World Cup: Is international hockey dead (or too boring to resuscitate)?

[Confucius]

It's not a big deal, but in international competition there are often single-elimination games. Which means that even Canada's superior roster doesn't make them unbeatable. Even USA's basketball team isn't unbeatable in a single-elimination game, and they're way more superiaor than Canada's hockey team is.

People who think that international hockey is dead "because Canada can't be beaten" don't have any clue of how big a role coincidence plays in a single ice hockey game.

anybody can win one game. So it means diddly... Doesn't mean anything more than that. Just as Leafs couldn't sound off claiming to be better than Pittsburgh after beating them. Makes all tournaments seem trivial, until you add them up over a half dozen years or so.

 

[BruinLVGA]

You keep repeating this as if it's incredibly meaningful. Do you understand what sample size means?

A) it still remains a fact & in the books... B) do you have a larger and/or better sample to use for best on best international, non invitational competitions on big ice?

Canada would definitely have a good chance to win but it would be interesting. This will never happen though for several reasons, the main reason for me is that it's a humiliating concept for the other countries to begin with.

International hockey isn't dead, but it has gotten boring. There's nothing to be done about it, it's just the way it is and will likely stay that way for some time yet.

I can understand why the NHL might have tried these gimmick teams - Canada is just so dominant that they were desperate to make the tournament worth watching. There are those who are upset that there were gimmick teams instead of Slovenia and Switzerland or whoever but if they had gotten their wish, the tournament would have still been boring. In fact it would have been even more boring as for many people, team NA was the only team that was interesting to watch.

The NHL tried something, I didn't like the idea but in retrospect it doesn't seem like they missed a great opportunity or anything. The golden era of international hockey was in the 70s and 80s with Canada and the Soviets going at it. The Czechs were in the mix as well and as some other nations made strides, it looked like by the year 2016 ( or thereabouts ) we just might have many countries with a legit shot at winning at any given time the best got together to play hockey. Didn't quite work out that way and the future of international hockey looks bleak indeed. Of course there is still the cache of the Olympics and the tradition of the WHC and there seem to be many fans (in Europe mostly) who think those titles are so important that they transcend the quality of play so I guess they're still at least somewhat content, me I'm kind of depressed and hope the Russian hockey program rises from the ashes or something. Or maybe the USA takes a leap forward somehow, as it is I only see more boredom in the foreseeable future.

Oh well, I can always re-watch the 1987 series like I do every few years and remind myself how good we hockey fans had it for a while there.

You know... About the future looking "bleak", "boring" because you see a future filled with continuous domination of Canada, I don't think that is how it will play out.

There are two things that make me doubt it:

1) the NHL is the league that has the better players in the world. I think you can agree with this. Now, the trend of how many of those are Canadians has been steadily diminishing through the years. In 1990, Canadian players were 75% of all players. In 2015-16, for the first time in history, the quota of Canadian players in the NHL has gone below 50%. Still a great lot of them, but it is undeniable that more players of other nations are in the NHL & less Canadians, it's a favorable factor for non Canadian national teams. Sooner than later, this trend will weigh in who wins or not at international level.

2) I believe that a very important indicator of future success is how things play out at the best junior level. I don't think it is a coincidence that Canada was completely dominant at the WJC, winning 5 straight titles from 2005 to 2009, and in the 2010s they then win everything with basically that same generation that dominated their peers from 2005 to 2009 and is now grown up.
Now the last seven WJCs have seen Canada only win once. This makes me think that the same scenario, when it will play out in a short span (a couple of years? Three?), will see the young generations from these countries that have broken the Canadian supremacy at junior level in the 10s, do the same at adult level.

Just my opinion.

 

[BruinLVGA]

1 They didn't load any dice, they simply decided to have a best of 3, if the team or teams you cheer for can't cut it........... get better or don't play!!


2. The WHC has had a best of 3 final before, who were they loading the dice for?

3. why should anyone have to do you any favors because your team is weaker?

4. In 1996 if it was single game elimination at the world cup Canada would have another title on it's resume because they took the first game. But it was best 2 out of 3 and the U.S won the next 2 games to take the title.

5. But I didn't cry like a little baby over it and say we got robbed because it was not a single game elimination format, it was best 2 out of 3 and they won, end of story.

