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

[Kitchener Boy]

Apparently math doesn't work in Canada then... What a time to be alive.

Lol

Based on what?
Sounds like a lot jealousy of Canada going on here.

 

[Kitchener Boy]

"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?

According to this list the IIHF World Championship of Hockey has been played in Canada 1 time since 1920.
96 years and only 1 time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIHF_World_Championship_medalists

Why are they rigging it against Canada?

 

[FiLe]

According to this list the IIHF World Championship of Hockey has been played in Canada 1 time since 1920.
96 years and only 1 time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIHF_World_Championship_medalists

Why are they rigging it against Canada?

Do you know how many times Hockey Canada has applied to organize it?

 

[Confucius]

Do you know how many times Hockey Canada has applied to organize it?

People complain about Canadian refs, could you imagine if Canada organized the tournament?

 

[Jon Riley]

Am I the only one here that won't find international hockey boring, no matter what will happen?
That if properly organized, of course.

 

[Lepardi]

You live in Finland correct?

Yes, I live in Finland, but I was in Toronto and saw the finals live at Air Canada Centre. It was quite disappointing to see what an anticlimax it was. Tons of empty seats. Would have been a lot more exciting to see a Canada-USA, Canada-Russia or Canada-Sweden final. And also a lot more meaningful, cause USA, Russia and Sweden are things that actually exist. As a European I know very well that Slovenia+Slovakia+Germany+Denmark+Norway+Austria+Germany+France doesn't exist, and talking to the locals in Toronto made it clear to me that many Canadians understand that too, even if you don't.

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.

If you had some elementary math skills, you'd understand that one country having a 50 percent chance doesn't mean that there aren't multiple other countries with a legit chance of winning:

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.

If you really know something about sports betting like you tell you do, you should understand that Canada's victory does by no means prove that there weren't many other countries with a legit shot at winning. Canada winning in 2016 doesn't mean that Sweden, Russia and USA don't have a legit shot. They all have a very legit chance of beating Canada in a single-elimination game. Your perfect 20/20 hindsight won't change that. You think that "the future of international hockey looks bleak". I disagree. I'll eagerly watch again when the best get together to play for their countries. I just hope I don't have to watch the gimmicks that time around. While in Toronto, I saw Connor McDavid say on Canadian TV that he'd like to represent Canada in the next World Cup. If they hold on to this moronic U24 team, he'll still be too young in 2020.

To me there'a also a lot more about international competition than who wins gold. To me the future of international basketball doesn't look bleak just because USA is dominant. I find it very interesting to see if Serbia can beat Spain and if Argentina can beat Brazil. Just like I find it very interesting in hockey to see if Finland can beat Russia and if Sweden can beat USA, even if all of them lose to Canada. And I know I'd much rather see Finland lose terribly like they did this time than see Barkov and Laine beat Canada as a part of a gimmick team called "Europe".

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

Did you read the opening post of this thread. I quote: 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!


You think the future of international hockey looks bleak, cause there aren't many countries with a legit shot at winning. Can you please answer this question: which countries do you think have a legit shot at winning, when the best get together to play hockey?

 

[Xokkeu]

Am I the only one here that won't find international hockey boring, no matter what will happen?
That if properly organized, of course.

I follow with baited anticipation USA hockey's annual scrape the bottom of the barrel rosters for the world's, so no not the only one.

 

[snipes]

There is a lot of tension in here. No international hockey is not dead, not even close. All of the Big 6 are producing excellent young talent. Even smaller hockey powers like Germany have Draisaitl, and the Danes have some promising young forwards.

Regarding whether or not hockey is too boring? Not for me, I love racking up them Golds .

We Dem Boyz.

 

[Lepardi]

Having a ref call a game fairly is also an advantage for the better team.

That's an advantage the better team did not receive in the Canada Cup finals in 1987.

 

[Macman]

I think it's time to close this thread and send the kids to bed.

 

[BruinLVGA]

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.

