International vs. NHL sized rinks

[Yozhik v tumane]

What do you think of the big ice surface?

I’m sure this has been discussed many times before but I’d like to bring as many perspectives from around the hockey world as possible.

It should be hard to draw conclusions from the pros and cons of international vs hybrid and NHL ice surfaces, yet it seems to be one of the most opinionated topics in hockey, with almost everyone having a strongly held opinion on it. As a Swede, I seem to hear more calls for rink reductions than ever before, which I attribute to more and more Swedish fans tuning in to and falling in love with the NHL. What specifically caused me to write this thread though, was a main board thread about dump and chase hockey where one poster pondered the possibility of big ice surfaces promoting more possession based zone entries than does the NHL rink.

Before the 2014 Sochi Olympics, you’d sometimes hear that Canada couldn’t win on the big ice sheet, and generally that the size of the rink would benefit either European or North American teams. 2014 was seen as Canada debunking that myth/slaying that dragon by some (however I think that I’ve heard that the Salt Lake City rink was larger than the NHL standard). I’ve never known what to make of this, however I’ve also thought about how differently Team Canada would play the Swedes or Russians, as opposed to Team USA in international events. Canada vs Team USA would tend to flow north-south back and forth with both teams dumping and chasing, while in the next game Canada is up against Sweden whose game’s more about controlled zone entries and possession, and Canada will adapt and play more patiently, as Sweden otherwise would have a defenseman retrieving the dumped pucks and begin orchestrating a counterattack.

Below follows some arguments I’ve heard for and against the international ice surface.

Pro big ice:

• The big rink favors skilled hockey players and stronger skaters: Canada’s 2006 fiasco in Turin was partly due to bringing weak skaters who could not adapt to the extra feet of ice, which meant that other teams had more space to work with and Canadian defensemen being caught out of position. Canada has since learned to bring most of the best players available as skating and team possession trumps dump and chase or trap hockey on the bigger ice.
• East-west > north-south: The big ice surface promotes strong playmakers and better team play in constructing offense. The small ice promotes an everlasting grind of boring dump-and-chase with minimal room for creativity, hampering skilled players.
• Soviet hockey > North American hockey: the Soviets played a more attractive brand of hockey than was played in the NHL, and the players developed their skills with the extra feet of ice. Contrary to the Canadians who’d shoot from anywhere, the Soviets used the ice surface to patiently construct beautiful plays leading up to the highest quality chance to score.
• European prospects don’t seem to need too much time transitioning to the NHL surface and rather seem to benefit from having developed on the big ice surface. Many European stars are known and praised for their skating and skills developed on bigger ice surfaces, their tool boxes are often more complete due to the type of game emphasized on the big ice.
• The best team usually wins in international hockey since the big surface promotes possession which benefits the most skilled players and strong team play. It’s been 25+ years since an eighth seeded team won the SHL playoffs, which is fair: mediocre teams shouldn’t routinely be able to upset the best teams of the regular season. The NHL playoffs are to a large degree decised by luck due to the unpredictability of hockey on the small rink.
• Let’s appreciate that hockey developed in Europe concurrently with the North American game, and that there’s value in not doing away with the heritage of the development of European hockey, which obviously has been able to compete internationally.

Pro small ice:

• The NHL is the best league in the world, the gold standard as well as the ultimate goal for European prospects, and they should learn to play on the same size rinks to ease their transition: Finland has moved to a hybrid rink and as a result, they’ve surpassed Sweden and developed better NHL prospects in recent years. More hockey programmes should follow their lead if their players are to stay competitive on the international scene.
• NHL sized rinks promotes physicality: pro hockey has become less physical with fewer hits and is more about skating, and the product has thus become less attractive. With tighter space to move on, we will see more physical contact.
• While hockey seems to want to do away with hitting due to concussions, hitting itself is not the problem, but the ramped up speed of today’s game: players today don’t learn to take or even expect hits, and they skate at neck breaking speeds which is a recipe for disaster when someone stands in the way. With reduced space on the ice, players will have to learn to respect their opponents, expect the hit and adapt their speed so as to have the reaction time to avoid injuries.
• I specifically heard roughly this argument in an interview with Niclas Wallin: In Swedish hockey, every team tries to roll four lines of players who does nothing but skate and perform under the same system. There is no room for role players and specialists anymore: the smaller ice surface promotes having grinders and checkers on the roster whose role is to obstruct the other teams stars, slow down the counterattacks and create space for the skill guys.
• The smaller ice surface promotes more goal scoring: any European goaltender will attest that a big part of transitioning to the NHL is expecting a shot from anywhere at any time, with the reduced sheet making it more difficult to see it coming. The reality is that the smaller ice makes it viable to take more shots and increases the likelihood that they will go in. 2-1-games are a lot more common in Swedish hockey, and 6-5-games are more common in the NHL.
• There are more upsets in the NHL since the small ice surface makes it so that anything can happen. The lack of upsets in the NBA makes the playoffs practically meaningless, whereas the NHL playoffs always feature cinderella teams and great upsets which make for a much more tantalizing product.
• NHL hockey moves faster. The limited space forces players to react in fractions of seconds making for a more exciting, intense game.
• Hockey is Canada’s game: let’s appreciate that it has been developed there for a longer time and that if there should be an international standard, this is where to look.