All i wanted to do was beat them next time out.

You?.................you're too scared to play best 2 out of 3.

That's your problem, it is no-one elses.

1. Now say that again with a straight face, if you can.

2. When a team with home advantage & known to be a favorite or even THE favorite has a final with multiple games, that's loading the dice.

3. Don't you think it is worse for sport & competition to instead do you favors because your team is stronger & has also home advantage?

4. That just shows that it doesn't matter how much one loads the dice, sometimes stuff still blows up in your face. Thank you hockey gods!

5. No one cried, I (and others) just pointed out that we see what you did there (home advantage, multiple games final) to improve further your odds.

6. Me? You know absolutely nothing about me. Wait? One thing you know: I don't take at face value all these little things (home advantage, multiple games final) that are meant to give you a little extra help as instead innocent little details like you pretend they are.

 

[jj cale]

1. Now say that again with a straight face, if you can.

2. When a team with home advantage & known to be a favorite or even THE favorite has a final with multiple games, that's loading the dice.

3. Don't you think it is worse for sport & competition to instead do you favors because your team is stronger & has also home advantage?

4. That just shows that it doesn't matter how much one loads the dice, sometimes stuff still blows up in your face. Thank you hockey gods!

5. No one cried, I (and others) just pointed out that we see what you did there (home advantage, multiple games final) to improve further your odds.

6. Me? You know absolutely nothing about me. Wait? One thing you know: I don't take at face value all these little things (home advantage, multiple games final) that are meant to give you a little extra help as instead innocent little details like you pretend they are.

Your arguments are just as dumb now as they were 4 pages ago.

I cannot help it if you don't have the guts for best 2 out of 3.

That's your issue.

 

[sandysan]

Well if it's dropped from the Olympics it's dead. But I don't see a lot of hope for the sport outside North America for better or worse.

so you are okay with just throwing in the towel ? That if parity could be achieved by pooling talents to take on usa and canada, you would refuse to do so knowing full the current trajectory is non sustainable ?

Reminds me of a saying along the lines of biting ones nose to spite one's face. but I guess that if an entire discipline goes down for the sake of national purity, that's a fair trade amiright ?

its not popularity that drives the bus, it competition. There are TONS of olympic events that are WAY less popular than women's hockey but people will watch unless they are convinced that there IS no competition, that going through the motions is nothing more than an exhibition to arrive at a destination that was largely predetermined before it began. THEN no one will watch.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Your arguments are just as dumb now as they were 4 pages ago.

I cannot help it if you don't have the guts for best 2 out of 3.

That's your issue.

Start up the old, tired brain and use logic once in your life:
1) one team - the absolute favorite - gets home advantage (= playing in their country) for every game + gets a multiple games final (which is proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is something that helps a stronger team).
2) another team - a weaker team - has no home advantage whatsoever and gets to play a multiple games final.

Who do you think was helped by these circumstances? Team 1 or 2? Hint: the answer you choose is the team for whom the darn dice was loaded for.

PS: saying "your arguments are dumb" stops being a valid rebuttal from kindergarten and on...

 

[Xokkeu]

so you are okay with just throwing in the towel ? That if parity could be achieved by pooling talents to take on usa and canada, you would refuse to do so knowing full the current trajectory is non sustainable ?

Reminds me of a saying along the lines of biting ones nose to spite one's face. but I guess that if an entire discipline goes down for the sake of national purity, that's a fair trade amiright ?

its not popularity that drives the bus, it competition. There are TONS of olympic events that are WAY less popular than women's hockey but people will watch unless they are convinced that there IS no competition, that going through the motions is nothing more than an exhibition to arrive at a destination that was largely predetermined before it began. THEN no one will watch.

Women's hockey suffers not from competition but from apathy and lack of investment. The same reason Slovakia is falling behind in men's hockey. Because they do not have the same level of investment in the sport as they used to. Having Canada v world in women's hockey won't change the culture or lack of investment.

 

[Lepardi]

so you are okay with just throwing in the towel ? That if parity could be achieved by pooling talents to take on usa and canada, you would refuse to do so knowing full the current trajectory is non sustainable ?

I'm pretty sure the IOC would refuse to have those "pools of talent" in the winter Olympics instead of national teams.

