Next country to have a couple of golden years?

[Xokkeu]

That doesn't explain where those percentages came from. How exactly can you know that Russia only gets perhaps 8% of the talented Russian kids, but other countries are magically getting 100%?

The percentages might be made up but the idea is right. Hockey is very specialized. Only certain cities have hockey schools for kids to play in and there is almost no such thing as Rec league hockey for kids to pick it up on their own. Large amounts of the population simply would never have access to hockey.


It's a bit like the US before sun belt expansion. The hurdles for a kid like Auston Mathews to get in hockey if he was born in the 1970s or even 80s would have simply been too high.

 

[kabidjan18]

The athletic demographic thing is a fallacy. People try to use it as an excuse for soccer but It's just as wrong.

Ummm...go look at the ESPN 300, or the RN BB ESPN 100. Most athletic freaks happen to come from one demographic, this is indisputable. Since there's an MLS thread around it's been on my mind, look at one of the Top US players and indisputably the best athlete in Deandre Yedlin. First off he does fall into that demographic despite having dual heritages. Second, people marveled forever at his speed compared to the players around him. He was hand timed at around 4.3 at Akron, but at the time he was 140 pounds, and he's grown slower since putting on weight. His athleticism in other sports would hardly qualify as freakish if at all. A football runningback will weigh between 190 and 220 pounds and still run a 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5 and Deandre Yedlin moves very poorly laterally while these guys turn on dimes. That's before we get to what we in football call the "athletes", the linebackers and 4/3 hybrid ends. If those players played other sports, the demographic makeup of the USMNT U17 or the USNDTP would be very different.

 

[Yakushev72]

That doesn't explain where those percentages came from. How exactly can you know that Russia only gets perhaps 8% of the talented Russian kids, but other countries are magically getting 100%?

My percentages are rough estimates based on the data published on the IIHF website, and are based on the premise that is never possible to skate on a rink that doesn't exist; and conversely, a skating rink that actually exists can be skated on. If you accept that premise, according to the IIHF, there are 2631 indoor rinks in Canada to serve 35 million people. Conversely, there are 450 rinks in Russia to serve 145 million Russian citizens (2015 estimate).

If you do the math, divide 13,302 (the number of Canadians served by each existing indoor rink, as published by the IIHF) by 322,222 the number of Russians served by each existing indoor rink, only 4.1% of Russian kids have access to rinks in comparison to 100% of Canadians. So 8% was actually inflating the number of rinks that Russian kids have access to a rink by double.

To illustrate the point, Acallabeth, who posts on this board, and is from Kemerovo, regional capital of the Kemerovo Oblast in Siberia, recently noted that there is finally a nice rink that had been built in Kemerovo suitable to host a hockey school. Kemerovo has a population of about 550,000, just about the same size as Novokuznetsk, a good hockey city in Kemerovo Oblast, and of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Can you imagine Winnipeg, which has produced a lot of good hockey players, with one indoor rink and one hockey school. The Province chief would be hung if that were true!

Similarly, look at the St. Petersburg District, which has about the same population as Quebec Province. In the last 50 years, St. Petersburg has produced just 3 national team caliber players - Aleksei Kasatonov, Aleksei Gusarov, and Nikolai Drozdetskiy. Can you imagine if the entire province of Quebec produced just 3 NHL All-Star players in 50 years? There would be an investigation.

 

[Yakushev72]

Throwing the US into that pot is absolutely absurd. The US has 600 less rinks (20% less) than Russia, and a population 126% larger than Russia's. In addition to this, the most athletic demographics in America are not exposed to hockey. There is no way Hockey in the US is more maxed than hockey in Russia.

First, it was you who threw the US into the pot, not me. Second, you should double- or triple-check your numbers. You say the US has 600 rinks, the IIHF says it has 1900. That's a huge difference, so which is you is right. Second, you say that the US population of 321 million is 126% larger than Russia's, at 145 million. When I divide those numbers, my calculator says that the US population is 221% larger than Russia's. So we don't agree on the numbers in the first place.