This seems like a lot, but I feel I could go on, and am sure I’ve forgotten some big arguments: feel free to chime in.

What are your thoughts on the size of the rinks?

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

I disagree that the larger ice promotes a more skill based game. Less physical, yes. There is more ice, but most of it is dead ice where there isn't any threat. The smaller ice surface forces players closer together where they have to make a play or risk losing the puck. More events take place in a game. Also, yes the ice surface at the 2002 Olympics was larger than typical North American ice surfaces as it was a hybrid ice surface. I would also think that anybody paying attention would recognize that while yes, Canada is better served on the smaller ice surface, it was fully capable of winning on the larger ice surface given results dating back even to the Russian games in the 1972 Summit Series. The larger ice surface changes tactics somewhat but it is still hockey.

Anyway, I prefer the smaller ice surface. It produces more entertaining games since teams cannot sit back in possession as easily. I don't mind that there is a bit of variety with tournaments held on surfaces of different sizes though.

 

[tobu]

Olympic sized rink - no, far too much dead ice. Hybrid - yes. That little bit of extra space compared to the NHL rink, spreads the defense a bit and gives skilled players a little more room to doge a hit or more lanes to make a play.

 

[Albatros]

Hybrid is by far the best option at the moment, the NHL rink is too narrow whereas the international rink also has a suboptimal offensive zone shape.

 

[Mathieukferland]

I’ve played in leagues on both sides of the Atlantic and I prefer the Olympic ice, there’s more room and it promotes a more controlled game. It’s easier to defend on Olympic ice against possession teams as well

 

[Jahara]

Not very good for the sport with these strange rules and regulations from one continent to another.

Just make it 60x28 everywhere.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Not very good for the sport with these strange rules and regulations from one continent to another.

Just make it 60x28 everywhere.

This is one of the arguments I've heard before that I would like to have explained to me in more detail, since I guess I don't see the huge deal. What's bad about having the different standards, in your opinion?

Here's my position: I haven't heard too many convincing arguments as to why two standards (or three) is bad. Or that one rink size trumps another.

I think it's a charm with hockey and I have kind of gained an appreciation for the fact that the game has developed in Europe concurrently with North America in general, and will often take a defensive or conservative stance when the SHL or Swedish hockey fans looks to the NHL for ways of improving the game. I know that the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, and a lot of changes to the SHL that have been inspired by the NHL have been good, in my opinion. I 100% approve of the league being decided by playoffs consisting of seven game series, and I don't think it's a huge problem that the league got rid of ties as it provides incentives to try and win all game, but I've been angered by the times the SHL have taken steps towards a closed league, and when teams and groups have flirted with bringing a Swedish team to the KHL I've been terrified for what might become of Swedish hockey. Things like that.

With the rink sizes, I'm often skeptical towards the reasons people provide for why they think Sweden should switch to the NHL sized rinks. Oftentimes, because I don't necessarily think it's a solution to the problem they present, as with the decreased physicality of the game that we've seen.

Oftentimes, because I don't necessarily agree with the problem. I tend to believe the goaltenders who've said the rink size affects goal scoring because it's harder to see the shots on a small rink, however I think it might partly be that the game taught in North America encourages taking more shots, while Swedish hockey might tend to encourage creating a better quality opportunity to shoot. This might be due to how effective a tactic racking up the shot count is on the NHL and Olympic sized rinks respectively. At any rate, if decreasing the size of Swedish rinks would change how the game is played and taught so drastically, I tend to become defensive, because I do think that the Swedish brand of hockey is attractive.

