Sweden and Germany. They beat all the best teams, including Russia, USA, Finland and the Czech Republic. I personally think that overall, this victory was more difficult than some of the past Canada Cups, such as 1991.

 

[espo*]

I don't think so,they went 6-0 and never trailed in a game while at the same time playing without 3 of the best defensmen in the game and another world class one that went down.If any other team were to have won this i doubt they would consider it hollow,why would Canada,especially considering how they won.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Why is there even international sized rinks/rules? We invented the game, if anything u could make an argument they have the advantage in that situation...but then again who is "they"?

You are wrong there. Canadians invented the north american hockey, but the origins of hockey are arguably in Scotland of all places. Nobody can really claim the actual game, but you can argue over different styles of play. It is obvious that hockey is a bit different in NA and Europe. Europeans do not have the boxing part included for example.

I don't think the point in this thread was "where they are used to play" but the fact that jetlag is scientifically proven to take out lots of peoples performances, thus this format gave US and Canada a slight edge in the semifinals.

 

[espo*]

The Czechs did'nt look very jet-lagged to me,nor didi the Finn's.I don't think it takes away from the Canadian teams accomplishment.They were the best team in the end.

 

[PEli*]

Wouldn't you expect Canada to win a tournament where you use a set of rules that suit the style of 2 (canada and the US) out of the 8 teams and then decide to hold ALL of team Canada's games in Canada?

No.

1. The teams are made up of NHLers. They all know NHL rules and play in NHL rinks every game of the year. It's not like Saku Koivu or Pavol Demitra came to Toronto or Montreal and couldn't understand that two line passes weren't allowed.

2. The World Cup was formerly known as the Canada Cup. It's a North American tournament. Not a European tournament.

3. Canada and America are forced to play European style at the World Championships every year. Big deal. They adapt or lose. The World Cup has never been hosted in North America and just this year, Halifax/Quebec City won the right to host it. A breakthrough, finally.

The World Cup is a North America based tournament and must be played by the proper North American rules. That's how it goes.