Is best of the best tournaments dead?

[Star Ocean]

World cup not happening, NHL dont want to partcipate in olympics. Is best of the best for men dead?

Click to read more...

 

[Boonk]

For the most part yes.

 

[theslatcher]

Right now yeah. Have to imagine olympics is part of the discussions for the next CBA in the NHL, though.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Pretty much.

 

[JETZZZ]

Right now, yeah, its dead.

I wish the NHL and the NHLPA can agree to do a World Cup/Olympics every second February as a compromise, instead of doing neither.
-NHL gets their "international tournament" they can milk the crap out of, whether its actually best-on-best or crammed full of gimmicks (As long as they schedule
an Olympic break again)
-NHLPA gets to participate in the Olympics again (If they use their share of revenue of the World Cup to cover Olympic costs)

 

[JackSlater]

Not exactly dead. It's been five years now, but I do expect to see NHLers at the 2022 Olympics.

 

[Planet Hockey]

It's time to retire the Best on Best vs Non-Best on Best dichotomy. If you look at the US, Swedish and Russian rosters for the WC this year, it's not ALL of the best, but just about every key player is AMONG the best from that country. Ilya Kovalchuk is a healthy scratch on some of the mock rosters and there's still more to add.

Tournaments will always have different levels and % league-participation rates. But if the definition of a "Best on Best" is where 100% of every country's All Stars are available, healthy, willing, and 100% prepared, then there has never been a Best on Best tourney in the history of hockey outside of video games.

 

[Eye of Ra]

world cup 2016 was a joke tournament.

og 2014 was the last true best on best tournament,

 

[JackSlater]

It's time to retire the Best on Best vs Non-Best on Best dichotomy. If you look at the US, Swedish and Russian rosters for the WC this year, it's not ALL of the best, but just about every key player is AMONG the best from that country. Ilya Kovalchuk is a healthy scratch on some of the mock rosters and there's still more to add.

Tournaments will always have different levels and % league-participation rates. But if the definition of a "Best on Best" is where 100% of every country's All Stars are available, healthy, willing, and 100% prepared, then there has never been a Best on Best tourney in the history of hockey outside of video games.

That would certainly be a convenient viewpoint for some. Of course we shouldn't pretend that best on best has never existed, but I can see why some would want to pretend such. Outside of 2005 the World Championship has no business being remotely compared to a best on best tournament.

 

[Planet Hockey]

That would certainly be a convenient viewpoint for some. Of course we shouldn't pretend that best on best has never existed, but I can see why some would want to pretend such. Outside of 2005 the World Championship has no business being remotely compared to a best on best tournament.

You nailed me man. I bought stock in the WC a few years ago and it's "convenient" for me to "pretend" that it's the strongest world tournament in the post-NHLympics era. I'm just making up a fake opinion to try to influence people and drive my shares higher.



I tell you what, when Team Sweden - with 20 OF its best NHL players including some top-10 guys - plays Team Russia (Kucherov, Ovie, Malkin, 10+ other All-Stars) - a lot of people will enjoy the heck out of it and there you'll be with a clipboard figuring out how Sweden could have had a 2nd or 3rd line left winger with 0.23 more ppg if only it was a "true best on best" tournament. I know which camp I'd rather be in.

Name me an international tourney in which every country got 100% of its absolute best players suited up 100% healthy and in their primes with zero conflicts or high-profile snubs. That doesn't even happen in women's hockey or in soccer where the cultures abide 100% international participation. It's a pipe dream.

Talk about "convenience," I think it's pretty convenient for NHL-chauvinists to shout "Not best on best!" like it's a mantra they learned in Pilates class, and ignore the fact that gold medal WC teams could whip their local NHL club up and down the rink. They think they're promoting the "best" hockey but in reality they're lazy, afraid of a new experience, and enslaved by the branding of professional sports.

 

[alphahelix]

You nailed me man. I bought stock in the WC a few years ago and it's "convenient" for me to "pretend" that it's the strongest world tournament in the post-NHLympics era. I'm just making up a fake opinion to try to influence people and drive my shares higher.



I tell you what, when Team Sweden - with 20 OF its best NHL players including some top-10 guys - plays Team Russia (Kucherov, Ovie, Malkin, 10+ other All-Stars) - a lot of people will enjoy the heck out of it and there you'll be with a clipboard figuring out how Sweden could have had a 2nd or 3rd line left winger with 0.23 more ppg if only it was a "true best on best" tournament. I know which camp I'd rather be in.

Name me an international tourney in which every country got 100% of its absolute best players suited up 100% healthy and in their primes with zero conflicts or high-profile snubs. That doesn't even happen in women's hockey or in soccer where the cultures abide 100% international participation. It's a pipe dream.

Talk about "convenience," I think it's pretty convenient for NHL-chauvinists to shout "Not best on best!" like it's a mantra they learned in Pilates class, and ignore the fact that gold medal WC teams could whip their local NHL club up and down the rink. They think they're promoting the "best" hockey but in reality they're lazy, afraid of a new experience, and enslaved by the branding of professional sports.

Canada has like none of its top players going, and Im sure there are other similar countries without digging into it, because it is almost always the case.

 

[JackSlater]

You nailed me man. I bought stock in the WC a few years ago and it's "convenient" for me to "pretend" that it's the strongest world tournament in the post-NHLympics era. I'm just making up a fake opinion to try to influence people and drive my shares higher.



I tell you what, when Team Sweden - with 20 OF its best NHL players including some top-10 guys - plays Team Russia (Kucherov, Ovie, Malkin, 10+ other All-Stars) - a lot of people will enjoy the heck out of it and there you'll be with a clipboard figuring out how Sweden could have had a 2nd or 3rd line left winger with 0.23 more ppg if only it was a "true best on best" tournament. I know which camp I'd rather be in.

Name me an international tourney in which every country got 100% of its absolute best players suited up 100% healthy and in their primes with zero conflicts or high-profile snubs. That doesn't even happen in women's hockey or in soccer where the cultures abide 100% international participation. It's a pipe dream.

Talk about "convenience," I think it's pretty convenient for NHL-chauvinists to shout "Not best on best!" like it's a mantra they learned in Pilates class, and ignore the fact that gold medal WC teams could whip their local NHL club up and down the rink. They think they're promoting the "best" hockey but in reality they're lazy, afraid of a new experience, and enslaved by the branding of professional sports.

You're all over the place, and very little of the content has anything to do with the post that you quoted. If you or anyone else want to enjoy the IIHF World Championship then by all means do so. I will probably enjoy it as well. There's no need to pretend that best on best hasn't existed (a pretty clear agenda from some) when we're all aware that it has. It doesn't exist at the moment though and doesn't have a guaranteed future. The IIHF tournament would obviously be all the better if the best available players from the participating countries showed up - the fact that a lot of the best available players aren't going doesn't need to be ignored for someone to enjoy the tournament if they so choose.

 

[Rob]

At the moment I consider international hockey to be dead.

 

[Gold Standard]

best on best International hockey is dead. It will take a September 2022 Canada v USA Summit Series to revive it. In honor of the 50 year anniversary of the original, featuring the new power on the hockey stage. 8 games coast to coast, well, to Eastern Time Zone anyway. Seattle Vancouver. Chicago Winnipeg Detroit Toronto NYC Montreal. 3 weeks of intense border clashes. would be epic.

 

[alko]

It will take a September 2022 Canada v USA Summit Series to revive it. In honor of the 50 year anniversary of the original, featuring the new power on the hockey stage.

That will be a disaster. Only for North America. From marketing point it will be a suicide for NHL.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Name me an international tourney in which every country got 100% of its absolute best players suited up 100% healthy and in their primes with zero conflicts or high-profile snubs. That doesn't even happen in women's hockey or in soccer where the cultures abide 100% international participation. It's a pipe dream.