 

[kabidjan18]

There are only a handful of hockey schools in Russia where kids under the age of 9 or 10 receive full developmental opportunities. In terms of hockey infrastructure, Russia still lags behind Sweden and Finland on a per capita basis, and of course far below Canada.

Still, I think that the next country to break through and challenge for supremacy is Russia. In relative terms, only about 7 to 8% of kids with talent are discovered and developed, in comparison to near 100% for the other major powers (Canada, the US, Sweden and Finland). There are new pro and junior leagues springing up, there is enhanced interest with events like the WHC, and there is unlimited potential for growth, which makes Russia unique in that respect. A big element is the fact that kids in nearly all parts of Russia can skate outside during the winter, and I think that's a huge factor in producing good hockey players.

You originally included the US, as bolded here. Second, Russia has 600 MORE rinks, and yes I included outdoor rinks because that's an advantage of being a country located closer to one of the poles. Russia has ~3000, the US has ~2400. Third, please read what you're writing. 145 doubled is 290. That is a 100% increase. 145 tripled is 435, that is a 200% increase. As you said __% "larger", which includes only the percentage of population above what Russia has. I used 142 million as the Russian population from the IIHF site, not 145 million (perhaps a more recent estimate but you must then get a recent number for the US as well). Therefore, 221% of Russian population indicates a 121% increase, which is basically the number I gave. Also, I don't know why you would mention that because it doesn't support your point. Your argument would ask that the US population be closer to Russia's not far more than.

 

[Zegras Zebra]

My percentages are rough estimates based on the data published on the IIHF website, and are based on the premise that is never possible to skate on a rink that doesn't exist; and conversely, a skating rink that actually exists can be skated on. If you accept that premise, according to the IIHF, there are 2631 indoor rinks in Canada to serve 35 million people. Conversely, there are 450 rinks in Russia to serve 145 million Russian citizens (2015 estimate).

If you do the math, divide 13,302 (the number of Canadians served by each existing indoor rink, as published by the IIHF) by 322,222 the number of Russians served by each existing indoor rink, only 4.1% of Russian kids have access to rinks in comparison to 100% of Canadians. So 8% was actually inflating the number of rinks that Russian kids have access to a rink by double.

To illustrate the point, Acallabeth, who posts on this board, and is from Kemerovo, regional capital of the Kemerovo Oblast in Siberia, recently noted that there is finally a nice rink that had been built in Kemerovo suitable to host a hockey school. Kemerovo has a population of about 550,000, just about the same size as Novokuznetsk, a good hockey city in Kemerovo Oblast, and of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Can you imagine Winnipeg, which has produced a lot of good hockey players, with one indoor rink and one hockey school. The Province chief would be hung if that were true!

Similarly, look at the St. Petersburg District, which has about the same population as Quebec Province. In the last 50 years, St. Petersburg has produced just 3 national team caliber players - Aleksei Kasatonov, Aleksei Gusarov, and Nikolai Drozdetskiy. Can you imagine if the entire province of Quebec produced just 3 NHL All-Star players in 50 years? There would be an investigation.

I know you were using Winnipeg as a comparison, but Winnipeg's population is closer to 750,000 people than 550,000 people.

As a side note Winnipeg has to be the world capital for ghetto arenas. Most are in poor condition and are poorly run.

 

[JackSlater]

My percentages are rough estimates based on the data published on the IIHF website, and are based on the premise that is never possible to skate on a rink that doesn't exist; and conversely, a skating rink that actually exists can be skated on. If you accept that premise, according to the IIHF, there are 2631 indoor rinks in Canada to serve 35 million people. Conversely, there are 450 rinks in Russia to serve 145 million Russian citizens (2015 estimate).

If you do the math, divide 13,302 (the number of Canadians served by each existing indoor rink, as published by the IIHF) by 322,222 the number of Russians served by each existing indoor rink, only 4.1% of Russian kids have access to rinks in comparison to 100% of Canadians. So 8% was actually inflating the number of rinks that Russian kids have access to a rink by double.