 

[BruinLVGA]

I'm pretty sure the IOC would refuse to have those "pools of talent" in the winter Olympics instead of national teams.

Indeed that will never happen.

 

[jj cale]

Start up the old, tired brain and use logic once in your life:
1) one team - the absolute favorite - gets home advantage (= playing in their country) for every game + gets a multiple games final (which is proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is something that helps a stronger team).
2) another team - a weaker team - has no home advantage whatsoever and gets to play a multiple games final.

Who do you think was helped by these circumstances? Team 1 or 2? Hint: the answer you choose is the team for whom the darn dice was loaded for.

And he has the guts to talk about acting dumb! help:

Your whole premise on why it was made a 2 out of 3 is 100% wrong to begin with.

But that isn't surprising

The NHL is not run by Canada, it is a majority U,S league and most of the owners and fat cats are American. They do not put on tournaments such as these to ensure Canadian victories, they do them to make money. That is why it was best 2 out of 3, they thought there was a good chance to have Canada-U.S in the final and they wanted to MAKE MORE MONEY. It is a business in case you were not aware of that over there in Europe.

Do you understand that?

P.S............and you are still afraid to play best of 3.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Your whole premise on why it was made a 2 out of 3 is 100% wrong to begin with.

But that isn't surprising

The NHL is not run by Canada, it is a majority U,S league and most of the owners and fat cats are American. They do not put on tournaments such as these to ensure Canadian victories, they do them to make money. That is why it was best 2 out of 3, they thought there was a good chance to have Canada-U.S in the final and they wanted to MAKE MONEY.

Do you understand that?

P.S............and you are still afraid to play best of 3.

Who cares why they said it was made best of 3. Good lord, aren't you capable to understand that the premise, supposed or real, has zero importance on the effect this? No matter the premise, it still helps the stronger team. No?

Sure, the NHL wanted more $$$ - no big surprise there - and at the same time you got a little advantage too. A perfect coincidence & everyone over there is fuzzy warm & scratching each other's back. Do you understand that?

Knock it off about this "afraid" crap. There's nothing whatsoever about Canada that frightens anyone in the whole universe. What a joke.

 

[jj cale]

Who cares why they said it was made best of 3. Good lord, aren't you capable to understand that the premise, supposed or real, has zero importance on the effect this? No matter the premise, it still helps the stronger team. No?

Sure, the NHL wanted more $$$ - no big surprise there - and at the same time you got a little advantage too. Everyone over there is fuzzy warm & singing kumbaya. Do you understand that?

Knock it off about this "afraid" crap. There's nothing whatsoever about Canada that frightens anyone in the whole universe. What a joke.

Someone should do a study on you.

 

[jj cale]

knock it off about this "afraid" crap. There's nothing whatsoever about Canada that frightenKs anyone in the whole universe. What a joke.

There is no reason for me to not tell the truth, you sure as hell won't tell me what to do.

You are starting to spin out of control now,running down a whole country, you are all class bruin

temper,temper!!

 

[Gary Nylund]

In fact the finals would have caused a lot more enthusiasm, had Canada been playing against an actual country instead of a nonentity. The semifinal had 3.1 million viewers in Canada, the deciding final had 2.3 million. Isn't that kind of funny?

You live in Finland correct? Trust me, you haven't got a clue as far as how Canadian hockey fans feel.

1)
The semis had a ton of viewers because it was Russia.

2)
Had it been say Finland instead of Team Europe, the final would have been just as uninteresting to fans here.

You can (and probably will) argue these points, but you're wrong, trust me.

Canada, Sweden, USA and Russia all have a very legit shot at winning when the best get together to play hockey. Hockey is a pretty low-scoring game, which means that Canada can easily lose to any of those other top-4 nations in a single game. Canada's chances of winning a single game aren't over 90 percent even against Finland and the Czech Republic.

You talk about betting later, do tell, what were the odds of Canada winning the World Cup in relation to the other teams? What were the odds in Sochi? IIRC, Canada was given about a 50% chance of winning, if you have some elementary math skills you'll understand that meant Canada had the same chance of winning as all the other countries put together.

Ofcourse, if you think Canada is unbeatable in best-on-best hockey, there's a lot of money to be made for you in 2018 or 2020. But I know you're not gonna do that, cause people like you (meaning people who know beforehand who's gonna win a sports event) are never "into betting".