Some arguments I find frankly ludicrous, though: I don't remember the name of the former player turned NHL scout who expressed this argument on a podcast was, that Finland's success in developing NHL stars in recent years is due to them shifting to a hybrid rink size. Maybe they're more NHL ready in terms of a faster transition to the rink size, that's fair: but to so confidently reduce the entire junior development of Aho, Heiskanen, Laine, et cetera, to products of a rink size was just about the hottest of hot takes I've heard.

Anyhoo, I appreciate the debate and can see where a lot of people are coming from whether I agree with them or not.

 

[J bo Jeans]

NHL is the best league in the world and part of that is due to the small ice surface. The smaller ice surface forces players to make quick decisions or lose the puck. So really the very best players in the world can make the quickest decisions. Therefore if you really look at it Olympic ice promotes lower hockey IQ and decision making skills which is arguably the most difficult and impressive part of hockey.

 

[Jahara]

This is one of the arguments I've heard before that I would like to have explained to me in more detail, since I guess I don't see the huge deal. What's bad about having the different standards, in your opinion?

Here's my position: I haven't heard too many convincing arguments as to why two standards (or three) is bad. Or that one rink size trumps another.

I think it's a charm with hockey and I have kind of gained an appreciation for the fact that the game has developed in Europe concurrently with North America in general, and will often take a defensive or conservative stance when the SHL or Swedish hockey fans looks to the NHL for ways of improving the game. I know that the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, and a lot of changes to the SHL that have been inspired by the NHL have been good, in my opinion. I 100% approve of the league being decided by playoffs consisting of seven game series, and I don't think it's a huge problem that the league got rid of ties as it provides incentives to try and win all game, but I've been angered by the times the SHL have taken steps towards a closed league, and when teams and groups have flirted with bringing a Swedish team to the KHL I've been terrified for what might become of Swedish hockey. Things like that.

With the rink sizes, I'm often skeptical towards the reasons people provide for why they think Sweden should switch to the NHL sized rinks. Oftentimes, because I don't necessarily think it's a solution to the problem they present, as with the decreased physicality of the game that we've seen.

Oftentimes, because I don't necessarily agree with the problem. I tend to believe the goaltenders who've said the rink size affects goal scoring because it's harder to see the shots on a small rink, however I think it might partly be that the game taught in North America encourages taking more shots, while Swedish hockey might tend to encourage creating a better quality opportunity to shoot. This might be due to how effective a tactic racking up the shot count is on the NHL and Olympic sized rinks respectively. At any rate, if decreasing the size of Swedish rinks would change how the game is played and taught so drastically, I tend to become defensive, because I do think that the Swedish brand of hockey is attractive.

Some arguments I find frankly ludicrous, though: I don't remember the name of the former player turned NHL scout who expressed this argument on a podcast was, that Finland's success in developing NHL stars in recent years is due to them shifting to a hybrid rink size. Maybe they're more NHL ready in terms of a faster transition to the rink size, that's fair: but to so confidently reduce the entire junior development of Aho, Heiskanen, Laine, et cetera, to products of a rink size was just about the hottest of hot takes I've heard.

Anyhoo, I appreciate the debate and can see where a lot of people are coming from whether I agree with them or not.

The thing is that I do not see that it is much good about it. I do not know many other sport where the rules and regulations differs so much as when you compare European hockey to North American hockey. I if was unfamiliar with the sport it would seem pretty strange hearing about all this things.

Europe have their rules, big rink, lower tolerance to fights, 3 points awarded when winning a game, allows you to dress 22 players etc, etc, etc.
North America do their race, is allowed to pick all the talent from Europe to a quite low price (compared to football), play a unnecessary long regular season, is finished as late as during june, do not seem to care much for the international game and is a bit to greedy.
And most of the tournaments is just made up of leftover players that do not make it in the NHL. Like the World Championship that has a long tradition but lacks relevance, and the Euro Hockey Tour is even worse. Sometimes all the best players is on the Olympics and sometimes in the World Cup, but it is quite arbitrary of the good will from NHL bosses.

