List some reasons why Canada will/will not dominate in Sochi?

[Namejs]

One would question your impartiality, or at least your credibility, when you fail to recognize that Canada is a separate country from the US.

Sorry, I have no idea what is that supposed to mean.

Some points have been brought up that I have not seen you acknowledge:

Since there have been only 2 NHL-era Olympics played outside of NA, it is a stretch to say with any conviction that Canada is not as good when they have to travel to play on big ice. It is just as easy to say that Canada's wins at the WHC's when played in Europe vs. no wins when it has been played in NA on NHL size ice is proof they are better on international big ice. The fact that on the World Junior level, Canada has just a strong a record on big ice as they do on NHL size ice should throw cold water on your theory.

First of all, the World Junior level has absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics. 0 players from the WJC are going to play in the Olympic Games.

Second, what you might not realize is that at the junior level the importance of the depth of your talent pool is INCOMPARABLE to the professional level. At the junior level the teams are able to field only players born in a specific time frame. The smaller your country is and the fewer hockey players you have, the harder it is to be competitive at the junior level. And because of that Canada and USA have a distinct advantage at the junior level. So making any conclusions from the junior level and attributing it to the senior level is simply wrong and makes no sense.

As for WHC, Canada has won the gold medal 5 times during the last 20 years on international ice (why 20 years - that's when the modern era of international hockey started with the break-up of the Soviet Union/Czechoslovakia/etc.). So that's 1 in 4 times on average.

I would argue that Canada have even slightly better chances than 1 in 4 in Sochi simply because of the quality of their lineup. Yet in no way does that mean that they're the clear favorites and that they're most likely going to win gold, which is my main point here.

All of the contenders will have a significant number of players travelling from NA to Sochi and dealing with jet lag.

Almost half of the Russians are based in Europe and the same applies to the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Switzerland, Finland AND all of the 2nd-tier countries, which will also have training camps a week/couple of weeks before Sochi, which also increases their chances of winning/stealing points in the early rounds.

Jet lag is not a major factor, it's just one of the many factors not favoring NHL-based teams.

 

[Stats01]

Why do I get this bad feeling that the refs are going to play a huge part in this tournament? I really hate IIHF reffing, the standards are so low and instead of letting teams play, they call every ****ing thing by the book and they get baited into calling penalties on dives and **** like that..This isn't ****ing soccer, this game is played physically and I really have a feeling Canada is going to get exposed hard for the way they play and it will be unfortunate. Seems every damn time we go to Europe the ref police show up.

 

[Stats01]

An extra few feet of ice makes a world of difference. Canada's finishes on Olympic ice prove this.

It's why Olympic GMs build teams differently for big and small ice.....you think Jay Bouwmeester makes Team Canada for a small ice tourney? Yea, right.

Canada's finishes on non-Olympic ice have little relevance to this discussion.

Canada won gold on hybrid ice which was pretty close to the current figuration of International ice in 2002. I think Canada winning 2 of the past 3 Olympic tournaments is relevant to this discussion because well..they've WON 2 of the past 3 tournaments. You may not think that past performances matter but IMO they do. It adds up to something and for me what it adds up to is that Canada has to be looked upon as the favourite.

The ice in SLC was 200 by 95, the current figuration of international ice is 200 by 100..you're telling me a difference of 5 damn feet changes your opinion on whether Canada is a favourite or not?

 

[daver]

Sorry, I have no idea what is that supposed to mean.

The US, where Canada won gold, is as international to Canada as Japan, Italy and Russia are.

 

[Namejs]

Why do I get this bad feeling that the refs are going to play a huge part in this tournament? I really hate IIHF reffing, the standards are so low and instead of letting teams play, they call every ****ing thing by the book and they get baited into calling penalties on dives and **** like that..This isn't ****ing soccer, this game is played physically and I really have a feeling Canada is going to get exposed hard for the way they play and it will be unfortunate. Seems every damn time we go to Europe the ref police show up.

