In Defense Of Team Europe

[The Podium]

Great post. Honestly I'm all for the 2 gimmick teams. The point is to add parity to the tournament, and also create a competitive atmosphere by having best-on-best games. Team Europe makes sense for all the reasons mentioned as any of its constituent parts wouldnt be a competitively viable option.

At first I was reluctant to accept Team NA, but after watching most of the exhibition games, plus both of yesterdays games, Team NA may be the most exciting team in the whole tournament, they even have a realistic shot of winning. The only quarrel I have is that it severely dilutes the talent of team USA. Outside of McDavid and Ekblad, team Canada wouldnt have chosen any of the other NA players, but USA takes a big hit losing Gaudreau, its C depth, and some very good young D.

 

[Ivo]

As a fan from Slovakia, I really didn't like the idea of team Europe and was even considering not watching. But I could not resist, I mean when will I ever get a chance to watch some of my favorite players like Hossa, Gaborik and Chara play on one team? They are quite old and their careers almost over. And despite not liking the idea, I have to admit, I really enjoyed watching the game, and not just because of the win. To my surprise, I cheered for the team almost as much as I would for team Slovakia, and by the time the game was finished, I had some new favorites - Bellemare, Nielsen, Draisatl.

So now I have some mixed feelings. I like that players have a patch with their country's flag on their shirts, and in some way the country is still represented. I like that the team is actually pretty good, I would say quite comparable in quality to Slovakia's team at its best 10-12 years ago. It is good to (again) cheer for a team that can beat a top-6 team by actually outplaying them. I will watch the other games and cheer for the team.

But I understand, if others feel differently. I am not very nationalistic, and I am a strong proponent of a more united Europe, so maybe that makes puts me in a better position to accept a team like that.

The one thing I didn't like is that they played US anthem, but team Europe has none. I think it is a bit disrespectful. If one team doesn't have an anthem, I would find it proper not to play the other team's anthem either.

 

[Rebels57]

As a fan from Slovakia, I really didn't like the idea of team Europe and was even considering not watching. But I could not resist, I mean when will I ever get a chance to watch some of my favorite players like Hossa, Gaborik and Chara play on one team? They are quite old and their careers almost over. And despite not liking the idea, I have to admit, I really enjoyed watching the game, and not just because of the win. To my surprise, I cheered for the team almost as much as I would for team Slovakia, and by the time the game was finished, I had some new favorites - Bellemare, Nielsen, Draisatl.

So now I have some mixed feelings. I like that players have a patch with their country's flag on their shirts, and in some way the country is still represented. I like that the team is actually pretty good, I would say quite comparable in quality to Slovakia's team at its best 10-12 years ago. It is good to (again) cheer for a team that can beat a top-6 team by actually outplaying them. I will watch the other games and cheer for the team.

But I understand, if others feel differently. I am not very nationalistic, and I am a strong proponent of a more united Europe, so maybe that makes puts me in a better position to accept a team like that.

The one thing I didn't like is that they played US anthem, but team Europe has none. I think it is a bit disrespectful. If one team doesn't have an anthem, I would find it proper not to play the other team's anthem either.

Don't know what it is about tournaments, but Bellemare dramatically elevates his play. It earned him his contract in Philadelphia. He was excellent for France in the 2014 World Championships. He is nothing more than a solid 4th liner at the NHL level and very rarely is as effective as he is in these tournaments. Good PKer and sound defensively with the ability to pot 5-10 goals per season.

 

[Ivo]

Don't know what it is about tournaments, but Bellemare dramatically elevates his play. It earned him his contract in Philadelphia. He was excellent for France in the 2014 World Championships. He is nothing more than a solid 4th liner at the NHL level and very rarely is as effective as he is in these tournaments. Good PKer and sound defensively with the ability to pot 5-10 goals per season.

I knew nothing about this player before the game and was wondering why is he in the nomination ahead of some other players. But he was really great, very good defensively, fought very hard and even scored a goal. I was impressed. Will definitely keep an eye on him from now on.

