Last 9 years - FIN, CAN, USA - 3 golds each
- Thread starter VVP
- Start date
razor ray
Registered User
- May 8, 2011
- 1,600
- 1,745
Lots of quality talent and coaching in all 3 countries.
4 Golds, 1 Silver, and 3 Bronzes for USA in last 11 is no fluke. They definitely have a seat at the table.
Peiskos
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2018
- 3,670
- 3,621
While an interesting little stat it’s important to remember that history has already proven that World Junior success doesn’t mean success at the men’s level.
The medal table at the men’s level clearly shows this. Nothing ended up coming of the US’s world junior victories in 2004, 2010 or 2013 for example. There was no carry over effect at the men’s level. None of those Us junior teams produced graduates to a men’s level gold winning team.
The US is still waiting for it’s first gold at the men’s level since 1996 for example.
USA doesn't care much about the WHC.
Of course, the Olympics are huge and it's a shame the last one was not NHL players..
Peiskos
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2018
- 3,670
- 3,621
Imo I think the “doesn’t care about the WHC” is a lazy excuse, the WHC is a great test of depth and it’s still a tough tournament to win, it’s a great accomplishment to win it given it happens during the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Winning it is a testament to a nations depth at the men’s level.
Sensinitis
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2012
- 15,953
- 5,544
When the best players turn it down because they'd rather rest and golf, yes don't care is real.
Best on best is what people care about. Olympics used to be the only best on best there is. U20 is the next closest, but teams lose the top guys. U18 is a mess because Canada is never full strength. WHC is a mess because it's impacted by playoffs and players opting to not even go.
In all honesty Finland's success should be studied. They brought enough hustle to match Canada's obvious depth and that is what gave them this success. And yes, it doesn't fully translate into success at men's level but it shows that when 19 year olds play you can beat talent with workrate. I for myself figured out now the reason why so many players who play great at WJC's never make the NHL, it is because amazingly enough playing against the best U20 players you can compensate lack of talent with hustle and that allows some players to be competitive. For some reason it only works until certain age.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Peiskos
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2018
- 3,670
- 3,621
SotasicA
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2014
- 8,489
- 6,405
International hockey at men's level is a joke.
"Nothing ended up coming of the US’s world junior victories in 2004, 2010 or 2013 for example."
A boat load of NHL talent ended up coming out of that. I'd call that success.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
I don't really think depth is the point of sport.
"We're the best because we have the most best players who aren't playing in the NHL playoffs or are injured or decided not to come because they have families or they're too old or they had a long playoff the year before or they've already attended before and feel like they've done their duty already."
I enjoy the line combinations and seeing guys from different teams play together.
I don't really watch it for any kind of chest-thumping exercise.
Peiskos
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2018
- 3,670
- 3,621
I'm just saying that the entire point of playing the games is to win, they make medal charts for a reason lol.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Well, the IIHF makes that sweet sweet coin out of it.
It's basically like the Spengler Cup only more prestigious.
Every year is a crap shoot as to who is going to be there based on the results of a completely different league still operating.
With the NHL becoming more international over time, it actually hinders parity at the WHC because losing even one or two of a small hockey nation's top players due to their NHL team winning a round or two can be massive.
Peiskos
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2018
- 3,670
- 3,621
But that's what makes the WHC so interesting, it levels the playing field at the mens level and gives more teams opportunities to win gold.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
It doesn't level the playing field completely.
Any time you impose a restriction on a team's pool of players, it affects the smaller countries more acutely.
The fact that the NHL is still operating can have a huge impact on some of the smaller nations that have few truly elite talents. Subtract Crosby, MacKinnon and McDavid from Canada and then subtract Draisaitl, Stuetzle and Seider from Germany and the impacts are not the same.
We still have plenty of guys to put in there.
Switzerland is much more competitive at the men's level than at the WJC because they have access to 15 years worth of players and can put together a decent team. The same goes for Belarus or Latvia or whoever.
But the Olympics are really the most fair.
There is actually somewhat of a diminishing return associated with the large hockey nations at best on best because we can only submit one team.
Canada has had some very close calls and even lost at the Olympics against these "lesser" hockey nations despite having access to our entire roster for that very reason.
The only international tournament that matters in my opinion in terms of some form of legitimate assessment is the Olympics and to a lesser extent the World Cup (when it isn't a Mickey Mouse tournament).
The only reason Canadians started to go more frequently to the WHC was that Hockey Canada made it very clear that attendance when available would be a factor in selecting players for the Olympic team.
I suspect the US doesn't have a similar policy.
Last edited:
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Yes, two of their well-deserved championships were earned fairly via shootout through the existing legal framework of the tournament at that time.
BTP
Registered User
- Apr 28, 2013
- 4,443
- 5,827