Oh dear. You either have trouble understanding the English language or I you're making stuff up now. I never said Canada is unbeatable, is that clear enough for you?

I wouldn't make to many assumptions about people who you don't know anything about. I probably know more about sports betting than you can possibly imagine and I used to bet quite actively and yes, I won a lot more than I lost. Now that was back in the day when Proline was full of holes (something you probably don't know anything about living in Finland) and I don't pay much attention to the odds any more. There are exceptions though, I happened to overhear the odds for the final at Sochi and decided it was too good to pass up and I did place a wager on Canada.

At the moment yes. But I think it's just a down cycle. Just like Russia had a down cycle before the 91-92 birth years.

I don't follow international hockey so I don't know about the results but I remember Canada playing Russia in 1987 and they were fantastic, hardly what I'd call a down cycle!

It's not a big deal, but in international competition there are often single-elimination games. Which means that even Canada's superior roster doesn't make them unbeatable. Even USA's basketball team isn't unbeatable in a single-elimination game, and they're way more superior than Canada's hockey team is.

People who think that international hockey is dead "because Canada can't be beaten" don't have any clue of how big a role coincidence plays in a single ice hockey game.

There's that "unbeatable" talk again. Why don't you wait until someone actually claims that Canada is, in fact, "unbeatable" before spouting off.

A) it still remains a fact & in the books... B) do you have a larger and/or better sample to use for best on best international, non invitational competitions on big ice?

If the only statistic available is useless due to sample size (or any other reason), the lack of any other/better statistics in no way increases the value/reliability of said statistic. Do you understand?

And you know what you can do in such a case? Use common sense (if you have some that is, common sense not so common these days apparently).

A)
You know... About the future looking "bleak", "boring" because you see a future filled with continuous domination of Canada, I don't think that is how it will play out.

There are two things that make me doubt it:

1) the NHL is the league that has the better players in the world. I think you can agree with this. Now, the trend of how many of those are Canadians has been steadily diminishing through the years. In 1990, Canadian players were 75% of all players. In 2015-16, for the first time in history, the quota of Canadian players in the NHL has gone below 50%. Still a great lot of them, but it is undeniable that more players of other nations are in the NHL & less Canadians, it's a favorable factor for non Canadian national teams. Sooner than later, this trend will weigh in who wins or not at international level.

2) I believe that a very important indicator of future success is how things play out at the best junior level. I don't think it is a coincidence that Canada was completely dominant at the WJC, winning 5 straight titles from 2005 to 2009, and in the 2010s they then win everything with basically that same generation that dominated their peers from 2005 to 2009 and is now grown up.
Now the last seven WJCs have seen Canada only win once. This makes me think that the same scenario, when it will play out in a short span (a couple of years? Three?), will see the young generations from these countries that have broken the Canadian supremacy at junior level in the 10s, do the same at adult level.

Just my opinion.

Smartest thing you've said in a while ( only the bolded part, the rest of it is speculative at best). Your theory is interesting on the surface but in practice there are many many holes in it. Feel free to come back and tell us all how smart you were when Canada soon goes into it's downward spiral - it is coming soon according to you correct?

1. Now say that again with a straight face, if you can.

2. When a team with home advantage & known to be a favorite or even THE favorite has a final with multiple games, that's loading the dice.

3. Don't you think it is worse for sport & competition to instead do you favors because your team is stronger & has also home advantage?

4. That just shows that it doesn't matter how much one loads the dice, sometimes stuff still blows up in your face. Thank you hockey gods!

5. No one cried, I (and others) just pointed out that we see what you did there (home advantage, multiple games final) to improve further your odds.

6. Me? You know absolutely nothing about me. Wait? One thing you know: I don't take at face value all these little things (home advantage, multiple games final) that are meant to give you a little extra help as instead innocent little details like you pretend they are.

And there's crying that JJ Calr was talking about. Seriously man, unless I'm mistaken the World Cup has always been a 3 game final. But if you think it gives Canada too much of an edge, perhaps you can petition the NHL to make it 1 game next time. Better yet, why not just one period. Hey why not just a shoot out, would that be "grease free" enough for you?