 

[Jon Riley]

Long post filled with some good points but I still do not agree on various parts of it.
Just for simplicity I'll comment on this part specially, It is the one with whom I disagree the most.
I cut it also for semplicity

International play in hockey has been made exciting by super teams

When you're inviting team like Switzerland, you're not only inviting a team that isn't a super team… you're inviting a team that legitimately might not make the NHL playoffs... or could even finish at the bottom of the league. I don't doubt there are players in their domestic league that are interchanagable with guys in the NHL... but the lower part of the NHL.
It's pretty strange when you're getting excited about a tournament with larger than life teams substantially BETTER than the ones we usually see in league play, to get amped up to see ones that are arguably WORSE than what we see in league play.

Switerland would not make the playoff in the NHL, that is pretty much obvious. I do not understand why this would be a good comparison though, I think that basically no national team with the exeption of team canada would. No national team, despite the talent of the players, could reasonably compete against team that train, work and play together every day. National team may have more talent but are not even close to have enough chemistry, working abits etc. to compete even against the Leafs of last year.
So I do not understand how you can define what is better or worse between two things that are hardly comparable and I do not see the point of doing such.
If all of this is to state that Switzerland is weaker than the other "big six" teams, than you do not need to use this comparison with NHL teams, it is obviously true anyway.

People will cite examples of the Swiss, Belarus, Latvia getting results against stronger teams but one game doesn't prove superiority of one team over the other.

Nobody ever tried to do that.
Believe me, everyone has perfectly clear which teams are stronger and which teams are weaker.
Also, if the only purpose of a tournament is to find out which team is stronger, then we do not need a tournament at all.
Team canada is stronger than everyone else, by a long shot, we do not need a tournament to see that.
the tournament is entertaining because Team Canada could still lose despite being the better team. That does not mean that Team Canada would be weaker that whoever manages to beat it

Anyway, more about these upsets later...
Upsets don't make for good games in the long run

Of course, but upsets are entertaining because are rare.
If they were constant would not be upsets anymore.

All in all you are just totally ignoring one thing that for a lot of people is important:
watching actual national teams is more enteraining or more interesting than watching "higher level" or "balanced" hockey.
Watching Slovakia vs Germany to me (and many other) is simply much more meaningful and entertaining than watching team NA vs team Europe.
If I want to watch good level hockey I have the NHL that goes on for months and months, but when it comes to international hockey I want to watch, well, international hockey.

 

[Jon Riley]

I am not very nationalistic, and I am a strong proponent of a more united Europe, so maybe that makes puts me in a better position to accept a team like that.

I think it only has to do with personal "taste".
I am not very nationalistic (and that is an euphemism), I am a strong proponent of a more united Europe too, but still I hate this team
If Europe will ever be properly united, though, I would probably look at it in a more favourable way though

 

[Gary Nylund]

As a fan from Slovakia, I really didn't like the idea of team Europe and was even considering not watching. But I could not resist, I mean when will I ever get a chance to watch some of my favorite players like Hossa, Gaborik and Chara play on one team? They are quite old and their careers almost over. And despite not liking the idea, I have to admit, I really enjoyed watching the game, and not just because of the win. To my surprise, I cheered for the team almost as much as I would for team Slovakia, and by the time the game was finished, I had some new favorites - Bellemare, Nielsen, Draisatl.

So now I have some mixed feelings. I like that players have a patch with their country's flag on their shirts, and in some way the country is still represented. I like that the team is actually pretty good, I would say quite comparable in quality to Slovakia's team at its best 10-12 years ago. It is good to (again) cheer for a team that can beat a top-6 team by actually outplaying them. I will watch the other games and cheer for the team.

But I understand, if others feel differently. I am not very nationalistic, and I am a strong proponent of a more united Europe, so maybe that makes puts me in a better position to accept a team like that.

The one thing I didn't like is that they played US anthem, but team Europe has none. I think it is a bit disrespectful. If one team doesn't have an anthem, I would find it proper not to play the other team's anthem either.