Some or most of that is due to differences between IIHF and NHL rules or simply different schools of hockey. The players themselves are to blame for not being able to adapt to international hockey.

You know what to expect, I know what to expect, why professional hockey players wouldn't know what to expect in Sochi in terms of reffing?

 

[Namejs]

The US, where Canada won gold, is as international to Canada as Japan, Italy and Russia are.

Still no idea what you're talking about.

 

[jekoh]

Still no idea what you're talking about.

He is under the illusion that "international" means "foreign" or "abroad".

Therefore he believes that since the USA is "abroad" to him, any ice that Canada played on in the USA is "international" disirregardless of its actual size.

I have no idea why many in NA believe that "international" means "foreign" but apparently many do.

 

[Stats01]

Because every time the Olympics have been on the big ice we've failed to even medal.

1998 (Big Ice)-Nothing
2002 (Small Ice)-Gold
2006 (Big Ice)-Nothing
2010 (Small Ice)-Gold

Plus we've gone way down hill in our goaltending talent pool. Sweden and USA have way better goaltending.

Wrong, 2002 was on big ice. (200X95) International ice is (200X100)..

 

[Tomas W]

Canada will have players that is all more or less dominant in the NHL. But they have had that in the past too, and I wouldnt say that they looked completely unbeatable even when they won.

Thankfully for the sport, the gap to at least the 2-5 fav teams isnt wider than that Canada CAN walk on a landmine if the effort or luck inst there for them.

Even Switzerland can create a chocker against Canada it seems.

 

[daver]

He is under the illusion that "international" means "foreign" or "abroad".

Therefore he believes that since the USA is "abroad" to him, any ice that Canada played on in the USA is "international" disirregardless of its actual size.

I have no idea why many in NA believe that "international" means "foreign" but apparently many do.

I thought he meant "not on home ice" as opposed to ice size. It has been established numerous times now that 2002 was closer to IIHF ice than it was to NHL ice. Saying Canada has only won on NHL ice is wrong.

 

[daver]

First of all, the World Junior level has absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics. 0 players from the WJC are going to play in the Olympic Games.

Second, what you might not realize is that at the junior level the importance of the depth of your talent pool is INCOMPARABLE to the professional level. At the junior level the teams are able to field only players born in a specific time frame. The smaller your country is and the fewer hockey players you have, the harder it is to be competitive at the junior level. And because of that Canada and USA have a distinct advantage at the junior level. So making any conclusions from the junior level and attributing it to the senior level is simply wrong and makes no sense.

As for WHC, Canada has won the gold medal 5 times during the last 20 years on international ice (why 20 years - that's when the modern era of international hockey started with the break-up of the Soviet Union/Czechoslovakia/etc.). So that's 1 in 4 times on average.

I would argue that Canada have even slightly better chances than 1 in 4 in Sochi simply because of the quality of their lineup. Yet in no way does that mean that they're the clear favorites and that they're most likely going to win gold, which is my main point here.

The juniors are relevant as you would think they would be less successful on big ice, which is not the case.

You missed my point about the WHC's, best to leave them out of the discussion.

Focusing only on the Olympic games, Canada is 1 for 3 on bigger ice and 2006 was the only one where they really struggled. I haven't heard anything that suggests big ice was the reason they sucked. They simply sucked.

There is really no other evidence to draw a connection between ice size and Canada's effectiveness on said ice size.

 

[xxxx]

2002 was on big ice.

An NHL rink = 200x85
Salt Lake City = 200x95
An international ice = 200x100 (the picture below even says 200x98.4, but it's rather 200x100 probably)
Everyone who thinks that the 2002 olympics were played on small ice is wrong.

(wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_rink)

The size of the rink in Sochi will be 60 metres by 30 metres, and that's exactly 196.85 x 98.43 (because 200 is actually 61 metres, not 60, and 100 is actually 30.5 metres, not exactly 30. So the exact numbers are 196.85 x 98.43 in our metric system.

http://arenaguide.iihf.com/en/news/index.php?nid=7

ZURICH – The IIHF Council – the federation’s 13-member executive body – has confirmed that the ice hockey tournaments (men’s and women’s) at the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia 2014 will be played on international-sized rinks measuring 60 metres by 30 metres, as opposed to the North American (60 x 26).

