"Magic dozen danes"? What it has to do with anything? There are other leagues in Europe, you know, DEL, NL, Liiga, plenty of danes there aswell, def more than Kazakhs
GDT: KAZ vs. POL May 20, 2024
- Thread starter Summer Rose
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 33,106
- 23,292
Yes, but in future the countries will likely be on par. Kazakhstan has beaten Denmark three straight years at U20 level for instance. You ignored it for years with Belarus and now have egg on your face based on recent draft results, and it will likely be somewhat similar with Kazakhstan, maybe not necessarily as many draft picks but relative success wise.
"Ignored for years" why the need to make stuff up?
Draft picks numbers is not equal to the strength of the national team, it is an indirect evidence at best, especially when dealing with low numbers.
The U20 results show that Kazakhstan has better junior teams. I would actually agree with this. But what happens to them after that is not written in stone.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 33,106
- 23,292
So 15 players from Belarus get drafted last 5 years, compared to 5 players being drafted in the 12 years prior? It just means nothing and is not indicative of anything?
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 33,106
- 23,292
Agreed, the senior results take a long time to catch up because old guys can hang around senior teams and play well forever, but improvement is starting to show a bit at the senior level as I've explained. They have not been relegated four straight tournaments. Last couple they finished 6th in their group which means you can't use the "no Russia/Belarus" because that would only push them down a spot per group and still no relegation.
2023 Denmark was 5th in their group, Kazakhstan 6th in other group
2024 Both Denmark and Kazakhstan 6th in their group
Last edited:
as a Kazakh I don't like such comments, but at certain point myself wished my team to lose and get relegated...hoping that this would trigger some investigation on Barys and Kazakh federation corruptions consistently over the years....however I have a doubt it would happen either way....
Last edited:
No Russia/Belarus, means Kz becomes an elevator again, right now there have been 2 teams which are obviously weaker than Kz, Poland and GB. Next year will be more tough, only Hungary looks def weaker.
This year Kz has beaten France, but next year it can be other way, France is a team.os same class onnpaper and has slightly better top guys
Also, current team Kz is worse than team Kz 8-10 years ago. No one comparable to Dawes, Bochenski or Dallman. And its not like the rest of the team improved a lot, I mean, Starchenko got old, Rudenko, Upper, Zhailauov, Semenov, Yeremeyev, Antropov are all retired now
SoundAndFury
Registered User
- May 28, 2012
- 12,283
- 6,273
Well, they just played their very own relegation game. If we only evaluate WC results, like our friend here, they still are. Even more so considering the average age of their first line i this tournament.
this is arguable - might be these guys are top players but they have not contributed much on KZ international performance as non-Kazakh born players (not showing their best), e.g.it was Dallman's stupid mistake which led Kazakh team to lose to Latvia on a tight game or in 2021 with Boid and Dawes the Kazakh team lost to Poland on Olympic qualification game AT HOME in 2021!!!
Last edited:
I don't think this is a very meaningful discussion you guys are having.
About Belarus. The turning point for Belarus wasn't the KHL or Russia or VHL (lol). The turning point was a realization among the top hockey guys in the country that they have been sniffing Latvia's tail for 20 years. Even though they probably enjoyed it, instead of trying to do the same thing over and over again by building talent through Bobruysk Beavers and Dinamo Minsk, they started sending their leading prospects abroad at an earlier age.
The number of CHL players exploded, their exposure in North America increased massively, their efficiency as a programme increased. With exposure being the key element here, with it also trickling down to its KHL/domestic side.
They had 22 CHL draftees from 2000-2010.
That number increased to 11 in 2021 alone. A five-fold increase averaged out from 2011 to 2021.
This has also led to a major increase in NHL draftees.
Now, this is where things get interesting. I hate using the number of NHL draftees as a measuring stick. Famously, the number of draftees is a metric loved by the Slovakian hockey enthusiasts, because they have so many of them. If we want to measure things and compare countries with each other, that is a completely useless metric. The only valid metric is the showing of their prospects at the pro level.
Sharangovich is a great player. Kopitar is pretty good too. Probably better, actually. Now, is Slovenia even a top 16 country? Nope. So we can conclude that it takes more than one NHL player to elevate a team.