Did you notice that you have been making personal comments in every single post you make to me? I didn't know that you could be thrown off your cool this easily. So angry. However, I can see how someone could resort to that when one's arguments don't have any merit. It's the easiest escape from a discussion. Very weak if you ask me, but I am not in the business of preventing folks from embarrassing themselves.
Lies though are inexcusable: I never badmouthed / insulted Canada or anyone else. Prompted by you continually talking about folks being afraid of Canada, I said that Canada instill fears in no one, for anything anyone could ever think of. I believe that to be true 1000%. The truth should not hurt that much: you can reflect on that.

 

[BruinLVGA]

According to this list the IIHF World Championship of Hockey has been played in Canada 1 time since 1920.
96 years and only 1 time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIHF_World_Championship_medalists

Why are they rigging it against Canada?

How many times did they apply to host that tournament that the general sentiment over there appears to be "we don't care about it, it's a 5th rate tournament"? So, do you care or do you not care? Pick one, finally.

 

[Jussi]

People complain about Canadian refs, could you imagine if Canada organized the tournament?

Yes, I watched the 2008 tournament. Canada should apply to host it more often.

 

[Gary Nylund]

In red:

"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.

I have no obligation to spend my time and energy spelling things out for you. You'll also learn more if you take the time to think about it yourself. Here's a hint though - your argument so vague that it's impossible to take seriously. If you'd have only put a bit more thought into it, you might have seen how wrong you are before you posted it.

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.

You're the one with the theories, not me. Manufacturing strawmen again. "Congragulations".

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.

And even more

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?

Boy you must hate the NHL playoffs. Stacking things in favour of the best teams with a 7 game series. And 60 minute games during the regular season is also obviously unfair right? I mean everyone knows that if the games only lasted 10 minutes that would make for more fair competition. Is that you dream for the future - a World Cup with national teams only, qualifying tournaments that involve the whole world, game duration no longer than 5 minutes and referees names drawn out of a hat. And the Olympics should adopt that format as well am I right?

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

Oops, my bad.

Yes, I live in Finland, but I was in Toronto and saw the finals live at Air Canada Centre. It was quite disappointing to see what an anticlimax it was. Tons of empty seats. Would have been a lot more exciting to see a Canada-USA, Canada-Russia or Canada-Sweden final. And also a lot more meaningful, cause USA, Russia and Sweden are things that actually exist. As a European I know very well that Slovenia+Slovakia+Germany+Denmark+Norway+Austria+Germany+France doesn't exist, and talking to the locals in Toronto made it clear to me that many Canadians understand that too, even if you don't.

If you had some elementary math skills, you'd understand that one country having a 50 percent chance doesn't mean that there aren't multiple other countries with a legit chance of winning:


Legit is a subjective term, "even if you don't understand that" just to use your terminology..

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.

If you really know something about sports betting like you tell you do, you should understand that Canada's victory does by no means prove that there weren't many other countries with a legit shot at winning. Canada winning in 2016 doesn't mean that Sweden, Russia and USA don't have a legit shot. They all have a very legit chance of beating Canada in a single-elimination game. Your perfect 20/20 hindsight won't change that. You think that "the future of international hockey looks bleak". I disagree. I'll eagerly watch again when the best get together to play for their countries. I just hope I don't have to watch the gimmicks that time around. While in Toronto, I saw Connor McDavid say on Canadian TV that he'd like to represent Canada in the next World Cup. If they hold on to this moronic U24 team, he'll still be too young in 2020.


Legit is a subjective term, "even if you don't understand that" just to use your terminology..

To me there'a also a lot more about international competition than who wins gold. To me the future of international basketball doesn't look bleak just because USA is dominant. I find it very interesting to see if Serbia can beat Spain and if Argentina can beat Brazil. Just like I find it very interesting in hockey to see if Finland can beat Russia and if Sweden can beat USA, even if all of them lose to Canada. And I know I'd much rather see Finland lose terribly like they did this time than see Barkov and Laine beat Canada as a part of a gimmick team called "Europe".


