Incredible parity since 2010

[Eidyia]

Parity is a lot easier when it's not an age-restricted tournament.

Consider soccer, which pretty much every country in the world plays, and yet it's been dominated by 5 or 6 countries.

Actually in soccer there's a lot more surprise winners in underaged tournaments. Sweden, Serbia and Venezuela for example.

 

[NyQuil]

Actually in soccer there's a lot more surprise winners in underaged tournaments. Sweden, Serbia and Venezuela for example.

The point about soccer was that there was relatively little parity compared with how many countries play the sport.

There should be a lot more compared with hockey.

But yes, with soccer I would argue the situation is reversed with respect to youth vs. senior performances.

 

[Albatros]

In soccer there are obviously mighty powerhouses too, but even countries like Greece or Chile can realistically win major international tournaments (and have done so).

 

[Urbanskog]

Soccer is a low-scoring game so upsets are more likely to occur.

 

[OskarOskarius]

It wouldn't take Britain and Germany much to develop competitive hockey teams. It's fascinating that a country the size of Germany is only really good at one sport. They could have world class team in every sport there is if they put som effort to it.

 

[Ducks76]

It wouldn't take Britain and Germany much to develop competitive hockey teams. It's fascinating that a country the size of Germany is only really good at one sport. They could have world class team in every sport there is if they put som effort to it.

Germany is good in Handball(particulary the league),Field-Hockey and Table Tennis. The Problem generally is,that football dominated all. And than is Wintersport very popular(See the Medals at olympics).

 

[stastny12]

Germany is good in Handball(particulary the league),Field-Hockey and Table Tennis. The Problem generally is,that football dominated all. And than is Wintersport very popular(See the Medals at olympics).

Table tennis

 

[Uncle Rotter]

I've calculated the parity for the top 8 nations as well as for the two best non-top 8 nations in both the WJC and WHC over the period 2010-2019 (-2018 for the WHC). The methodology is the average placement of that team and in parentheses the standard deviation from that placement. Did not include olympics due to the small sample size. This has a negative effect on Canada's and especially USA's ranking, but this isn't meant to create a ranking, just display parity.

WJC:
1. RUS 3.00 (1.49)
2. SWE 3.10 (1.12)
2. CAN 3.10 (1.58)
2. USA 3.10 (1.99)
5. FIN 4.70 (2.59)
6. CZE 5.80 (0.95)
7. SUI 6.70 (1.66)
8. SVK 7.10 (1,57)

Other1 8.40 (1.24)
Other2 10.00 (0.00)
Other1+2: 9.16 (0.62)

WHC:
1. RUS 3.11 (1.79)
1. SWE 3.11 (1.97)
3. FIN 3.78 (1.69)
4. CAN 3.89 (1.97)
5. CZE 4.56 (2.01)
6. USA 5.78 (3.08)
7. SUI 7.11 (3.35)
8. SVK 9.11 (3.07)

Other1 7.56 (0.83)
Other2 8.88 (1.00)
Other1+2 8.22 (0.85)

What this tells me is that at the WJC level:
1) There's incredible parity at the top.
2) Finland is very boom or bust.
3) There's a clear top 4 who are very even (Finland joins them in a good year).
4) There's a clear order to the rest of the top 8.
5. Beyond the top 8 there's no real challenger (Denmark is the only team to finish better than 9th (twice 8th and once 5th).

What this tells me on the WHC level:
1) USA clearly underperforms their talent level.
2) Again, clear, even top 4 followed by an equally clear 5, 6 and 7.
3) The performance of USA, SUI and SVK varies wildly.
4) Slovakia has fallen to become "Best of the rest" rather than being firmly in a top 7 or 8.

There are 16 teams at the WHC. Slovakia had a 12th and a 14th there so that's going to skew the results. Interesting though that with only two top-8 finishes they're still ranked 8th.

 

[garbageteam]

It wouldn't take Britain and Germany much to develop competitive hockey teams. It's fascinating that a country the size of Germany is only really good at one sport. They could have world class team in every sport there is if they put som effort to it.

France as well could probably invest in and produce a decent NT, they have the sheer numbers of both population and players. GB is probably a further ways away. Germany is a bit of a head-scratcher, just given demographic details and # of hockey players in the country they should be about as good as the Swiss, but they're clearly a tier behind.