Is Sharangovich a game changer? I remember vividly the days of Kostitsyn and Grabovski. Heck, they even played together and we still had their number. So it's not a game changer and even more than that - they have already been there before they got stuck in the whole KHL quagmire in 2008. Which is a good point to remind you that Belarus was on a long, stagnating downswing and that it was a better team 20 years ago.
Belarus has to produce major pro (NHL, leading Euro, leading KHL) players on a regular basis and churn out elite players consistently to catch up with Latvia and overtake them.
They need to have a solid all-around team with major pro players at every position. Goalies, centermen, wingers, puck-moving Ds, PP qbs, shutdown forwards, etc. Are they there yet?
Well, you're not filling up that 3C slot with 18 CHL draftees or 5 NHL draftees, that 3C has to have a name.
After 2022, the number of Belarusian CHL draftees fell off a cliff. The number of Belarusian CHL players has decreased substantially. A number of the previous draftees are back in Bobruysk, some are mediocrities in the KHL, a handful are mediocrities in the AHL/ECHL, a handful are actually very good in the KHL and some might make it in the NHL.
Where does that leave us? On paper, Belarus was improving immensely and they turned the ship. The question is whether they are now going to get drafted out of Belarus and the KHL, can they maintain that exposure?
If we actually write down the names of the players (not prospects) and compare best-on-best rosters, Belarus is a light year away from being a top 8 country. It hasn't even caught up with Latvia, which is a clear cut #10 if russia is included.
If it continued developing talent abroad, I'm pretty sure it would have been just a question of time for them to catch up with Latvia, but now I'm not so sure. The '06-'08 group is excellent for Latvia.
So with Denmark on the downswing and Norway not improving, Belarus, Slovakia and Latvia would make up a trio of tier 2 challengers capable of an odd upset, but neither of these are top 8 countries.
As for Kazakhstan, it is completely obvious to anyone actually following hockey that they are making progress. And unless your main source of information about all things Kazakhstan is Borat, you have to be aware that the quality of life in Kazakhstan has improved immensely and that they're doing relatively good and probably a lot better than most people expect.
Since their starting point is much lower, they can make continuous, marginal gains at every position each year without using foreign imports. And that in and of itself is a great achievement.
Are they going to be challenging 1st tier countries? Not in the next 5 years, no. They have a long way to go, but they do have potential and they are most definitely trending upwards.
I'm not so sure about Belarus trending upwards in the long-term. The way I see it, they are likely going to peak in about 3-4 years unless things change politically. If they were open to the world, Belarus could be a leading hockey nation, but alas. A land of wasted potential.
About Belarus. The turning point for Belarus wasn't the KHL or Russia or VHL (lol). The turning point was a realization among the top hockey guys in the country that they have been sniffing Latvia's tail for 20 years. Even though they probably enjoyed it, instead of trying to do the same thing over and over again by building talent through Bobruysk Beavers and Dinamo Minsk, they started sending their leading prospects abroad at an earlier age.
The number of CHL players exploded, their exposure in North America increased massively, their efficiency as a programme increased. With exposure being the key element here, with it also trickling down to its KHL/domestic side.
They had 22 CHL draftees from 2000-2010.
That number increased to 11 in 2021 alone. A five-fold increase averaged out from 2011 to 2021.
This has also led to a major increase in NHL draftees.
Now, this is where things get interesting. I hate using the number of NHL draftees as a measuring stick. Famously, the number of draftees is a metric loved by the Slovakian hockey enthusiasts, because they have so many of them. If we want to measure things and compare countries with each other, that is a completely useless metric. The only valid metric is the showing of their prospects at the pro level.
Sharangovich is a great player. Kopitar is pretty good too. Probably better, actually. Now, is Slovenia even a top 16 country? Nope. So we can conclude that it takes more than one NHL player to elevate a team.
Is Sharangovich a game changer? I remember vividly the days of Kostitsyn and Grabovski. Heck, they even played together and we still had their number. So it's not a game changer and even more than that - they have already been there before they got stuck in the whole KHL quagmire in 2008. Which is a good point to remind you that Belarus was on a long, stagnating downswing and that it was a better team 20 years ago.
Belarus has to produce major pro (NHL, leading Euro, leading KHL) players on a regular basis and churn out elite players consistently to catch up with Latvia and overtake them.
