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

[randomhockeyfan]

Amazing that the strongest team not be recognized as so. Let's have a tourney where anybody can win. You don't want to find the better team you want the lucky one.

Don't you guys see any good sides in a one elimination game format? It's what's so good about international sports, to see upsets and small countries winning against the bigger countries. For example what made this year's Euro soccer tourny so good was Iceland's success. I doubt we would've seen a story like that if it was a best of 3 format, or see an underdog like Portugal win it all. Otherwise it would be Germany winning almost every year and apparently that's what you guys want to see in ice hockey? A best of 3 favours hugely Canada, especially played in NA with small rinks, because right now they are the best in the world, no doubt about that.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Amazing that the strongest team not be recognized as so. Let's have a tourney where anybody can win. You don't want to find the better team you want the lucky one.

You instead want a tournament where most details are stacked in your favor (because being #1 for the previous 6 years is no guarantee enough that you should be able to win, right? If the odds were at 97% already, you absolutely had to have them at 100, no stones unturned eh?).

Have it at home: home advantage helps. Have it always on small ice: where you are obviously more at ease, that helps. Have also a "North America" Team: if they had won, you would have won too by association. Have it in a best of 3 series (contrary to all other international competitions in all sports. It's not like a 1 game final is the unusual thing, you know?): the better team is statistically more favorite in that, than a 1 game. Now even penalty shots are source of boo-ooing: of course, no penalty shots - again a total common thing in hockey and in a ton of other sports worldwide - helps the better team.

And the cherry on the icing: confirmation that you think that Canada losing is only possible because of luck... Do you have even the slightest idea how that sounds?

 

[BruinLVGA]

No, I said it was a gimmick because of the obvious .......it is a skills competition, it is not playing the game of hockey.

That is why , as if you did not already know that anyway.

Satisfied?

A skills competition? Isn't any sport just a competition of skills? Simplifying things to the max, those with the best skills play better and therefore beat others. Those skills include: dangling, shooting, blocking shots, defending, making saves, playing well in special teams situations, etc etc... You know, everything that is allowed in the rule book? Penalty shots are in that book too...

Yeah, the best team wins, what a novel concept!!

If they are good enough to win it should not matter what length the finals of a tournament is.

But the problem is right now they aren't..............and thats what burns their ass and makes them lose their mind when discussing international hockey.

But instead it should matter to Canada eh? Are you saying, by your own logic, that they're not good enough to win?

Don't you guys see any good sides in a one elimination game format? It's what's so good about international sports, to see upsets and small countries winning against the bigger countries. For example what made this year's Euro soccer tourny so good was Iceland's success. I doubt we would've seen a story like that if it was a best of 3 format, or see an underdog like Portugal win it all. Otherwise it would be Germany winning almost every year and apparently that's what you guys want to see in ice hockey? A best of 3 favours hugely Canada, especially played in NA with small rinks, because right now they are the best in the world, no doubt about that.

You are barking up the wrong tree. All they - talking about the two usual suspects in this thread - see and want to see is Canada win. Followed by showering with ridicule those who haven't won.

 

[jj cale]

Don't you guys see any good sides in a one elimination game format? It's what's so good about international sports, to see upsets and small countries winning against the bigger countries. For example what made this year's Euro soccer tourny so good was Iceland's success. I doubt we would've seen a story like that if it was a best of 3 format, or see an underdog like Portugal win it all. Otherwise it would be Germany winning almost every year and apparently that's what you guys want to see in ice hockey? A best of 3 favours hugely Canada, especially played in NA with small rinks, because right now they are the best in the world, no doubt about that.

I do not have a problem with single game elimination tournaments, why do they have a problem with multiple game series?

shouldn't you be asking them that question also?

Because all we have gotten from them as their argument against it is that it favors a stronger team, in this case Canada no surprise. What a solid argument that is.

 

[jj cale]

A skills competition? Isn't any sport just a competition of skills? Simplifying things to the max, those with the best skills play better and therefore beat others. Those skills include: dangling, shooting, blocking shots, defending, making saves, playing well in special teams situations, etc etc... You know, everything that is allowed in the rule book? Penalty shots are in that book too...



But instead it should matter to Canada eh? Are you saying therefore that they're not good enough?



You are barking up the wrong tree. All they - talking about the two usual suspects in this thread - see and want to see is Canada win. Followed by showering with ridicule those who haven't won.

Matter to Canada? wtf are you talking about? I don't care if it is single game or best of whatever, you do!! and we know why you do, because you think it increases the best teams chances of winning.You are on me because you are too scared of losing? give your head a shake man.

and i don't care what skills are involved in hockey that are part of the game and could be used as the skill competition to decide playoff games...........one skill is not the game of hockey, that is the problem.

Whats wrong with you?

 

[Confucius]

You instead want a tournament where most details are stacked in your favor (because being #1 for the previous 6 years is no guarantee enough that you should be able to win, right? If the odds were at 97% already, you absolutely had to have them at 100, no stones unturned eh?).

Have it at home: home advantage helps. Have it always on small ice: where you are obviously more at ease, that helps. Have also a "North America" Team: if they had won, you would have won too by association. Have it in a best of 3 series (contrary to all other international competitions in all sports. It's not like a 1 game final is the unusual thing, you know?): the better team is statistically more favorite in that, than a 1 game. Now even penalty shots are source of boo-ooing: of course, no penalty shots - again a total common thing in hockey and in a ton of other sports worldwide - helps the better team.

And the cherry on the icing: confirmation that you think that Canada losing is only possible because of luck... Do you have even the slightest idea how that sounds?

The NHL playoffs would be so much better if we followed the one loss and you're out format.

 

[Confucius]

Don't you guys see any good sides in a one elimination game format? It's what's so good about international sports, to see upsets and small countries winning against the bigger countries. For example what made this year's Euro soccer tourny so good was Iceland's success. I doubt we would've seen a story like that if it was a best of 3 format, or see an underdog like Portugal win it all. Otherwise it would be Germany winning almost every year and apparently that's what you guys want to see in ice hockey? A best of 3 favours hugely Canada, especially played in NA with small rinks, because right now they are the best in the world, no doubt about that.

I apologize I didn't realize most people wanted just a one off tournament where upsets are more likely rather than a tournament to find the best team.
I get it now, thanks.

 

[Seanaconda]

Idk why the euros are mad about the small ice. All your top line players tend to play in the nhl anyways on nhl ice with nhl refs and rules ?

So your 4th line and a guy or two higher up isn't used to it. Most of russia's defense too but oh well.

 

[Seanaconda]

Finals should always be more than one game. Olympics can keep the fluke wins I guess but isn't the point of your 'national pride' to actually prove you're the best without a doubt.

 

[randomhockeyfan]

I apologize I didn't realize most people wanted just a one off tournament where upsets are more likely rather than a tournament to find the best team.
I get it now, thanks.

Why do you think in a single game elimination format we won't still get the best team to win it? Canada was best in 2010 and 2014 and they won. They weren't the best in 2006 for example and they didn't win. But a 3 game format makes it nearly impossible for anyone else win so we could hand the medals to Canada straight away. It is of course reasonable to have a multi game elimination stage in a long series/season like the NHL but not in a short tournament between nations.

 

[jj cale]

Why do you think in a single game elimination format we won't still get the best team to win it? Canada was best in 2010 and 2014 and they won. They weren't the best in 2006 for example and they didn't win. But a 3 game format makes it nearly impossible for anyone else win so we could hand the medals to Canada straight away. It is of course reasonable to have a multi game elimination stage in a long series/season like the NHL but not in a short tournament between nations.

Do you believe Canada would have won in a best of 3 series in 2006?

 

[BruinLVGA]

Matter to Canada? wtf are you talking about? I don't care if it is single game or best of whatever, you do!! and we know why you do, because you think it increases the best teams chances of winning.You are on me because you are too scared of losing? give your head a shake man.

and i don't care what skills are involved in hockey that are part of the game and could be used as the skill competition to decide playoff games...........one skill is not the game of hockey, that is the problem.

Whats wrong with you?

If it didn't matter to you, why not say so immediately?

Of course it helps the best team. Do you think that if there's any help to be given, it should be given to the best team? The best team that is also playing in front of their public and on the ice size they like better? Is that conducive to the best possible competition?
On top of that, why change the way a final is played just for this tournament? Every other tournament in every major international sport is a one game deal, but here all of a sudden it gets changed to three and that somehow says to you that the lower teams or their fans are "scared"? And you tell ME to give my head a shake? See the irony in all this?