Now you've finally said something that makes sense. I understand all that and I'm not disputing it. What I said earlier was my point of view which is that as a Canadian fan who has had the good fortune to see the awesome competitions of the 70s and 80s, what we have today is a letdown. Just because I find international hockey boring today though doesn't mean I'm not happy to see other people enjoying it, can you understand that? Different people have different points of view, once you understand that and lose the attitude that people who don't value the same things you do are wrong, you'll be much more interesting to discuss things with.

Did you read the opening post of this thread. I quote: 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!


If that's the post you wanted to address, then that's the post you should have quoted, not mine.

You think the future of international hockey looks bleak, cause there aren't many countries with a legit shot at winning. Can you please answer this question: which countries do you think have a legit shot at winning, when the best get together to play hockey?

Define legit.

 

[JackSlater]

That's an advantage the better team did not receive in the Canada Cup finals in 1987.

Perhaps. I must have missed the part of this thread pertaining to the 1987 Canada Cup though.

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?

The objective is not to eliminate randomness, which you will notice I never said. That is merely a consequence, and not a bad one. Your whole point makes no sense. You are implying that playing more hockey is unfair. In what way i playing more hockey and having a larger sample size unfair? The answer is that it is in no way unfair. That it is an advantage for the stronger team is obvious, but inherently fair, since the game is being decided on the ice under circumstances that are the exact same for both sides.

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.

I don't know why you are even talking about this given that you quoted me, but anyway, there is an obvious issue with playing the games in different countries. Teams aren't going to play one game in Canada, then fly over to Finland for the next game, then back to US the next game and so on. That is pretty obvious, so I don't know why you are even attempting to make that point. The tournament should switch locations from one iteration to the next, though that likely won't happen for money reasons. I agree that this is a problem.

The premise that this was done to favour the strongest team is also clearly faulty. The NHL organized the tournament where it was guaranteed to make money. The focus of the joke tournament was to make money. That Canada is obviously the strongest is a separate issue.

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.

You're failing to grasp the point being made. Of course calling a game fairly is beneficial for the stronger team. In a fairly called game, the stronger team should win more often than not, so that is beneficial for them. Stronger teams have plenty of advantages, but not al advantages are unjust.

 

[jj cale]

Did you notice that you have been making personal comments in every single post you make to me? I didn't know that you could be thrown off your cool this easily. So angry. However, I can see how someone could resort to that when one's arguments don't have any merit. It's the easiest escape from a discussion. Very weak if you ask me, but I am not in the business of preventing folks from embarrassing themselves.
Lies though are inexcusable: I never badmouthed / insulted Canada or anyone else. Prompted by you continually talking about folks being afraid of Canada, I said that Canada instill fears in no one, for anything anyone could ever think of. I believe that to be true 1000%. The truth should not hurt that much: you can reflect on that.

And? you have been doing the same thing to me. Does that make it allright for you to go over the line and start insulting a whole country because you and me do not see eye to eye on a subject? You don't see me going overboard and badmouthing where you are from, and it is something that could be easily done.

Bone up man, you are out of line. i never lied about you, i said you were afraid to play Canada in a best 2 out of 3 which you are, you said it yourself when you said that only single game eliminations should be used because a series favors the stronger team.Then you went all loco and insulted a whole country because i called you out on wanting to rig tournaments because of this fear. It is not only afraid it is being a sore loser, an immature person.

Which post after post you have been giving examples of.

No lies here, just calling it straight.

Grow up.

Oh, and develop some guts too.

 

[jj cale]

That's an advantage the better team did not receive in the Canada Cup finals in 1987.

You mean Canada got ripped off by the refs in 87?

Well that's not right.

 

[jj cale]

Do you know how many times Hockey Canada has applied to organize it?

My guess is that the cities big enough to host it and have the money to win the bid in Canada cannot because they cannot take a chance of having it coincide with their NHL team being in the playoffs and thus having it clash with their nhl team having to use that arena. They would also probably take a big bath financially as most people would have little interest in the WHC being played in their city while their NHL team is in the thick of the playoffs.