Interesting, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm having similar thoughts - before the tournament started I thought I would never be in favour of non-national teams in this thing but now, I'm not so sure. The main benefit is like you say - "in some way the country is still represented." - this enables many countries to be represented when they otherwise wouldn't be.

Just thinking out loud here but 4 years from now a 6 team tournament with:

Canada
USA
Russia
Finland
Sweden
Europe

could be quite interesting.

 

[snipes]

As a fan from Slovakia, I really didn't like the idea of team Europe and was even considering not watching. But I could not resist, I mean when will I ever get a chance to watch some of my favorite players like Hossa, Gaborik and Chara play on one team? They are quite old and their careers almost over. And despite not liking the idea, I have to admit, I really enjoyed watching the game, and not just because of the win. To my surprise, I cheered for the team almost as much as I would for team Slovakia, and by the time the game was finished, I had some new favorites - Bellemare, Nielsen, Draisatl.

So now I have some mixed feelings. I like that players have a patch with their country's flag on their shirts, and in some way the country is still represented. I like that the team is actually pretty good, I would say quite comparable in quality to Slovakia's team at its best 10-12 years ago. It is good to (again) cheer for a team that can beat a top-6 team by actually outplaying them. I will watch the other games and cheer for the team.

But I understand, if others feel differently. I am not very nationalistic, and I am a strong proponent of a more united Europe, so maybe that makes puts me in a better position to accept a team like that.

The one thing I didn't like is that they played US anthem, but team Europe has none. I think it is a bit disrespectful. If one team doesn't have an anthem, I would find it proper not to play the other team's anthem either.

It was the Team Europe players themselves who did not want an anthem. I believe "Ode to Joy" is the anthem of the EU and CoE.

I believe Switzerland and Norway specifically are not in the EU (haven't double checked, correct me if I'm wrong as I am working off memory) and overall the team decided no anthem was appropriate. It was a players decisions.

 

[Xokkeu]

It was the Team Europe players themselves who did not want an anthem. I believe "Ode to Joy" is the anthem of the EU and CoE.

I believe Switzerland and Norway specifically are not in the EU (haven't double checked, correct me if I'm wrong as I am working off memory) and overall the team decided no anthem was appropriate. It was a players decisions.

Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU. That's correct

 

[snipes]

Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU. That's correct

Thanks bud, I guess an education has some benefits. Canadian history is pretty dull, learning about European history dominates our education at higher levels .

Ironically, people laughed at this European team, but they are damn good. Team Europe likely makes it to the playoff rounds. They systematically destroyed the Americans, they learned their lesson against Team NA.

Team Europe players have talked about playing for their country and unifying together as Europeans. Probably why no anthem was chosen. Team NA have mentioned the same unifying theme, everyone is laughing at these two teams but the players themselves are taking this seriously and want to win.

 

[JackSlater]

Interesting, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm having similar thoughts - before the tournament started I thought I would never be in favour of non-national teams in this thing but now, I'm not so sure. The main benefit is like you say - "in some way the country is still represented." - this enables many countries to be represented when they otherwise wouldn't be.

Just thinking out loud here but 4 years from now a 6 team tournament with:

Canada
USA
Russia
Finland
Sweden
Europe

could be quite interesting.

Ahhh the all star exhibition crowd is already prepared to remove the Czechs. I'm sure that the Czechs will be happy to have be represented by team Europe minus Russia/Sweden/Finland as oppose to their national team. The team would be so fast though!

 

[HopsHunting]

Great post. Honestly I'm all for the 2 gimmick teams. The point is to add parity to the tournament, and also create a competitive atmosphere by having best-on-best games. Team Europe makes sense for all the reasons mentioned as any of its constituent parts wouldnt be a competitively viable option.

At first I was reluctant to accept Team NA, but after watching most of the exhibition games, plus both of yesterdays games, Team NA may be the most exciting team in the whole tournament, they even have a realistic shot of winning. The only quarrel I have is that it severely dilutes the talent of team USA. Outside of McDavid and Ekblad, team Canada wouldnt have chosen any of the other NA players, but USA takes a big hit losing Gaudreau, its C depth, and some very good young D.