 

[Namejs]

The juniors are relevant as you would think they would be less successful on big ice, which is not the case.

Latvia would be the absolute underdogs vs. Canada whether the game would be played on big ice, small ice, medium ice or whatever other ice.

Similarly, the juniors are not relevant, because the difference in quality between different teams is huge and is not comparable to the Olympic Games, where we're going to see several teams stacked with elite talent.

The higher the quality of the competition, the smaller the difference between the teams. The smaller the difference between teams, the bigger role other factors have on the outcome of the games.

In the last 6 major mens tournaments there were a total of 40 games played between the North American teams (CAN, USA) and the major Euro teams (SWE, RUS, CZE, FIN, SVK, SUI).

On the small ice the European teams had a record of 2W-19L-0T against the NA teams.
On the large ice the European teams had a record of 12W-5L-2T against the NA teams.

 

[Stats01]

Latvia would be the absolute underdogs vs. Canada whether the game would be played on big ice, small ice, medium ice or whatever other ice.

Similarly, the juniors are not relevant, because the difference in quality between different teams is huge and is not comparable to the Olympic Games, where we're going to see several teams stacked with elite talent.

The higher the quality of the competition, the smaller the difference between the teams. The smaller the difference between teams, the bigger role other factors have on the outcome of the games.

So any type of evidence that goes against your argument you're just going to throw out? So the WJHC are out, the 2002 gold we won is not valid, what's next? Please continue ohh wise one of the international ice. Tell us more about these terrible and great disadvantages Canada has.

Let me tell you why we lost every other time on International ice...ready for it? Because we sucked! the 2006 Olympics were an embarrassment, it had nothing to do with the big ice it had everything to do with picking a terrible old team. ****ing Eric Brewer was on that team for crying out loud!

 

[Namejs]

So any type of evidence that goes against your argument you're just going to throw out? So the WJHC are out, the 2002 gold we won is not valid, what's next? Please continue ohh wise one of the international ice. Tell us more about these terrible and great disadvantages Canada has.

I haven't encountered any evidence that goes against the very simple fact that North American teams are at a disadvantage when playing on international ice, which is confirmed by every single statistic available.

 

[Indian]

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/...rc]=1&tx_ttnews[backPid]=187&cHash=34358868c3

 

[1Gold Standard]

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/...rc]=1&tx_ttnews[backPid]=187&cHash=34358868c3

Exactly what I've been saying for years and proof positive that the other guy arguing the opposite opinion just refuses to accept facts.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Similarly, the juniors are not relevant, because the difference in quality between different teams is huge and is not comparable to the Olympic Games, where we're going to see several teams stacked with elite talent.

I don't quite understand the point. The Euro teams at the WJC are represented by the best U-20 talent in each nation.

 

[Barney Gumble]

Why do I get this bad feeling that the refs are going to play a huge part in this tournament? I really hate IIHF reffing, the standards are so low and instead of letting teams play, they call every ****ing thing by the book and they get baited into calling penalties on dives and **** like that..This isn't ****ing soccer, this game is played physically and I really have a feeling Canada is going to get exposed hard for the way they play and it will be unfortunate. Seems every damn time we go to Europe the ref police show up.

Some or most of that is due to differences between IIHF and NHL rules or simply different schools of hockey. The players themselves are to blame for not being able to adapt to international hockey.

You know what to expect, I know what to expect, why professional hockey players wouldn't know what to expect in Sochi in terms of reffing?

Considering the state of officiating in the NHL (it sucks) - I'm not so sure that's necessarily a bad thing.