 

[Yakushev72]

To be fair, my comment around parity and "small countries" and "big countries" is a comment on the Big 6/7 and everyone else.

But if we are using the point distribution in the 1st post as a a benchmark for parity, and apply it to Olympic best on best tournaments, we are left with:

Points
1. Canada 9
2. Sweden 5
2. Finland 5
4. Czech Republic 4
4. USA 4
6. Russia 3

There has been a fair amount of sharing of podium placements and it even includes an additional country.



I wasn't counting the World Championships, so there's no interpretation there at all.

They aren't "best on best" so in essence I leave them out of my analysis. It's still an exhibition tourney in my mind.

If you go back to the 1950's and include the days when Gordie Howe was in his prime, then ……… But that would totally miss the point, wouldn't it.

I get the impression that what you are doing is trying use slight of hand to give the impression that Canada is still dominant, when in fact the point is that dominance is clearly shifting away from Canada. Brent Sutter, who was coach of a dominant 2005 WJC team which formed the basis for Canada's OG Gold Medals in 2010 and 2014, said so explicitly after the 2014 WJC, where Canada finished in 4th place for the second consecutive year. He said (I can't quote exactly) that the world of junior hockey changed dramatically in the decade since 2005. It is even more so now.

You could make the argument that what is keeping Canada in the mix is that 70% of WJC games are played on Canadian soil or on the Canadian border, where Canadian fans will deluge and dominate the arenas. The increasingly dominant teams from Finland, Sweden, and Russia must overcome the disadvantages that come with crossing the ocean and playing 6,000 miles away from the time zones that they are accustomed to, and with all the other disadvantages that visiting teams have. It should be noted that, since 2010, when 3 of 10 WJC's were held on the European continent, Canada finished 4th or worse in every tournament. Home Sweet Home is keeping Canada in the running!

 

[NyQuil]

I get the impression that what you are doing is trying use slight of hand to give the impression that Canada is still dominant, when in fact the point is that dominance is clearly shifting away from Canada.

What the f*** are you talking about?

I'm the guy saying in the Hockey Canada needs to be accountable thread that stuff needs to change because clearly we're not producing elite players at the level we should be and the rest of the world is catching up.

With respect to the podium finishes of best on best, it's actually fairly well distributed around the Big Nations. Only 2 points separate 5 nations across 5 competitions. I was actually arguing the opposite of what you are alleging that I am arguing. One less gold medal and Canada is closer to the group and some other country is on top.

Brent Sutter, who was coach of a dominant 2005 WJC team which formed the basis for Canada's OG Gold Medals in 2010 and 2014, said so explicitly after the 2014 WJC, where Canada finished in 4th place for the second consecutive year. He said (I can't quote exactly) that the world of junior hockey changed dramatically in the decade since 2005. It is even more so now.

You could make the argument that what is keeping Canada in the mix is that 70% of WJC games are played on Canadian soil or on the Canadian border, where Canadian fans will deluge and dominate the arenas. The increasingly dominant teams from Finland, Sweden, and Russia must overcome the disadvantages that come with crossing the ocean and playing 6,000 miles away from the time zones that they are accustomed to, and with all the other disadvantages that visiting teams have. It should be noted that, since 2010, when 3 of 10 WJC's were held on the European continent, Canada finished 4th or worse in every tournament. Home Sweet Home is keeping Canada in the running!

My entire point around parity has nothing to do with the medalling Big 6/7 countries and about the much smaller countries (Switzerland, Germany, Belarus) etc.

If you're Slovenia, at the Senior level, you get access to Anze Kopitar for his entire career, unlike at the Junior level where he's gone after a few years.

I think parity is easier at the senior level because a small country can ride a good crop of players for longer, that's all, and can derive their roster from a 10-20 year pool of players as opposed to a 2-3 year pool of players.

I'm not talking about Canadian dominance or superiority and your attempts to characterize my posts in that regard are quite frankly mind-boggling to say the least.

You're so insecure it's unbelievable.

Read the entire thread again and maybe you'll see why my phantom agenda quite simply doesn't exist.

 

[Urbanskog]

If you're Slovenia, at the Senior level, you get access to Anze Kopitar for his entire career, unlike at the Junior level where he's gone after a few years.

Well, not really. Kopitar has represented his country in just five tournaments since his debut season in the NHL. Two of those tournaments were played when the NHL was on a break.

 

[NyQuil]

Well, not really. Kopitar has only represented his country in five tournaments since his debut season in the NHL. Two of those tournaments were played when the NHL was on a break.

That's nitpicking a little bit, isn't it?

Not to mention, five tournaments are more than the maximum of three or four you can play in as a Junior.

If there were regular best-on-best tournaments which I believe most people think is a good idea, he'd be there for quite a few of them.

I don't think it alters the basic premise that a player can graduate out of an age-restricted tournament much sooner than a senior tournament.

 

[Dingo]

In the last ten years:

Gold Medals

1. Finland - 3
1. US - 3
3. Canada - 2
5. Russia - 1
5. Sweden -1

Points (3 for Gold, 2 for Silver, 1 for Bronze)

1. Canada - 13
1. Russia - 13
3. US - 12
4. Sweden - 10
5. Finland 9

Combined (add their placing together)

1. Canada (4)
1. US (4)
3. Russia (6)
3. Finland (6)
5. Sweden (9)

I dont understand the last category, however, this is great and true. My wife had asked when Canada got bounced if this was a really rare thing for them not to win a medal. I actually went back to 2010 and did exactly what you’ve just done (for the first two categories)

I think it’s great. Damn, are the Finns and Swedes ever opposites, and would they ever compliment each other stylistically on a team.

 

[NyQuil]

I dont understand the last category, however, this is great and true.

I think the idea is to give winning a little more weight while still acknowledging the importance of podium finishes.

 

[Urbanskog]

That's nitpicking a little bit, isn't it?

Not to mention, five tournaments are more than the maximum of three or four you can play in as a Junior.

If there were regular best-on-best tournaments which I believe most people think is a good idea, he'd be there for quite a few of them.

I don't think it alters the basic premise that a player can graduate out of an age-restricted tournament much sooner than a senior tournament.

It's not nitpicking at all, you mentioned him in the first place. Also, he represented Slovenia in a combined of six U20 or U18 championships. The point is that the players become mostly inaccessible as they are signed to an NHL contract.

 

[NyQuil]

It's not nitpicking at all, you mentioned him in the first place. Also, he represented Slovenia in a combined of six U20 or U18 championships. The point is that the players become mostly inaccessible as they are signed to an NHL contract.

Yeah, you're missing the point entirely.

Thanks for ignoring the whole aspect of regular "best on best" tournaments.

 

[Dingo]

I think the idea is to give winning a little more weight while still acknowledging the importance of podium finishes.

But, is it simply adding all of each teams top 3’s together?

What about when you finish 4th-8th?

That seems too dumb, so it’s gotta be me who is missing seeing what I’m looking at.

 

[NyQuil]

But, is it simply adding all of each teams top 3’s together?

What about when you finish 4th-8th?

Well, you don't get a medal for finishing 4th-8th, so who cares?

As a Canadian, I don't even think silver or bronze matter, but that's up to the individual.

Keep in mind, I'm not endorsing his ranking, I'm just explaining the rationale behind it.

 

[Dingo]

Well, you don't get a medal for finishing 4th-8th, so who cares?

As a Canadian, I don't even think silver or bronze matter, but that's up to the individual.

I still think I’m seeing it wrong. However, finishing ... well, put it this way - does a country, say Denmark, score a zero by this system? Cuz that’s pretty good.

 

[NyQuil]

I still think I’m seeing it wrong. However, finishing ... well, put it this way - does a country, say Denmark, score a zero by this system? Cuz that’s pretty good.

Well, he basically has a points-ranking for Gold medal wins and a points ranking for podium finishes.

Seeing as they aren't the same units, he's opted to combine those two rankings by adding up their placements so that each is worth 50%. The lower the better.

Winning is prioritized in two ways, because it is 50% of the final result and because he's also given 3 points for a gold in the podium rankings.

 

[Dingo]

Ya, I’m just not understanding his system for that third stat.

Anyways, I’m loving the parity.

 

[Urbanskog]

Yeah, you're missing the point entirely.