They need to have a solid all-around team with major pro players at every position. Goalies, centermen, wingers, puck-moving Ds, PP qbs, shutdown forwards, etc. Are they there yet?
Well, you're not filling up that 3C slot with 18 CHL draftees or 5 NHL draftees, that 3C has to have a name.
After 2022, the number of Belarusian CHL draftees fell off a cliff. The number of Belarusian CHL players has decreased substantially. A number of the previous draftees are back in Bobruysk, some are mediocrities in the KHL, a handful are mediocrities in the AHL/ECHL, a handful are actually very good in the KHL and some might make it in the NHL.
Where does that leave us? On paper, Belarus was improving immensely and they turned the ship. The question is whether they are now going to get drafted out of Belarus and the KHL, can they maintain that exposure?
If we actually write down the names of the players (not prospects) and compare best-on-best rosters, Belarus is a light year away from being a top 8 country. It hasn't even caught up with Latvia, which is a clear cut #10 if russia is included.
If it continued developing talent abroad, I'm pretty sure it would have been just a question of time for them to catch up with Latvia, but now I'm not so sure. The '06-'08 group is excellent for Latvia.
So with Denmark on the downswing and Norway not improving, Belarus, Slovakia and Latvia would make up a trio of tier 2 challengers capable of an odd upset, but neither of these are top 8 countries.
As for Kazakhstan, it is completely obvious to anyone actually following hockey that they are making progress. And unless your main source of information about all things Kazakhstan is Borat, you have to be aware that the quality of life in Kazakhstan has improved immensely and that they're doing relatively good and probably a lot better than most people expect.
Since their starting point is much lower, they can make continuous, marginal gains at every position each year without using foreign imports. And that in and of itself is a great achievement.
Are they going to be challenging 1st tier countries? Not in the next 5 years, no. They have a long way to go, but they do have potential and they are most definitely trending upwards.
I'm not so sure about Belarus trending upwards in the long-term. The way I see it, they are likely going to peak in about 3-4 years unless things change politically. If they were open to the world, Belarus could be a leading hockey nation, but alas. A land of wasted potential.
I think NHL draftees is often a better indicator of success than junior world championships. But to be clear, the best indicator of senior level success is previous senior level success.
In any given year, the number of juniors that will actually feature prominently on a future senior national team is like 3-4. So to have a few good draftees every year is really beneficial, even if you don't have the depth for a team that eventually makes a run at the a playoff. There are also some skewing factors, like players who play on the same team will have better chemistry, but the individual players may not be as good.
Even though I'm happy with the way the tournament has gone so far, you can't ignore the change that not having Russia and Belarus has on the landscape of the IIHF World Championship.
I don't think Kazakhstan is really going anywhere. There are still the big 6. Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Czechia. Then there is a gap, after which, I think the most appropriate grouping is probably the next 4. Germany, Switzerland, Slovakia, and Latvia, in that order. Belarus on paper could maybe be in that group...we'll never know because there's a war going on. On paper they are level, and on paper they are a step above us. However, that hasn't always born out on the ice historically. Then there is another gap. Then Belarus, Denmark, Norway, and Austria, I would say in that order. Then another gap, then Kazakhstan, France, Hungary, and Slovenia.
If there is a real faller I think it would have to be France. They have one of the older teams in the tournament. They were very good in the last decade, but most of their best players are now getting up there. Especially on the blue line, they just don't have great solutions.
In any given year, the number of juniors that will actually feature prominently on a future senior national team is like 3-4. So to have a few good draftees every year is really beneficial, even if you don't have the depth for a team that eventually makes a run at the a playoff. There are also some skewing factors, like players who play on the same team will have better chemistry, but the individual players may not be as good.
Even though I'm happy with the way the tournament has gone so far, you can't ignore the change that not having Russia and Belarus has on the landscape of the IIHF World Championship.
I don't think Kazakhstan is really going anywhere. There are still the big 6. Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Czechia. Then there is a gap, after which, I think the most appropriate grouping is probably the next 4. Germany, Switzerland, Slovakia, and Latvia, in that order. Belarus on paper could maybe be in that group...we'll never know because there's a war going on. On paper they are level, and on paper they are a step above us. However, that hasn't always born out on the ice historically. Then there is another gap. Then Belarus, Denmark, Norway, and Austria, I would say in that order. Then another gap, then Kazakhstan, France, Hungary, and Slovenia.
If there is a real faller I think it would have to be France. They have one of the older teams in the tournament. They were very good in the last decade, but most of their best players are now getting up there. Especially on the blue line, they just don't have great solutions.
A 1st round pick is worth 60 7th round picks. It is a pointless excercise to count the number of draftees without applying a weighted score to their draft #, and even then it's just a measure of hope, which is imaginary and based on educated guesses. It's a theoretical excercise.
This is a weighed ranking of NHL draftees taking into account their draft ranking #, with a 210th pick being worth 1 point and a 1st pick being worth 1000 points, dated from 2019-2023.
Belarus: 251 points
Slovakia: 2455 points
Latvia: 66 points
Germany: 1980 points
Switzerland: 385 points
If you look up how many of the draftees historically actually make it to the NHL, Switzerland has been extremely successful, with almost 2/3 eventually playing an NHL game. Which would not be in any way reflected by the sheer number of NHL draftees even with the weighted scores. For some nations, that number is much lower. Which is a great indicator of the role of bias in draft selections.
Furthermore, this only measures top end talent. Most players on these teams aren't NHLers. Having a few elite forwards does not in any way imply the rest of the team is equally good.
Denmark is a prime example of that. They were a flash in the pan. I made the same point 10 years ago, no one seemed to agree, but they just got lucky with their prospects. You have to have an all-around programme that is capable of developing all types of players. Not just flashy wingers or really good goalies. Which isn't measured by the number of draftees in any way, shape or form.
And then there's this thing called chemistry, leadership, coaching and team play.
Latvia is like a well-oiled machine, they're going to war every game, they're willing to block pucks with their face.
Slovakia is filled with high-ego drama queens who are whining about their linemates on the bench.
Some teams have no confidence and are massive chokers. Some are unable to adapt their play to maximize their results. Some just don't have the kind of players needed to make the necessary adaptations.
If you're only churning out flashy, soft wingers, you're just going to lose every game at this level.
So evem having the players does not guarantee that you're going to get the results needed. It's about culture, coaching and a whole bunch of other things.
kudla
Registered User
ozo
Registered User
- Feb 24, 2010
- 4,521
- 570
CHL draft is a bad evaluation tool in general (too lazy to explain this again) but I'm here just to remind you that Belarussians were banned from being taken in the CHL draft due to geopolitics. Ban is being lifted this summer so we will see a bunch picks yet again.
I did not know that there was a formal ban, good to know.
Once again, I just explained that drafts aren't a great tool.
The number of CHL draftees is an indication of a different, North America-based avenue for player development taken by Belarus.
What that tells us is that they were finally brave enough to admit that they ain't developing NHLers domestically, which is the first step towards progress. If they continue doing that, they will improve.
ozo
Registered User
- Feb 24, 2010
- 4,521
- 570
No no, you are looking at the wrong place or rather a stage of a hockey player producing conveyer belt. Why CHL doesn't draft Turkish or Spanish kids? The answer is simple - they are not good enough, just like average 16 year old Belarussian was not good enough 20 years ago. Belarus improvements are entirely down to tenfolding youth player pool with the arena boom in Belarus started in 00's and subsequently building hockey schools, adding National development teams ala US style also helps, and as always I need to mention that KHL not labelling Belarussians as foreigners in their pyramid too so kids don't have to pick up Russian passports. Their domestic stuff already is good enough for Danila Klimovich to be drafted in NHL second round essentially from Belarus third tier at the moment.
nice categorization overall, however considering how Kazakhstan beat last year Norway I wouldn't say there is a big gap between Norway, Denmark and the Kazakhs though I might be wrong if Norway (Denmark) is on uptrend...
Last edited:
I have no idea what this means, but it sure sounds like political commentary, which is not something a Belarusian should be engaging in without getting laughed out of the room.
As for mediocrities, you have 34 players in the KHL scoring <0.25 PPG. It's an entire legion of bums. How is that even arguable? You have a literal 5 players scoring above 0.50 PPG in any of the 10 best hockey leagues in the world COMBINED.
Lol for what it's worth this had me rolling with laughter so touche haha.
Now that is something to keep an eye on. If they keep drafting domestically and it actually pays off and doesn't fizzle out, now that would be a game changer.
