Toggle sidebar

Inexperience led to team USA's demise

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
They were good but so were and are Russia and Sweden, even Finland. I mean, that bunch of players was a tad overrated to begin with.

Good prospects, 1st rounders and so - but in the end had they been Russian players - nobody had been talking about them...

Russia was better, simple.
 
Nice article and couldn't agree more. I thought the U.S. just put too much on Eichel to do everything. I would've like to see him used like Canada uses McDavid as an asst. captain and on the 2nd line.
 
Loffer said:
They were good but so were and are Russia and Sweden, even Finland. I mean, that bunch of players was a tad overrated to begin with.

Good prospects, 1st rounders and so - but in the end had they been Russian players - nobody had been talking about them...

Russia was better, simple.
Click to expand...
Russia was in no way a better team in this tournament. They've struggled through the entire tourney. However, in a one game elimination, if you play a good game and get the bounces or get some goaltending, you win. The USA put themselves in a tough spot by taking some lazy, undisciplined penalties early and the Russians capitalized. The US ended up chasing the game and just ran out of time. It happens.
 
Great article. I agree with the previous posters who said that the US team put to much reliance on Eichel to create offense. I thought the selection process by Team USA was por to begin with, as I thought some cuts (especially Adam Erne) were questionable, as it seemed like they were going with younger, more inexperienced talent.

It was fun seeing Dylan Larkin shine, and I thought Demko and Eichel looked good. Good group of players, though I am not convinced that was the best team USA Hockey could have assembled. I thought Osiecki did a terrible job coaching, especially against Russia. The inexperience and lack of discipline showed with the ridiculous penalties that were taken early in the game. I thought the US looked really good 5 on 5, but obviously it is a moot point when you are getting 10 (?) penalties during a game.
 
ATBLeafsTyler said:
Which ties in to inexperience.

Thanks all!
Click to expand...
I sense you're pretty proud of how that all tied in. There's just one problem- It wasn't the draft eligible guys taking the penalties. It was the 19 year olds and 18.5's that took all of the penalties. You also mentioned Adam Erne should be on the team, but one of things that worked against him was his penchant for taking bad penalties.
 
Statsy said:
I sense you're pretty proud of how that all tied in. There's just one problem- It wasn't the draft eligible guys taking the penalties. It was the 19 year olds and 18.5's that took all of the penalties. You also mentioned Adam Erne should be on the team, but one of things that worked against him was his penchant for taking bad penalties.
Click to expand...

Not quite proud, it just seemed like he didn't know that tied in with inexperience so I just pointed it out.

Another thing I forgot to add to the article is the importance of returning players. A lot of other countries have their players available up until the end of their eligibility. USA (and Canada) usually have the least amount of returnees. Players who have played at the tournament have a better idea of how tight the refs actually call it.

But obviously there are other factors that point to the States' demise. I feel they didn't have the greatest team chemistry also.
 
In 2013 US had a stacked team and looked dominant. This year they didn't and had to rely too much on underagers. With a bit of luck the US could have still gone a bit further in this tournament but you could only do so much with this lineup. Some other years it's Canada's turn to just not have the guns.
 
ATBLeafsTyler said:
Hey, I'm a Canadian who cheers for Canada too. I would've loved to see the Americans again in the final but I also don't mind them being out! Just my view having watched every single world junior game so far this tournament.
Click to expand...

That's fair and it has nothing to do with your piece or you personally. I just don't want any thread to turn into a series of excuses why the U.S., with a team that was endlessly bragged about before the tournament, finished 5th.
 
ATBLeafsTyler said:
Not quite proud, it just seemed like he didn't know that tied in with inexperience so I just pointed it out.

Another thing I forgot to add to the article is the importance of returning players. A lot of other countries have their players available up until the end of their eligibility. USA (and Canada) usually have the least amount of returnees. Players who have played at the tournament have a better idea of how tight the refs actually call it.

But obviously there are other factors that point to the States' demise. I feel they didn't have the greatest team chemistry also.
Click to expand...

Man those were penalties, in any league. Nothing chintzy about them. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Yanks were the least penalized team, prior to the game vs Russia. But they lost their cool, wilted, under the spotlight, the moment became too Big for them... however u wanna say it. Why? I dunno. Maybe it's the hype of the Russia vs USA showdown, on the Big Stage, a la 1980, which they've been hearing ad nauseam since they were babies? They were the better team 5 on 5, but they were chasing the game thanks to that first period penalty parade. And something similar happened in the QF's , the previous year, vs Russia. Did it not?
 
There's a really interesting conundrum at play here. We all know that it's best to have experience at this tourney. The more returning 19 year olds you have, the better. However you can't get a returnee unless you plug him into a lineup as an 18 year old. To further that thought, you can't have a third time WJC player without bringing him in as an underager. At what point do you sacrifice the present for a better shot at the future? Well, it helps if you have a weaker crop of 19 year olds, and a talented bunch of youngsters, as was the case with the US this year. This will at least give the US a promising outlook for next year, assuming the NHL doesn't screw things up by taking numerous high end players out of the picture.
 