Can you name an international tournament where a country had only 10% or less of its absolute best eligible players? Outside of the World Hockey Championships, that is.

 

[EK47]

FWIW, it seems more players have been keen to accept invites from Sweden since there have been no real best on best since 2014 (no I am not calling that 2016 gimmick that). I mean this is sorta a down year for Sweden and we still have: Elias Pettersson, Lindholm, Bratt, Nylander, Hörnqvist, OEL, Larsson, Ekholm, Gustafsson, Lundqvist, Markström.

It could also be Grönborg simply having a better relationship with the NHL players than Mårts had.

 

[Vegan Knight]

I wouldn't mind a yearly two week break in February for alternating tournaments.

Get rid of the All-Star Game and start the season a week earlier. Pack in two extra games a year during the time playing.

A lot of the league would get a yearly break in the middle of the season while the best players would play an extra week more than now.

Olympics, World Cup of Hockey, Hockey Ryder Cup. Then one year in the four year cycle would simply be a break. Continue the World Championships at their current standing.

 

[Planet Hockey]

You're all over the place, and very little of the content has anything to do with the post that you quoted. If you or anyone else want to enjoy the IIHF World Championship then by all means do so. I will probably enjoy it as well. There's no need to pretend that best on best hasn't existed (a pretty clear agenda from some) when we're all aware that it has. It doesn't exist at the moment though and doesn't have a guaranteed future. The IIHF tournament would obviously be all the better if the best available players from the participating countries showed up - the fact that a lot of the best available players aren't going doesn't need to be ignored for someone to enjoy the tournament if they so choose.

Me: There's never been a perfect "best on best" scenario anyway. Always some degree of snubs, omissions and injuries. Let's enjoy what we've got and stop putting every tournament in 1 of 2 boxes

You: You're just pretending to have that opinion because it's convenient

Me: That's absurd, this is actually my opinion. Can you even name such a perfect event in any sport ever?

You: That's off topic

Me: Can you name one?

You: You're all over the place maaaaaan

 

[koyvoo]

TBH the last real great one was in 1996.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

 

[NyQuil]

Me: There's never been a perfect "best on best" scenario anyway. Always some degree of snubs, omissions and injuries. Let's enjoy what we've got and stop putting every tournament in 1 of 2 boxes

You: You're just pretending to have that opinion because it's convenient

Me: That's absurd, this is actually my opinion. Can you even name such a perfect event in any sport ever?

You: That's off topic

Me: Can you name one?

You: You're all over the place maaaaaan

Sorry, there’s a difference between circumstantial absences and systematic absences.

Nice try though.

I enjoy the World Championships as much as the next person but you’re not going to convince anyone that the difference isn’t relevant.

 

[JackSlater]

Me: There's never been a perfect "best on best" scenario anyway. Always some degree of snubs, omissions and injuries. Let's enjoy what we've got and stop putting every tournament in 1 of 2 boxes

You: You're just pretending to have that opinion because it's convenient

Me: That's absurd, this is actually my opinion. Can you even name such a perfect event in any sport ever?

You: That's off topic

Me: Can you name one?

You: You're all over the place maaaaaan

We don't need your bizarre take on the conversation when we can see your meandering, tangential posts on this very page. There is an obvious and significant difference between a tournament where many of the best players from countries refuse to participate and a tournament where nearly every one of the best players from countries participates barring injury. That really shouldn't need to be pointed out, and I suspect that you are actually aware of it, but here we are.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Me: There's never been a perfect "best on best" scenario anyway. Always some degree of snubs, omissions and injuries. Let's enjoy what we've got and stop putting every tournament in 1 of 2 boxes

"Perfection isn't attainable so why try LOL"

 

[Rob]

Me: There's never been a perfect "best on best" scenario anyway. Always some degree of snubs, omissions and injuries. Let's enjoy what we've got and stop putting every tournament in 1 of 2 boxes

Could you imagine football fans doing the same? Of course not. FIFA has real international competitions unlike the IIHF.