Danila Klimovich was drafted in the 2nd round and is a massive draft bust, so that might not be the best example to prove your point.
As for the CHL draft, I was just following SoundAndFury's logic there. I.e., if you play in a league for 1 or 2 years as a junior, it makes you a product of that system (Abols).
The bottom line is that it remains to be seen if Belarus can actually produce NHL talent (not NHL draftees or CHL draftees) domestically. If they can, they can eventually move up a tier.
Once again, I guess I'm missing the point here.
Latvia was in a very similar situation when Riga had a team in the KHL, leading to a 9-year-long streak of not making the play-offs in the Worlds. KHL and the entire concept of an artificial farm team breeds mediocrity. We have went over this multiple times over the years. Belarus is currently in a very similar situation Latvia was 10 years ago.
But the point being contested here is that Belarus is a top 8 hockey nation. Which is ludicrous. It's not Latvia (#10) I'm comparing Belarus to here.
A lot, if hockey is state subsidized. And thats something that happens a lot in, lets say, countries with "centralized power". 13 NHL draftees in last 5 years for Belarus probably have something to do with Lukashenko scoring 10 goals per hockey game on the news every week?
Denmark or Norway will never be as competitive at financing hockey as Belarus and Kazakhstan because of, you know, interchangeable power and lack of personal preferences in decision making. Lukashenko can allocate half the countries budget to hockey development, and nobody will say anything.
And Kazakhstan is no dirt-poor country, especially in absolute numbers. Astana looks like Dubai. And they surely have enough money to provide ice and coaches to kids who want to learn hockey.
kudla
Registered User
Denmark has literally 0 hockey culture. It's now a dead hockey country. The only thing that "keeps them alive", is as previously said, presence of some of their prospects in Sweden. So once in a while "they" develop a better prospect.
Im not that sure about hockey popularity in Kazakhstan, but something is telling me they could be better than Denmark in the future. It's similar comparison to that of Slovakia vs. Germany. Nobody cares about hockey in Germany, but of course, it is a much bigger and richer country that Slovakia. On the other hand, hockey in Slovakia, or Czechia for that matter is very popular and the tradition is much bigger.
SoundAndFury
Registered User
- May 28, 2012
- 12,283
- 6,273
Me and kabidjan actually had a similar discussion with roles somewhat reversed in the Danish hockey thread when people there were freaking out over them possibly not becoming the new hockey powerhouse. Allow me to quote some:
This was all true in 2020 and it is all true now. Kazakhstan developed top-level talent like Nabokov or Antropov in the past. They have hockey hotbeds, they have a competitive league, hockey is supported by the government, they have the numbers in terms of rinks and kids. Their U20 progressed from the D1B level when the division split happened to the occasional appearance in the elite. To me, it doesn't make sense to say they can't produce an NHL player once in 5-10 years and catch up with the countries that roughly do just that despite matching or even overtaking them in all aspects other than the recent top-end talent development record.
Yes, their program is not flawless but that applies to every country. Like Latvia has next to no professional hockey in the country (and subsequently hockey has no way to pay for itself, no professional opportunities or continuous youth programs) but how often do you see him mention that as a detriment? While Kazakhstan having a KHL team is a huge one. It's funny.
This was all true in 2020 and it is all true now. Kazakhstan developed top-level talent like Nabokov or Antropov in the past. They have hockey hotbeds, they have a competitive league, hockey is supported by the government, they have the numbers in terms of rinks and kids. Their U20 progressed from the D1B level when the division split happened to the occasional appearance in the elite. To me, it doesn't make sense to say they can't produce an NHL player once in 5-10 years and catch up with the countries that roughly do just that despite matching or even overtaking them in all aspects other than the recent top-end talent development record.
Yes, their program is not flawless but that applies to every country. Like Latvia has next to no professional hockey in the country (and subsequently hockey has no way to pay for itself, no professional opportunities or continuous youth programs) but how often do you see him mention that as a detriment? While Kazakhstan having a KHL team is a huge one. It's funny.
It's the longest he spent anywhere in his pre-pro career so if he isn't a product of that system, he is nobody's product. Also it's 2 years, not 1-2. So you either acknowledge MHL-KHL did a lot of good to many Latvian players, some of whom are leading the NT right now, or that nobody is nobody's product.