Scotty B said:
Man those were penalties, in any league. Nothing chintzy about them. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Yanks were the least penalized team, prior to the game vs Russia. But they lost their cool, wilted, under the spotlight, the moment became too Big for them... however u wanna say it. Why? I dunno. Maybe it's the hype of the Russia vs USA showdown, on the Big Stage, a la 1980, which they've been hearing ad nauseam since they were babies? They were the better team 5 on 5, but they were chasing the game thanks to that first period penalty parade. And something similar happened in the QF's , the previous year, vs Russia. Did it not?
Click to expand...

What about that hooking call where the ref couldn't see the full play and the Russian toe-picked, fell and it was called? The only reason it was called was because from the ref's vantage point, he could the the American's stick was parallel to the ice.

What I'm saying is that even in CHL playoffs I see refs are much more lenient on calls because it keeps the game at a good pace. IMO, that's the better way to do it. If it's borderline, don't call it, especially in a knock-out game. We see too much in international tournaments the refs decide games with endless calls.

I do agree though, many were 100% deserved on both sides.
 
Last edited:
OttawaRoughRiderFan said:
That's fair and it has nothing to do with your piece or you personally. I just don't want any thread to turn into a series of excuses why the U.S., with a team that was endlessly bragged about before the tournament, finished 5th.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is making excuses. It appears like everybody here is analyzing why US wasn't good enough for a medal, why they didn't live up to expectation, why they weren't as good as everybody expected.

Imo, youth, immaturity played a large part.
 
Zine said:
I don't think anybody is making excuses. It appears like everybody here is analyzing why US wasn't good enough for a medal, why they didn't live up to expectation, why they weren't as good as everybody expected.

Imo, youth, immaturity played a large part.
Click to expand...

Or, maybe, the players are just not as good as everyone hoped/thought.
 
Statsy said:
There's a really interesting conundrum at play here. We all know that it's best to have experience at this tourney. The more returning 19 year olds you have, the better. However you can't get a returnee unless you plug him into a lineup as an 18 year old. To further that thought, you can't have a third time WJC player without bringing him in as an underager. At what point do you sacrifice the present for a better shot at the future? Well, it helps if you have a weaker crop of 19 year olds, and a talented bunch of youngsters, as was the case with the US this year. This will at least give the US a promising outlook for next year, assuming the NHL doesn't screw things up by taking numerous high end players out of the picture.
Click to expand...

This is usually the problem for Canada and to a lesser extent, the United States. If there's a player who is good, but not likely to make the NHL after he is drafted, Canada most likely will not take them as a 17 year old. Said player gets drafted, plays the juniors as an 18 year old, but will likely be good enough to make the NHL the next year.

Then there's players who have impressed since being drafted and will play their one and only tournament in their final year of eligibility.

For a team like Canada, this leaves the selection of returnees to players who impressed after being drafted, but could develop a bit more before becoming NHL ready or a star like Connor McDavid who was good enough to go at 16 (two tournaments before draft eligibility). Or in the odd case you will have someone like Lawson Crouse, who made it as a 17 year old, though some would argue he could even be in the NHL next year.

Bottom line is for a team like Canada or USA, it's very hard to select a team with the hopes of more returning players the next year because 1, you want to take your best players and 2, you simply do not know if that player could be in the NHL the following year.
 
ATBLeafsTyler said:
Bottom line is for a team like Canada or USA, it's very hard to select a team with the hopes of more returning players the next year because 1, you want to take your best players and 2, you simply do not know if that player could be in the NHL the following year.
Click to expand...

Please list, over the years, all of the U.S. players lost to the NHL. I can't wait to see. Hint : there aren't many. Most years it rhymes with "zero".

The truth is, this American team was suppose to be their junior Dream Team. Players from this team dominated the U17's and U18's. It went to people's head and no one took into consideration why they were so successful - prebuilt chemistry and other countries not being able to send their best. They came to a tournament, where other countries could send their best, and they finished 5th. No excuses.
 
OttawaRoughRiderFan said:
Please list, over the years, all of the U.S. players lost to the NHL. I can't wait to see. Hint : there aren't many. Most years it rhymes with "zero".

The truth is, this American team was suppose to be their junior Dream Team. Players from this team dominated the U17's and U18's. It went to people's head and no one took into consideration why they were so successful - prebuilt chemistry and other countries not being able to send their best. They came to a tournament, where other countries could send their best, and they finished 5th. No excuses.
Click to expand...

This is usually the problem for Canada and to a lesser extent, the United States.
Click to expand...

I realize it is mostly Canada, but Canada isn't the only country effected by this (even though we are VERY effected by it lol).
 
OttawaRoughRiderFan said:
Or, maybe, the players are just not as good as everyone hoped/thought.
Click to expand...

I think that's true for most of the 1995's (Compher, Fasching, Hayden, Demko, etc.), they're just not very good. It's why this team was forced to rely on their younger players.
And despite a high skill level, relying too heavily on 1997's or even too many young 1996s is a recipe for disaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom