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

[sandysan]

Not really a matter of opinions when at least one team was seriously harmed because it was denied to ice it's best players.

i presume you mean the states, had team young guns been just the underage canadians ( because there was one canadian young gunner who might have make team canada, McDavid) then we would have had canada A and canada B which would have set the rage o meters off everywhere else.

and from the executive decisions made by team usa, not having a bunch of green talent wasn't their biggest problem. they came out flat and the coach made some really questionable decisions and then they just went through the motions.

I'm not sure exposing the american young talent to that environment does wonders for their development.

 

[Gary Nylund]

There's just not enough good countries. There's also not enough passion in the rivalries with the discipline of the game now.

The only thing I'd like to see in a next world cup is Canada vs World in a 7 game series. Every country other than Canada vs. Canada. I still like their chances to win too.

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.

 

[JackSlater]

Not really a matter of opinions when at least one team was seriously harmed because it was denied to ice it's best players.

Of course you are correct, but some lack the ability to grasp that "best" does not mean "good". If teams could not select their best, as was the case for at least four of the teams in that tournament, then it was obviously not best on best. That someone tried to count the 1992 and 1994 Olympic tournaments as best on best is far funnier than people who struggle with English trying to justify the 2016 World Cup as a best on best.

 

[Jablkon]

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.

More precisely no one has been doing anything with it yet, even if they should long ago. Question is whether int hockey should rely upon old concept, i.e. separate development, or these hockey schools should start cooperate more and open itselfs to others. That must be definetely case of european countries. I dont see issue of Canada being too dominant for now, issue for me are other countries stagnating or in decline. 70s and 80s were golden because that teams were driven by will to win. Czechs wanted to beat Soviets, soviets wanted to beat Canada, vise versa. When ones trained hard, second ones did the same. Thats not the case anymore, except Canada and US maybe. The others like Sweden look they reach their peak and they are in peace with it. Russians and czechs obviously havent decided yet whether they want to be competitor again or not. Could it happen in CCCP or CSSR systems that they wouldnt produce top Ds in 10 years? Never. Until they dont analyze and refocuse their targets as Canada did in 98, nothing will change much. Russians will still be around but Czechs could follow slovaks path and you will loose another team. The worst thing for both is constant reminiscence of red machine and Nagano...neither is valid for them anymore

 

[Xokkeu]

ebb and flow ? When's the next tide ? How long is the window of canadian supremacy open before people simply say " based on depth canada is going to win tournament x and all such best on best tournaments for the forseeable future" ?

Yes, tis true that other countries can, do and will continue to produce top end talent. But canada doesnt win because we have top end talent, its because we can ice 4 forward lines with top end talent and I don't see many countries suddenly developing that depth of talent any time soon. even with the best case scenarios of players on other countries developing into players who take these high talent positions, there are still a lot of roster spots that they have to fill ( for example alexi emelin).

look at the women's game, I seriously think its growth has been hampered by the fact that tournaments are no longer to see who comes out on top, but whether the us or canada comes out on top and everyone else is an after thought.

there's no doubt Canada is on a hot streak right now, and we can get beat in a single elimination game but I don't see us being anything but the prohibitive favorites for quite a while. if its a long while im not sure that's great for the game.

The NHL tried to address this depth disparity by pooling countries which was universally panned by many as a gimmick. maybe it was, but if their said intention was to make this tournament the most competitive, gimmick or not, they accomplished this goal.

Women's hockey isn't hurt by USA Canada dominance. It's just that cultural issues and financial investment is vastly different in other countries. Hockey isn't considered approriate for girls in a lot of places that it's popular and in places it is the financial investment isn't even close to what the Americans and Canadians make for women's hockey.

 

[Big Phil]

Alright, we won and all, and I'm happy but how in the world can I as a Canadian be bored watching the Canada vs. Europe final? That was not exciting hockey. It was dry. It was emotionless. It made me long for 1996 when there was passion despite us losing! Now, THAT was hockey. This? It was mere pond hockey. No intensity at all. There was a bit with Canada vs. Russia and I suppose you could say Marchand's goal finished off a thrilling last couple of minutes, but that's it. Prior to that it was like watching paint dry.

 

[garbageteam]

I'd rather watch Russia cling onto their lives and try to squeak out a win in a 5-3 loss against Canada, than have Canada try to narrow beat a made up superstar team of every non-Canadian elite hockey player in OT.

People aren't clamoring en masse for the end of International Basketball and USA's Basketball team is far more dominant vis-a-vis its peers than Canada's hockey team

 

[sandysan]

Women's hockey isn't hurt by USA Canada dominance. It's just that cultural issues and financial investment is vastly different in other countries. Hockey isn't considered approriate for girls in a lot of places that it's popular and in places it is the financial investment isn't even close to what the Americans and Canadians make for women's hockey.

so being literal cannon fodder for one or both of those teams is great for the embryonic development ?

