So there is really nothing besides conjecture to indicate that big ice will be a hindrance.
- Status
So there is really nothing besides conjecture to indicate that big ice will be a hindrance.
It's not like Canada was terrible in those recent tournaments (except in 2010, they were really bad that year). In 2011 they won their pool but instead of getting an easy quarterfinal they had to play Russia because of an unlikely combination of results in the other group, in 2012 they topped their pool again and lost to Slovakia on a late goal, and in 2013 they lost twice in a shootout against the two finalists. A poor run by Canada's standard, but they still won 18 out of 23 games between 2011 and 2013.
No one reasonable should think that Canada is not one of the favorite of any tournament they enter, and no one should be surprised if they win. But no one will "dominate" the Olympics, there are too many good teams.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaa
Registered User
- May 16, 2009
- 12,252
- 1,586
I think the whole big ice concern is more a media creation and a case of wishful thinking by European teams than it is a real concern for Team Canada or Team USA for that matter. Sure they have to adjust, but the game is still about who can score the most goals into a hockey net, no matter what it is played on. Speed, skill and who can come together quickest as a team will determine the outcome, not the moderate increase in the size of the surface.
Canuck21t
Registered User
If Russia can take an unproven 18-year old to the Olympics among the best in the world, we sure can bring one at the WHC.
Sentinel
Registered User
Team Canada potential problems:
- Team chemistry. They had it in 2002 and 2010, didn't in 2006.
- Goalies. Other teams have better goalies.
- Cockiness.
I don't think big ice and being away from NA will have a huge effect: after all, they played great in Nagano.
- Team chemistry. They had it in 2002 and 2010, didn't in 2006.
- Goalies. Other teams have better goalies.
- Cockiness.
I don't think big ice and being away from NA will have a huge effect: after all, they played great in Nagano.
1Gold Standard
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2012
- 7,986
- 317
Sure, nothing young with bringing 1 or 2. That's what I meant by limit. I didn't mean exclude. I'm hoping Mackinnon this year goes. but if you take a look at a lot of the rosters over the past several years, as many as 7 players ranging in ages from 18-21 is too many young and inexperienced players on a WHC roster.
1Gold Standard
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2012
- 7,986
- 317
This is funny. All uber talented high performance elite athletes are uber confident and yes even cocky. What did Ovechkin say to a Russian reporter today? Team Russia's main opponent will be ourselves. (Sounds a little cocky to me.)
I don't think you would call us that unless you thought we had the best players.
Canuck21t
Registered User
I see what you mean. Yeah, Hockey Canada seems to use the WHC more as as testing ground rather than a tournament to win at all cost, hence the rather young rosters.
1Gold Standard
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2012
- 7,986
- 317
Have you ever played on a team where 1 or more of the players were there for something other than hockey reasons? It's a team chemistry killer... so HC invites a 7 year NHL vet to the WHC and on this team there are a whole bunch of youngsters barely out of junior and I'm suppose to put body and limb on the line to try and win a championship? I'm sorry, if Hockey Canada's main motivation is the next Olympics, then that will be the players' main motivation as well..get me in and get me out. Until HC changes its M.O. for the WHC...then we'll continue to see the same results at the WHC.
If something, it's an advantage that many our players have already played on big ice, and not only at WHC.
Last edited:
hitmen19
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2013
- 823
- 1
same old excuse? Canada has won 2 of the last 3 gold medals, who is making excuses???
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
They played Sweden in their final group game. Winner got Russia, loser got Germany. Trailing by a goal, Sweden got a power play with 5 minutes left. They then took 2 penalties & finished the game shorthanded. Mission accomplished.
hitmen19
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2013
- 823
- 1
Sweden throwing a game to get a favorable match up, ummmmm that's never happened.....
PWiz30
I love to hockey!
- Jan 3, 2013
- 2,610
- 2,780
How is that an excuse? It's the nature of international tournaments and will continue to be until they bring back the World Cup. Do you really think our guys were a better team than the Soviets in 1980? Or did they win because they happened to be better on that one day? It's not even close to being the same as the last game of a 7 game series.
I disagree. For instance, in Game 7 a "better-on-paper" team runs into a red-hot goalie and loses the trophy.
Even if they will bring back the World Cup, no national team is going to play best-of-seven finals with games in both countries. And by the way, in the Olympics/World Cup should they have a round-robin of 82 games before the quarterfinals?
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
They can't have been that much better on paper if they lost 3 other games.
Sure, you can have a goalie stand on his head for a whole series, but it definitely reduces the odds of bad luck impacting on the end result as a whole.
PWiz30
I love to hockey!
- Jan 3, 2013
- 2,610
- 2,780
If the team was that much better they wouldn't need a seventh game. And they might not have a 7 game series in the World Cup but they did have a best of three final which is an improvement.
hitmen19
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2013
- 823
- 1
I know what your referring to. A one game elimination is totally different to a 7 game series.
In the 7 games series, the underdog still has to win 3 games to get to game 7, and if they do, there more or less probably even in terms.
do you think Belarus beats Sweden 2 out of 5 more times to get to game 7 in salt lake city games, or the usa beats the soviet union in 1980 2 out of 5 more times to get to game 7? Possibly, but the odds would be 10X more for each to get to game 7 then they would be for them to win in a one game elimination
The point the original poster made is that in a one game elimination, a goalie can steal you a game and we see it all over hockey at all levels, but in a 7 game series, the better team 99.5% times usually wins. So its not an excuse, its reality.
ya but you have to win three games in the finals to get there. Surely you realize that the shorter the competition is the more random the outcome will be.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 33,401
- 23,792
1Gold Standard
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2012
- 7,986
- 317
Which is exactly my point. To conclude anything else re: ice size "who can and who can't play on it is" is a rather simple minded argument to make. I could get snarly and insult those who try to make that argument, but I've said all I'm going to say on the topic. At least for now.
- Status