Just take boxing for example. The sport dribbled away itself with all these belts, events, titles, expensive games only available on some obscure PPV channel. Now MMA is like the bigger thing and that is quite a big momentum that was lost compared to the older days when everyone knew who the heavy weight champ was. Hockey should be careful and together promote the sport better in the long run. The NHL teams might lose some cash having players in the Olympics but is it much better cashing in on some dull regular game round 59 with Hurricanes vs Sabres?

Different rink sizes is the same thing but just a small part of the problem that the hockey world should be reflecting over in a bigger way.

 

[Overrated]

the bigger the players get the faster the game gets the more it makes sense to play on the big rink

watching old NHL games I don't get this tiny rink vibe I get watching the NHL today

 

[Overrated]

The thing is that I do not see that it is much good about it. I do not know many other sport where the rules and regulations differs so much as when you compare European hockey to North American hockey. I if was unfamiliar with the sport it would seem pretty strange hearing about all this things.

Europe have their rules, big rink, lower tolerance to fights, 3 points awarded when winning a game, allows you to dress 22 players etc, etc, etc.
North America do their race, is allowed to pick all the talent from Europe to a quite low price (compared to football), play a unnecessary long regular season, is finished as late as during june, do not seem to care much for the international game and is a bit to greedy.
And most of the tournaments is just made up of leftover players that do not make it in the NHL. Like the World Championship that has a long tradition but lacks relevance, and the Euro Hockey Tour is even worse. Sometimes all the best players is on the Olympics and sometimes in the World Cup, but it is quite arbitrary of the good will from NHL bosses.

Just take boxing for example. The sport dribbled away itself with all these belts, events, titles, expensive games only available on some obscure PPV channel. Now MMA is like the bigger thing and that is quite a big momentum that was lost compared to the older days when everyone knew who the heavy weight champ was. Hockey should be careful and together promote the sport better in the long run. The NHL teams might lose some cash having players in the Olympics but is it much better cashing in on some dull regular game round 59 with Hurricanes vs Sabres?

Different rink sizes is the same thing but just a small part of the problem that the hockey world should be reflecting over in a bigger way.

World Championships do have plenty of NHLers virtually every year since 1977. Even in this exceptionally weak year due to COVID Canada still iced 20 NHLers out of 25 players who took part in the World Championships.

 

[Albatros]

NHL is the best league in the world and part of that is due to the small ice surface. The smaller ice surface forces players to make quick decisions or lose the puck. So really the very best players in the world can make the quickest decisions. Therefore if you really look at it Olympic ice promotes lower hockey IQ and decision making skills which is arguably the most difficult and impressive part of hockey.

Meh. NHL hockey has been defined by simplistic strategies like dump and chase or neutral zone trap for decades. In terms of required IQ Soviet hockey was miles ahead, and its eventual collapse was due to reasons unrelated to the sport. Even today despite a huge gap in resources European teams can make up for much of the deficit by playing smarter.

 

[Czechboy]

It's simple.. pick a size and be consistent. No other sport plays on different sized fields.

It is embarrassing... pick a size and go... it is a 5 nation sport and they can't agree on a field size

 

[Hanji]

It's simple.. pick a size and be consistent. No other sport plays on different sized fields.

It is embarrassing... pick a size and go... it is a 5 nation sport and they can't agree on a field size

Baseball.

 

[Albatros]

It's simple.. pick a size and be consistent. No other sport plays on different sized fields.

It is embarrassing... pick a size and go... it is a 5 nation sport and they can't agree on a field size

One thing to consider is that many arenas are not easily modifiable for a new standard size almost regardless of what that size would be. It would be nice to see for example the hybrid become a universal standard moving forward, but it would take a long time before that is reality.

 

[Name Nameless]

... No other sport plays on different sized fields. ...

This is incorrect. It's pointed out in the thread already, but another example, soccer is also played on different-sized fields: you have a max-field, and a minimum field (the one you can fit within a normal 400-meters athletes running track.)

When that is said, I think the NHL-rink is "a bit small". But it's a choice.

 

[jj cale]

I like them both myself , sort of like the difference you get from watching tennis on clay to watching it on the fast courts. Different style of play with tactics, etc but both enjoyable. Part of the reason I like the worlds so much is the extra challenge it can provide our players because of the switch and I like those challenges.


Both provide great games and both provide snoozers, as you would expect. I think anyone advocating for exclusive use of either is being ethnocentric and I highly suspect insecure about their team when it comes to international play.