What is wrong with me... Says the guy who has no knowledge of what a "gimmick" is (if you knew, you couldn't call penalty shots that...), nor what a "skill" is. Penalty shots are part of the game, just like defending, stick handling, shooting, blocking shots, saves from a goalie, skating well, special teams, etc etc... Boh-ooing about it, is silly. If there's something wrong with someone between me and you, it isn't with me. That is as sure as Canada is the top team in hockey. Take that to the bank.

 

[Confucius]

Why do you think in a single game elimination format we won't still get the best team to win it? Canada was best in 2010 and 2014 and they won. They weren't the best in 2006 for example and they didn't win. But a 3 game format makes it nearly impossible for anyone else win so we could hand the medals to Canada straight away. It is of course reasonable to have a multi game elimination stage in a long series/season like the NHL but not in a short tournament between nations.

Because there is a chance they have a bad game and lose, they could be the superior team but because of one bad day they are done.

Last year's NHL playoffs the pens lost their 1st game to Washington they would have been out under the one and done formula. They also lost the 1st game to Tampa again they would have been out. But playing a series format they won the Stanley Cup. And rightfully so, I believe the series format gives a more accurate account of which team is best.

I didn't realize quite a few fans don't care about that they want to see things like what happened with Iceland. Cool I get it. I will look at the tournaments differently in the future. You win a tournament great you won that tournament, it doesn't mean you were the best team, you just happened to be better that day.

 

[BruinLVGA]

The NHL playoffs would be so much better if we followed the one loss and you're out format.

Confucius says "regional club competitions = international nations tournament. Right guys?"...

 

[Lepardi]

If the odds were at 97% already, you absolutely had to have them at 100, no stones unturned eh?).

Canada is not even close to 97 percent to win in hockey. The betting market gave them about a 50 percent chance to win this one before the tournament. I know that somebody is now going to ask "what does the betting market know". Well if it doesn't know that much, how many thousands of dollars/euros did you bet on Canada before the tournament? Exactly. With 20/20 hindsight it's ofcourse easy to say that everybody knew Canada was going to win. Well I didn't know. Had I known, I would have made a lot of money.

Even USA basketball doesn't have a 97 percent chance in the Olympics or the World Cup, cause they can very well lose a single game to someone like Spain, Serbia or Argentina.

 

[Confucius]

Confucius says "regional club competitions = international nations tournament. Right guys?"...

Have a good evening

 

[BruinLVGA]

Canada is not even close to 97 percent to win in hockey. The betting market gave them about a 50 percent chance to win this one before the tournament. I know that somebody is now going to ask "what does the betting market know". Well if it doesn't know that much, how many thousands of dollars/euros did you bet on Canada before the tournament? Exactly.

Even USA basketball doesn't have a 97 percent chance in the Olympics or the World Cup.

The percentages where to make a point, rather than to be taken literally.

 

[jj cale]

If it didn't matter to you, why not say so immediately?

Of course it helps the best team. Do you think that if there's any help to be given, it should be given to the best team? The best team that is also playing in front of their public and on the ice size they like better? Is that conducive to the best possible competition?
On top of that, why change the way a final is played just for this tournament? Every other tournament in every major international sport is a one game deal, but here all of a sudden it gets changed to three and that says that the lower teams are "scared"? And you tell ME to give my head a shake? See the irony in all this?

What is wrong with me... Says the guy who has no knowledge of what a "gimmick" is (if you knew, you couldn't call penalty shots that...), nor what a "skill" is. Penalty shots are part of the game, just like defending, stick handling, shooting, blocking shots, saves from a goalie, skating well, special teams, etc etc... Boh-ooing about it, is silly. If there's something wrong with someone between me and you, it isn't with me. That is as sure as Canada is the top team in hockey. Take that to the bank.

I did say so, several times in several threads that I did not care whether the olympics were single game elimination. Go look for yourself.

I have no knowledge of what a gimmick is? really? so deciding a basketball game on free throws is not a gimmick? you really believe that? because there is no difference in that then a shootout to decide a game in hockey. Whats next? why not put out a wooden board with a 3 holes in it and place it where the net is and get the players to try put it through the holes, accuracy is a skill used in hockey correct?