The WHC could schedule the tournament at a different time to avoid this conflict but I doubt that ever happens.

The tournament is basically for European hockey fans, not the world. Always has been.

We don't mind, we are good sports over here and accept it is a traditional party for you guys.

 

[BruinLVGA]

In red:

You managed to answer my post with nothing meaningful. So many words and yet no content whatsoever: astonishing.

 

[Lepardi]

You mean Canada got ripped off by the refs in 87

No, the better team did. But it was all for a good cause, Alan Eagleson was killing communism.

 

[Gary Nylund]

You managed to answer my post with nothing meaningful. So many words and yet no content whatsoever: astonishing.

The strawman manufacturer is complaining about my responses? Oh my, how will I ever survive.

 

[BruinLVGA]

And? you have been doing the same thing to me. Does that make it allright for you to go over the line and start insulting a whole country because you and me do not see eye to eye on a subject? You don't see me going overboard and badmouthing where you are from, and it is something that could be easily done.

Bone up man, you are out of line. i never lied about you, i said you were afraid to play Canada in a best 2 out of 3 which you are, you said it yourself when you said that only single game eliminations should be used because a series favors the stronger team.Then you went all loco and insulted a whole country because i called you out on wanting to rig tournaments because of this fear. It is not only afraid it is being a sore loser, an immature person.

Which post after post you have been giving examples of.

No lies here, just calling it straight.

Grow up.

Oh, and develop some guts too.

You are so upset that it's actually almost endearing. Why do you get so easily bent out of shape about an Internet forum discussion? And you talk about growing up and being mature & then you proceed to throw tantrums about pretty much everything. The irony is strong in this.

I have not insulted a soul, you keep on saying that but that doesn't mean it's true. It isn't. Bring forth any example of that, that would help make your point more than just pure imagination.
I said it's not normal to want to try and favor an already stronger team... You replied to that in many posts with always a combo of "Your arguments are dumb! What's wrong with you! You are afraid of playing Canada! You have no guts!" (<-- a very mature, non-personal way to express yourself... ) ... In reply to that, I said that no one is afraid of Canada in any way, shape or form for anything you can think of. That's the "insult", according to you. Because JJ wants folks/nations to fear Canada, but if they don't he is "insulted". Does all this seem logical to you? The big problem with you is that it probably does.

My guess is that the cities big enough to host it and have the money to win the bid in Canada cannot because they cannot take a chance of having it coincide with their NHL team being in the playoffs and thus having it clash with their nhl team having to use that arena. They would also probably take a big bath financially as most people would have little interest in the WHC being played in their city while their NHL team is in the thick of the playoffs.

The WHC could schedule the tournament at a different time to avoid this conflict but I doubt that ever happens.

The tournament is basically for European hockey fans, not the world. Always has been.

We don't mind, we are good sports over here and accept it is a traditional party for you guys.

Seems about right, especially with all the playoffs time that Canadian teams have been seeing lately. Also I am afraid that finding a decent hockey size rink in Canada would be pretty much impossible outside of the handful of cities that have NHL teams. After all, one couldn't for example imagine seeing a IIHF WC held in places like Quebec City... Or Halifax... That would be impossible, now would it?

(guess again, JJ. The first guess was baaaaad...)

 

[Kitchener Boy]

No, the better team did. But it was all for a good cause, Alan Eagleson was killing communism.

Now now sour grapes.

 

[Reindl87]

Bring in neutral refs and its closer right away. After all this was the second World Cup that Canada won on an blatant irreguar goal in the final seconds.

So instead of winning 4 of the last 5 World Cups, with real refs it could have very well only ben 2.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Bring in neutral refs and its closer right away. After all this was the second World Cup that Canada won on an blatant irreguar goal in the final seconds.

So instead of winning 4 of the last 5 World Cups, with real refs it could have very well only ben 2.

I'd say this post devalues all your other posts. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.