 

[BruinLVGA]

Someone should do a study on you.

"Your arguments are dumb"... "Someone should do a study on you"... This is not how adults conduct discussions... Be aware of that.

 

[jj cale]

"Your arguments are dumb"... "Someone should do a study on you"... This is not how adults conduct discussions... Am I talking to an adult or a teen? If it's the latter, this discussion is over.

Are you allright?

You went on quite a tirade there last post out. Even insulting a whole country,you appear to be having problems.

 

[jj cale]

Hey why not just a shoot out, would that be "grease free" enough for you?

In a perfect world, a game consisting of just one shootout would really even the odds.

 

[JackSlater]

It's funny to read about a team having an advantage by virtue of a three game final. Oh the shame in eliminating a bit of the randomness in hockey. Three game final is one of the things the Canada/World Cup (sometimes) gets right. Of course it is an advantage for the best team, but it is a completely fair advantage. Having a ref call a game fairly is also an advantage for the better team. Playing 60 minutes instead of 10 is an advantage for the better team. There is nothing to complain about.

 

[jj cale]

Well said Slater.

I really don't want to be in a fight but if a team is better a team is better.

No need to get mad at the superior team, what can you do? only option is to get better.It is no good to run away and hide behind things.

Up your hockey program, that is the best way to handle continued losses.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Smartest thing you've said in a while ( only the bolded part, the rest of it is speculative at best). Your theory is interesting on the surface but in practice there are many many holes in it. Feel free to come back and tell us all how smart you were when Canada soon goes into it's downward spiral - it is coming soon according to you correct?



And there's crying that JJ Calr was talking about. Seriously man, unless I'm mistaken the World Cup has always been a 3 game final. But if you think it gives Canada too much of an edge, perhaps you can petition the NHL to make it 1 game next time. Better yet, why not just one period. Hey why not just a shoot out, would that be "grease free" enough for you?

"In practice there are many, many holes in it". And stops there. No further elaboration on that. Has also the brilliant idea to comment on how not smart my post was, after this pearl of pure nothingness.
So there is absolutely zero correlation between the amount of players in the nhl & how that could possibly influence the performance of the national teams they will be playing for eh? Top competition never improved anyone, is Gary's theory. Congratulations.
Furthermore, there's also zero correlation between young players dominating in the world, then maturing and playing later against the same competition they competed with when young but now at adult level. Gary must believe that they somehow evaporate or something. Bravo.

The fact that the World Cup (or whatever was the flavor of the month's name) has always been a best of 3 is simply the confirmation that they always had the tournament as stacked as they could in their favor. They want the World Cup to be always held in Canada and always have home advantage for best on best. Sounds fair & normal, right?

 

[Xokkeu]

You live in Finland correct? Trust me, you haven't got a clue as far as how Canadian hockey fans feel.

1)
The semis had a ton of viewers because it was Russia.

2)
Had it been say Finland instead of Team Europe, the final would have been just as uninteresting to fans here.

You can (and probably will) argue these points, but you're wrong, trust me.



You talk about betting later, do tell, what were the odds of Canada winning the World Cup in relation to the other teams? What were the odds in Sochi? IIRC, Canada was given about a 50% chance of winning, if you have some elementary math skills you'll understand that meant Canada had the same chance of winning as all the other countries put together.




Oh dear. You either have trouble understanding the English language or I you're making stuff up now. I never said Canada is unbeatable, is that clear enough for you?

I wouldn't make to many assumptions about people who you don't know anything about. I probably know more about sports betting than you can possibly imagine and I used to bet quite actively and yes, I won a lot more than I lost. Now that was back in the day when Proline was full of holes (something you probably don't know anything about living in Finland) and I don't pay much attention to the odds any more. There are exceptions though, I happened to overhear the odds for the final at Sochi and decided it was too good to pass up and I did place a wager on Canada.



I don't follow international hockey so I don't know about the results but I remember Canada playing Russia in 1987 and they were fantastic, hardly what I'd call a down cycle!



There's that "unbeatable" talk again. Why don't you wait until someone actually claims that Canada is, in fact, "unbeatable" before spouting off.



If the only statistic available is useless due to sample size (or any other reason), the lack of any other/better statistics in no way increases the value/reliability of said statistic. Do you understand?