Are you o.k with that as not being a gimmick and being used to decide the gold medal winner in hockey?

seriously man, holy ****

and there is plenty of sports that use multiple game series to decide champions so it is just as legitimate as a single game elimination, is it our problem you cannot handle losing so much that you have to legislate single game elimination as law? talk about cowardly, if you are the best team you can win one game or a series, you too scared for that? too bad!! get better is all I can advise.

You keep topping yourself each post, it's breathtaking.

 

[Lepardi]

Because there is a chance they have a bad game and lose, they could be the superior team but because of one bad day they are done.

The semi-finals in this World Cup were best-of-one. Do you think that should maybe be altered to a best-of-5, and the final to a best-of-7, if they have this tournament in 2020 again?

 

[Confucius]

The semi-finals in this World Cup were best-of-one. Do you think that should maybe be altered to a best-of-5, and the final to a best-of-7, if they have this tournament in 2020 again?

It's fine. The way it is. You want a tournament winner the present way is the most efficient. I understand now. Thankyou

 

[Lepardi]

so deciding a basketball game on free throws is not a gimmick? you really believe that? because there is no difference in that then a shootout to decide a game in hockey.

There is a major difference. In basketball they score well over 100 points per game. In ice hockey they score about 5 goals per game. That's why you can schedule multiple playoff games in the same arena in Olympic basketball. All the quarter-finals in the men's tournament in Rio 2016 were played in the same arena on the same day.

You can't schedule multiple playoff games in the same arena in Olympic ice hockey without shootouts. Or WC ice hockey. Or WJC ice hockey. I'd still like to hear what you think of the WJC. You probably don't value it too much, it being a gimmick tournament with shootouts? And I'd like you to explain to me why so many Canadians eagerly follow a gimmick tournament like the WJC, when you tell us Canadians have such a superior understanding of hockey culture compared to us Europeans?

 

[randomhockeyfan]

Do you believe Canada would have won in a best of 3 series in 2006?

Maybe, maybe not, who knows? Although Finland would've been a good competitor as well. Sweden ended up winning that day and the loss, the tears of Teppo Numminen, Koivu's broken stick still hurt but that's the beauty of international tournaments. I guess we'll just agree to diasgree here.

 

[Lepardi]

It's fine. The way it is. You want a tournament winner the present way is the most efficient. I understand now. Thankyou

You didn't answer my question. Are you really OK with a best-of-1 semi-final in the World Cup of hockey? If the answer is yes, how can that be, when luck can play such a big role in a single game?

I personally wouldn't mind watching best-of-7 playoffs in international tournaments. However I do think that the employers of the players taking part might find a bit too time-consuming.

 

[jj cale]

There is a major difference. In basketball they score well over 100 points per game. In ice hockey they score about 5 goals per game. That's why you can schedule multiple playoff games in the same arena in Olympic basketball. You can't schedule multiple playoff games in the same arena in Olympic ice hockey. Or WC ice hockey. Or WJC ice hockey. I'd still like to hear what you think of the WJC. You probably don't value it too much, it being a gimmick tournament with shootouts? And I'd like you to explain to me why so many Canadians eagerly follow a gimmick tournament like the WJC, when you tell us Canadians have such a superior understanding of hockey culture compared to us Europeans?

I have already said in a thread that I understand the reason for single game elimination in hockey in the olympics and that I am fine with that.

I understand the time constraints.

However, that still does not mean it cannot be a series at other tournaments, even the WHC has had a best of 3 before. There should be no issue with it if the organizers want to do it and are able to do it.

To say it must never be done because it would favor the on paper strongest team is asinine. That just reeks of being a sore loser.

 

[jj cale]

Maybe, maybe not, who knows? Although Finland would've been a good competitor as well. Sweden ended up winning that day and the loss, the tears of Teppo Numminen, Koivu's broken stick still hurt but that's the beauty of international tournaments. I guess we'll just agree to diasgree here.

Well since they played like **** that tournament and ended up 6th or 8th or something like that it is highly doubtful.

So if Canada sucks are best of threes fine then? I bet you it would be with these fans.

their argument against series to decide a tournament winner is pathetic and anyone being honest will admit that.