 

[damicius]

I don't quite understand the point. The Euro teams at the WJC are represented by the best U-20 talent in each nation.

still not relevant for the senior hockey. Junior hockey is just one or two years, so the smaller coutries like Czechs,Slovakia,Finland,(despite their current title) and even Sweden (in a long-term) cant long-term compete with Canada with more inhabitans than all these four countries together. but in senior hockey it doesnt matter that canada can build four more competetive teams.

 

[damicius]

Why do I get this bad feeling that the refs are going to play a huge part in this tournament? I really hate IIHF reffing, the standards are so low and instead of letting teams play, they call every ****ing thing by the book and they get baited into calling penalties on dives and **** like that..This isn't ****ing soccer, this game is played physically and I really have a feeling Canada is going to get exposed hard for the way they play and it will be unfortunate. Seems every damn time we go to Europe the ref police show up.

numbers:
in Torino
Russia: 14,6 min penalty per game,
Canada: 14,6 min. penalty per game,
Switzerland 15,3 min. penalty per game,
Czech rep. 12,1 min. penalty per game,
USA 12,3 min. penalty per game,

and in the Russia:Canada QF it was 8:8

so i dont see something like Canada PK all the time

 

[Namejs]

I don't quite understand the point. The Euro teams at the WJC are represented by the best U-20 talent in each nation.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the point, as you're from Canada. A country with 600+ thousand hockey players.

Every single junior player on your national team is drafted or is going to be one of the top picks in one of the next NHL drafts.

Every other team, apart from the US, which also has around half a million ice hockey players, has to compile a team with a 8, 10, 20, 50, 100 times smaller talent pool.

They have to include players who most likely won't become professional hockey players. If you would look at the smaller hockey countries, they have a bunch of younger players every single year. Why? Are they trying to give them more experience, so they could field a good team the next year? Is it a cunning strategy? Nope. They just can't find enough decent hockey players who were born that year.

In the senior national teams, the depth of your hockey programme is much less important, as you can compile a team from players aged, say, 18 to 43. So you can bring just 1 or even no hockey players born in one specific year.

 

[Namejs]

Exactly what I've been saying for years and proof positive that the other guy arguing the opposite opinion just refuses to accept facts.

Oh, the guy has a blog post on iihf.com, so he must be right. Right?

Let's just ignore the contents of that article and consider it evidence, because it's on iihf.com.

The author cherry-picked every instance of a European/Russian team winning a North American team on small ice and every instance of a North American team defeating a European/Russian team on big ice. Well done. Except it proves nothing.

It's nothing but intellectual manipulation and fact-bending.

What matters is the tendency and the overall statistics in the modern era of international hockey, as we're discussing the fact that European teams are more likely to defeat North American teams on big ice, not whether Europeans can beat North Americans on small ice (and vice-versa).

But, hey, let's ignore the statistics.

Let's ignore the fact that the Americans and the Canadians specifically shaped their Olympic roster, so their teams would have a better chance at competing with the Europeans on big ice. Let's ignore what the GMs and the coaches have said about the Europeans being at an advantage. They obviously don't know what they're talking about.

The ice size actually plays no role. The players don't have to change the way they play at all. The angles aren't different, you don't have to skate more, your positioning is no different than in the NHL. Initially, you don't have to think about your game every single second you're on ice. There are no differences whatsoever.

 

[Ewan McGregor*]

1. goaltending

 

[bert]

If Canada loses the gold because they didn't take MSL, they did not deserve it anyway.

However picking the wrong leadership group can very well be the reason. Leaving a top 5 player in the world for no real apparent reason doesn't help either....

Last time they picked the team all the picks made sense on some level even Heatley. This time there are real head scratchers. Just seeing Crosby named captain makes me think that he had a whole heck of a lot to do with this team. Everyone knows that Toews was the correct choice. I am still going to cheer but if they lose I wont be upset or anything close to surprised.

I love Subban but they don't need a game breaker, seems like some questionable personalities on this team. Dan Boyle is solid knows how to win and will just fit into the team. Guys like Nash and Carter asking for trades, Subban yelling at teammates in the playoffs taking bad penalties. There is just too much going on for my liking.