And you know what you can do in such a case? Use common sense (if you have some that is, common sense not so common these days apparently).



Smartest thing you've said in a while ( only the bolded part, the rest of it is speculative at best). Your theory is interesting on the surface but in practice there are many many holes in it. Feel free to come back and tell us all how smart you were when Canada soon goes into it's downward spiral - it is coming soon according to you correct?



And there's crying that JJ Calr was talking about. Seriously man, unless I'm mistaken the World Cup has always been a 3 game final. But if you think it gives Canada too much of an edge, perhaps you can petition the NHL to make it 1 game next time. Better yet, why not just one period. Hey why not just a shoot out, would that be "grease free" enough for you?

Talking about birth years not tournaments. Kuznetsov Panarin and Tarasenko are all 1991 and 1992 born players.

 

[Jumptheshark]

In order to be a sport, there has to be some sense of competition. There has to be some sense that there is more than one competitor who could at least make a competition interesting, to have some justifiable basis for modest suspense. The World Cup tournament completed yesterday only served to prove what everyone already knew! There is no competition in world hockey, and in fact, the state of hockey in every country in the World other than Canada is so deficient and devoid of quality that only a tournament showcasing the so-called vanguard of the sport, the NHL, could portray how empty the vessel is!

It is telling that the play of national teams other than Canada in the tournament, particularly the USA, was so pathetic that only hybrid teams of all-stars could put together enough talent and skill to offer a half-ass challenge to Canada to come close to winning a game. Why in the world would anyone want to put these teams through the same meat grinder again? They were helpless to defend themselves, and it made the product of the NHL, hockey, look defective by association. It looked like an orgy of feasting on the poor, pathetic unfortunates!

Keep this statement in mind the next time Canada does not win something and Canadians ***** about whether or not we should send player

 

[BruinLVGA]

It's funny to read about a team having an advantage by virtue of a three game final. Oh the shame in eliminating a bit of the randomness in hockey. Three game final is one of the things the Canada/World Cup (sometimes) gets right. Of course it is an advantage for the best team, but it is a completely fair advantage. Having a ref call a game fairly is also an advantage for the better team. Playing 60 minutes instead of 10 is an advantage for the better team. There is nothing to complain about.

So, the objective now is to eliminate "randomness in hockey". Make sure that the best team gets all the possible advantages? Do you somehow think it is... fair? Do you think it would be conducive to great hockey making more and more sure that the outcome matches what is supposed to happen on paper?

Furthermore, if playing all games at home is part of these "fair advantages", why in the NHL don't they have all teams that are better seeded - on paper, stronger - play at home all playoffs games then? Money you say? Well, teams could split costs and profits from tickets and concessions, it could be feasible.

And no, a ref calling a game fairly doesn't help the strongest team, by the way. It makes things for both teams... FAIR, as in no unjust advantage.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Are you allright?

You went on quite a tirade there last post out. Even insulting a whole country,you appear to be having problems.

"Insulting a whole country"? You said that people are afraid of Canada, I told you that nobody is afraid of Canada.
What would be the insult there? That folks are not afraid of Canada? Do you think in terms of your country instilling fear in other countries? I thought the only place where they thought that way these days was North Korea. Do you think that prowess in of all things a sport, should instill fear in people? Does that sound normal to you? And you are asking ME if I am all right and have problems? Do you see the irony in this?

 

[jj cale]

"Insulting a whole country"? You said that people are afraid of Canada, I told you that nobody is afraid of Canada.
What would be the insult there? That folks are not afraid of Canada? Do you think in terms of your country instilling fear in other countries? I thought the only place where they thought that way these days was North Korea. Do you think that prowess in of all things a sport, should instill fear in people?Does that sound normal to you? And you are asking ME if I am all right? Do you see the irony in this?

You appear to be afraid, you insist on having a single game elimination because you said a series favors the favorite.

The heat is too much in the kitchen for you!!

Get better or hope your team does not compete anymore if you cannot handle losing. Those are the options left for you.

Insulting and badmouthing a whole country just because they are likely to beat you in hockey is a really immature way to act.

Your character is coming out, and it does not look good at first glance.

Perhaps some reflection on your attitudes and behavior is in line at this point.

Just a thought.