 

[Czechboy]

One thing to consider is that many arenas are not easily modifiable for a new standard size almost regardless of what that size would be. It would be nice to see for example the hybrid become a universal standard moving forward, but it would take a long time before that is reality.

Agreed but it is a 100 year old sport... they've had some time to solve this.

Ftr... I don't think it'll ever change.

 

[Czechboy]

This is incorrect. It's pointed out in the thread already, but another example, soccer is also played on different-sized fields: you have a max-field, and a minimum field (the one you can fit within a normal 400-meters athletes running track.)

When that is said, I think the NHL-rink is "a bit small". But it's a choice.

So premiere league, Bundesliga, euro cup and world cup are played on different sized fields?

Eg. Eurocup this summer was played in several cities... are you saying the fields were different sizes?

Genuinely curious and not being snarky

 

[jj cale]

So premiere league, Bundesliga, euro cup and world cup are played on different sized fields?

Eg. Eurocup this summer was played in several cities... are you saying the fields were different sizes?

Genuinely curious and not being snarky

Why should football be the standard though? It always seems to come down to football on these things and I am not sure why.

They are different sports with different developmental paths, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Czechboy]

Why should football be the standard though? It always seems to come down to football on these things and I am not sure why.

They are different sports with different developmental paths, nothing wrong with that.

I was genuinely curious if it was true... I really have no idea and thought at the pro level the field was the same size. That's why I asked about the 4 biggest soccer things I could think of.

 

[Czechboy]

I like them both myself , sort of like the difference you get from watching tennis on clay to watching it on the fast courts. Different style of play with tactics, etc but both enjoyable. Part of the reason I like the worlds so much is the extra challenge it can provide our players because of the switch and I like those challenges.


Both provide great games and both provide snoozers, as you would expect. I think anyone advocating for exclusive use of either is being ethnocentric and I highly suspect insecure about their team when it comes to international play.

I'd say it creates a big challenge for the European trying to play in NHL. If you grow up playing small rinks in Saskatoon and I grow up playing olympic ice in brno... you have an nhl advantage over me. I think it is in part why some nations like the Czechs have their players leaving so young.

I'd argue it's a very different game on the 2 surfaces.

Ftr.... you didn't say it but I disagree big ice is more offense or skill. I think you need more skill on small ice.

 

[jj cale]

I'd say it creates a big challenge for the European trying to play in NHL. If you grow up playing small rinks in Saskatoon and I grow up playing olympic ice in brno... you have an nhl advantage over me. I think it is in part why some nations like the Czechs have their players leaving so young.

I'd argue it's a very different game on the 2 surfaces.

Ftr.... you didn't say it but I disagree big ice is more offense or skill. I think you need more skill on small ice.

I would agree it creates more of a challenge for European players trying to break into the NHL, on the other hand it creates more challenges for the North American teams in international tournaments playing on the big ice. It's just the way it is and I am o.k with it because good players will find a way and good teams will find a way.


The cream rises so to speak. I actually think hockey would lose some charm if it went standard all over. I'll use the tennis analogy again........is the French the French if Roland Garros was on grass? I don't think so myself.

The big ice/small ice dimension is all part of the allure of the sport IMO.

Not sure about the more skill on small ice versus big ice that you mention, tough to say imo. I think it definitely requires higher i.q in terms of quick decision making and most definitely the ability to be willing and able to take a hit and play more physically.

 

[Czechboy]

I would agree it creates more of a challenge for European players trying to break into the NHL, on the other hand it creates more challenges for the North American teams in international tournaments playing on the big ice. It's just the way it is and I am o.k with it because good players will find a way and good teams will find a way.

The cream rises so to speak. I actually think hockey would lose some charm if it went standard all over. I'll use the tennis analogy again........is the French the French if Roland Garros was on grass? I don't think so myself.

The big ice/small ice dimension is all part of the allure of the sport IMO.

Different surface but court size is same. I love tennis and enjoy that variety as well. However is the us open allowed you to use the doubleslines for singles... I'd not like that. Or if the wimbledon courts baselines were 2 feet longer then the Australian open.

 

[jj cale]

Different surface but court size is same. I love tennis and enjoy that variety as well. However is the us open allowed you to use the doubleslines for singles... I'd not like that. Or if the wimbledon courts baselines were 2 feet longer then the Australian open.

True, court size is the same but those different surfaces make a huge difference as we all know.

Variety is nice IMO.