I hadn't thought of it like that. I guess USA also lost all their speed to what Bondra said is the fastest team he's ever seen in Team NA.

 

[Canuckistani]

Ahhh the all star exhibition crowd is already prepared to remove the Czechs. I'm sure that the Czechs will be happy to have be represented by team Europe minus Russia/Sweden/Finland as oppose to their national team. The team would be so fast though!

I joked about removing the Czechs yesterday, and sure enough the gimmick fans are following through.

It's like I've stepped into an Onion article.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I joked about removing the Czechs yesterday, and sure enough the gimmick fans are following through.

It's like I've stepped into an Onion article.

Try looking at things with an open mind sometimes, you just might be surprised at the results.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Great post. Honestly I'm all for the 2 gimmick teams. The point is to add parity to the tournament, and also create a competitive atmosphere by having best-on-best games. Team Europe makes sense for all the reasons mentioned as any of its constituent parts wouldnt be a competitively viable option.

At first I was reluctant to accept Team NA, but after watching most of the exhibition games, plus both of yesterdays games, Team NA may be the most exciting team in the whole tournament, they even have a realistic shot of winning. The only quarrel I have is that it severely dilutes the talent of team USA. Outside of McDavid and Ekblad, team Canada wouldnt have chosen any of the other NA players, but USA takes a big hit losing Gaudreau, its C depth, and some very good young D.

USA did take a big hit, in theory. But since they were dumb enough not to pick Kessel for the team, it's hard to make assumptions about what their team would have looked like if only ...

 

[Xokkeu]

I joked about removing the Czechs yesterday, and sure enough the gimmick fans are following through.

It's like I've stepped into an Onion article.

We have people that want a four team Canadas World Cup.

 

[Canuckistani]

Try looking at things with an open mind sometimes, you just might be surprised at the results.

Hey let's merge the bottom four NHL franchises into one team and take all the league's youngest stars and put them another team.

Like that idea? No? Don't be so close-minded!

Watching this gimmick disease infect the minds of otherwise intelligent fans really is a sight to behold. It's like they've just given up.

 

[Canuckistani]

USA did take a big hit, in theory. But since they were dumb enough not to pick Kessel for the team, it's hard to make assumptions about what their team would have looked like if only ...

Having race organizers sprain Usain Bolt's ankle before the race in theory slowed him down. But he did stay out partying the night before so we can't really say if the ankle injury made a difference or not.

Fans of no other sport would tolerate this sort of logic.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I said keep an open mind, not lose your mind entirely.

You seem to be having a hard time talking rationally about this subject, why you so mad bro? At the end of the day, it's just a hockey tournament, not WW3.

 

[zeke]

Torts would have used checkers ahead of the kids. we all know this.

This is a great lesson for all those teams to learn.

 

[Canuckistani]

You seem to be having a hard time talking rationally about this subject, why you so mad bro?

Anyone being rational about this realizes that what's happening now is the future of "best-on-best" hockey.

An irrational person, meanwhile, would look at the ridiculous hype over TNA and conclude "the league won't do this again."

 

[Canuckistani]

We have people that want a four team Canadas World Cup.

With fans like that it's no wonder why the NHL lags behind MLB, NFL and NBA.

 

[Curufinwe]

With fans like that it's no wonder why the NHL lags behind MLB, NFL and NBA.

That has nothing to do with why Americans prefer American sports to hockey.

 

[Gary Nylund]

With fans like that it's no wonder why the NHL lags behind MLB, NFL and NBA.

Is this you being rational?

 

[Xokkeu]

That has nothing to do with why Americans prefer American sports to hockey.

Americans are pretty uniformly indifferent to tournaments like this. World Baseball Classic did about 600-700k for USA games. World Cup final in FIBA got 1.3 million. USA/Finland World Cup of Hockey exhibition game did 400k.


The World Series and NBA finals get in the 10-30 million viewer range. Stanley Cup finals usually in the 2-3 million range.