After sochi, there were rumblings that if parity didnt exceed n=2 that women's hockey might get dropped because no one wants to see the rest of the world act like a WWE jobber.

so if it IS investment, when do you think this trend reverses itself ? ever ?

 

[Confucius]

Team Canada was missing Jamie Benn, Tyler Seguin, Duncan Keith etc.

You got a point we could have been better.

Probably never been a best on best! Especially in wjrs. Canada always missing 4 or 5 because they are playing in the NHL.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Yes good talent.
Salt Lake was bigger than NHL ice. So it was big.

Great argument. Counter: Salt Lake was smaller than Euro ice. So it was small.

 

[gwh]

Google works fine. 16 straight and counting.

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

 

[Lepardi]

In fact it would have been even more boring as for many people, team NA was the only team that was interesting to watch.

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?

 

[Lepardi]

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

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.

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".

 

[Xokkeu]

Probably never been a best on best! Especially in wjrs. Canada always missing 4 or 5 because they are playing in the NHL.

Well there's been at least two during NHL lockouts, so those were open.

 

[Xokkeu]

so being literal cannon fodder for one or both of those teams is great for the embryonic development ?

After sochi, there were rumblings that if parity didnt exceed n=2 that women's hockey might get dropped because no one wants to see the rest of the world act like a WWE jobber.

so if it IS investment, when do you think this trend reverses itself ? ever ?

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.

 

[Xokkeu]

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.

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".

Finland had a bad showing this year, but they are easily capable beating Canada just as well as Russia, the US or Sweden.

 

[jj cale]

Don't lie...

It is ALL other team sports, --->INCLUDING<---hockey (all caps, underscored, bolded, arrows pointing at the keyword: can't fail to notice it now, no excuses). Have you ever seen any international hockey tournament outside of the crap organized by the NHL, being decided by multiple games between two teams? Answer this one.

Oh and if pretty much the entire planet does international competitions with 1 game finals in pretty much every major sport (INCLUDING hockey), the logic here is that the weird ones are the NHL with this formula (best of 3), NOT the rest of the world who follow the other formula (1 game final). Assimilate this logic, if you can.

I dont care whether it is all, it does not mean that every sport has to be that way.

There is no law sent from God that says everyone has to do things the same way.You could do it the same way, but you don't have to do it the same way.

Assimilate the logic, which I already know you are not capable of.

pm me some time..............We can carry on this discussion in much more depth and freedom then can be done here.

 

[Lepardi]

People aren't clamoring en masse for the end of International Basketball and USA's Basketball team is far more dominant vis-a-vis its peers than Canada's hockey team

Exactly. For countries like Serbia, Spain, Argentina and France even the silver medal in the Olympics or the World Cup is a great achievement in basketball. It's certainly greater than beating USA as a part of a gimmick all-star team would be.

 

[jj cale]

This was borderline psychedelic...

You would know what psychedelic is that's for sure.

 

[Confucius]

Finland had a bad showing this year, but they are easily capable beating Canada just as well as Russia, the US or Sweden.

In one game the last place Leafs beat the Stanley cup Champion Penguins. So no big deal losing or winning one game.

 

[jj cale]

Canada "loaded the dice" with a best of 3 finals. Are they greasy?

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!!


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

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

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.

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.

 

[Lepardi]

Finland had a bad showing this year, but they are easily capable beating Canada just as well as Russia, the US or Sweden.

No. At the moment Finland is the underdog against Russia, USA and Sweden, because they've all got so much more talent. This also means that Finland is a bigger underdog against Canada than those three are. No single Finnish defenseman would be even close to making Team Sweden. When that's the case, you can't rank Sweden and Finland as equals. In a single game they can both beat Canada, but Sweden's probabilities of beating Canada are higher. The betting market will tell you this too.

 

[Xokkeu]

In one game the last place Leafs beat the Stanley cup Champion Penguins. So no big deal losing or winning one game.

Don't know what your point is, but I suspect I don't care

 

[Xokkeu]

No. At the moment Finland is the underdog against Russia, USA and Sweden, because they've all got so much more talent. This also means that Finland is a bigger underdog against Canada than those three are. No single Finnish defenseman would be even close to making Team Sweden. When that's the case, you can't rank Sweden as Finland as equals. In a single game they can both beat Canada, but Sweden's probabilities of beating Canada are higher. The betting market will tell you this too.

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.

 

[Lepardi]

So no big deal losing or winning one game.

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.