Thanks for ignoring the whole aspect of regular "best on best" tournaments.

For a country like Slovenia that too is different as they have to go through qualifiers to get to the Olympics which already is a difficult challenge for them. Then there's the fact that the NHL generally has not let their players participate in these qualifiers although they were exceptionally allowed to participate in the qualifiers for the Pyeonchang Olympics despite then not being allowed to participate in the Olympic Games themselves.

 

[NyQuil]

For a country like Slovenia that too is different as they have to go through qualifiers to get to the Olympics which already is a difficult challenge for them. Then there's the fact that the NHL generally has not let their players participate in these qualifiers although they were exceptionally allowed to participate in the qualifiers for the Pyeonchang Olympics despite then not being allowed to participate in the Olympic Games themselves.

That's a fair point.

I guess the really small countries that don't make the A pool very often are screwed.

Tier 1: Big 5/6/7 countries (I'm not going to debate how many) that produce star players annually.

Tier 2: Secondary countries that produce players consistently but stars relatively rarely.

Tier 3: Tertiary countries that rely on one or two star players out of the blue to be competitive.

I'd say Tier 1 teams benefit at the WJC because they have a dependable source of star talent.

IMHO, they have a larger advantage over Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams at the WJCs than they do at senior level tournaments because the fluctuations in talent level don't affect them as much, except in cases where the Tier 3 team can't even qualify for those senior tournaments because of NHL participation issues.

I'd say Tier 2 countries typically perform better at senior-level tournaments because they have access to the larger pool of players. The depth advantage IMO that the big countries have isn't as pronounced at the senior level because they can only ice 18 players, despite the fact that they can access more of their best players. IMO, this is why you typically see more upsets at the senior level between Tier 2 and Tier 1 nations.

But that's just my opinion of course.

When I'm referring to senior level tournaments, I'm referring to tournaments where countries have access to their entire pool of players, as opposed to the World Championships where the vagaries of NHL playoff participation can have disproportionate impact on different types of countries.

With increasing European participation in the NHL, I'm curious as to whether Canada's position at these tournaments is actually strengthening. The US is an odd duck because they are simply producing more players so they should become more competitive at the WCs on the basis of sheer numbers.

 

[jj cale]

If you go back to the 1950's and include the days when Gordie Howe was in his prime, then ……… But that would totally miss the point, wouldn't it.

I get the impression that what you are doing is trying use slight of hand to give the impression that Canada is still dominant, when in fact the point is that dominance is clearly shifting away from Canada. Brent Sutter, who was coach of a dominant 2005 WJC team which formed the basis for Canada's OG Gold Medals in 2010 and 2014, said so explicitly after the 2014 WJC, where Canada finished in 4th place for the second consecutive year. He said (I can't quote exactly) that the world of junior hockey changed dramatically in the decade since 2005. It is even more so now.

You could make the argument that what is keeping Canada in the mix is that 70% of WJC games are played on Canadian soil or on the Canadian border, where Canadian fans will deluge and dominate the arenas. The increasingly dominant teams from Finland, Sweden, and Russia must overcome the disadvantages that come with crossing the ocean and playing 6,000 miles away from the time zones that they are accustomed to, and with all the other disadvantages that visiting teams have. It should be noted that, since 2010, when 3 of 10 WJC's were held on the European continent, Canada finished 4th or worse in every tournament. Home Sweet Home is keeping Canada in the running!

I almost had to spit out my food when you mention increasingly dominant European teams and include russia in the group, which hasn't won anything of note at the senior level in decades and has gone from 2nd best in the world and at sometimes best in the world to not even 2nd best in Europe anymore, both Finland and Sweden are better now.

Go ahead, pat Finland and sweden on the back but any knowledgeable hockey observer is aware russia has been over rated for a long time, the cat is out of the bag on that one for quite some time..................you're yesterdays news and not all that good.

You can not only make an argument that Russia is not good enough to win any best on best competition among the big boys you can actually state it as fact, they have not done so since almost 40 years ago. Some dominant power that is.

The mighty sure have fallen.

Russia currently is like microwaved leftovers from a meal cooked a week prior, or should I say 2-3 decades ago. Russias reputation is a big con job that rests on long ago memories from the 1970's and 80's, a total mirage.