To illustrate the point, Acallabeth, who posts on this board, and is from Kemerovo, regional capital of the Kemerovo Oblast in Siberia, recently noted that there is finally a nice rink that had been built in Kemerovo suitable to host a hockey school. Kemerovo has a population of about 550,000, just about the same size as Novokuznetsk, a good hockey city in Kemerovo Oblast, and of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Can you imagine Winnipeg, which has produced a lot of good hockey players, with one indoor rink and one hockey school. The Province chief would be hung if that were true!

Similarly, look at the St. Petersburg District, which has about the same population as Quebec Province. In the last 50 years, St. Petersburg has produced just 3 national team caliber players - Aleksei Kasatonov, Aleksei Gusarov, and Nikolai Drozdetskiy. Can you imagine if the entire province of Quebec produced just 3 NHL All-Star players in 50 years? There would be an investigation.

What does your bizarre skating rink calculation have to do with tour fictional numbers about the amount of kids with talent that are discovered? If you want to say that for instance it is easier for a talented Canadian kid to be discovered than a talented Russian kid, that's fine. When you say that every major country is at 100% (a mathematically ridiculous idea) and Russia is only at 8% (meaning that Russia could somehow improve 12.5 times over) then you have clearly vastly overstated your point with numbers that are pulled from nowhere.

Do you think that every kid in Canada has enough money to play at a high level? Is every kid in California able to get the ice time needed to develop any semblance of hockey skills? It's obviously impossible for any country to get anywhere close to 100% of the talented kids involved in hockey at the highest level.

 

[Lepardi]

Second, you say that the US population of 321 million is 126% larger than Russia's, at 145 million. When I divide those numbers, my calculator says that the US population is 221% larger than Russia's.

So if USA had 145 million people, by your logic their population would be 100 percent larger than Russia's, cause 145 divided by 145 is 1. Your idea of percentages is certainly interesting.

 

[Xokkeu]

Ummm...go look at the ESPN 300, or the RN BB ESPN 100. Most athletic freaks happen to come from one demographic, this is indisputable. Since there's an MLS thread around it's been on my mind, look at one of the Top US players and indisputably the best athlete in Deandre Yedlin. First off he does fall into that demographic despite having dual heritages. Second, people marveled forever at his speed compared to the players around him. He was hand timed at around 4.3 at Akron, but at the time he was 140 pounds, and he's grown slower since putting on weight. His athleticism in other sports would hardly qualify as freakish if at all. A football runningback will weigh between 190 and 220 pounds and still run a 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5 and Deandre Yedlin moves very poorly laterally while these guys turn on dimes. That's before we get to what we in football call the "athletes", the linebackers and 4/3 hybrid ends. If those players played other sports, the demographic makeup of the USMNT U17 or the USNDTP would be very different.

Yedlin also has the touch of a donkey. The best player in the world is a midget of Italian descent.

 

[Yakushev72]

What does your bizarre skating rink calculation have to do with tour fictional numbers about the amount of kids with talent that are discovered? If you want to say that for instance it is easier for a talented Canadian kid to be discovered than a talented Russian kid, that's fine. When you say that every major country is at 100% (a mathematically ridiculous idea) and Russia is only at 8% (meaning that Russia could somehow improve 12.5 times over) then you have clearly vastly overstated your point with numbers that are pulled from nowhere.

Do you think that every kid in Canada has enough money to play at a high level? Is every kid in California able to get the ice time needed to develop any semblance of hockey skills? It's obviously impossible for any country to get anywhere close to 100% of the talented kids involved in hockey at the highest level.

I can't believe that you're challenging my argument, because I know from previous encounters that you're a very intelligent guy, so I can't believe that you don't accept the premise that having more indoor rinks is better than having less. You can't reliably run hockey programs on outdoor rinks. So when Canada has 6X as many rinks as Russia, while having only about 20% of its population, I can't believe that you don't consider that a huge imbalance in hockey resources. In fact, you do, you're just not willing to admit it. Its just one of many indices, but it explains why Canada has 4X as many hockey players as Russia, at the same time that Russia has 4.5X as many potential hockey prospects.

I don't know whether every kid in Canada has enough money to play at a high level or not, but differences in per capita income between the two countries suggest the answer is yes. I never said anything about California, because California is producing hockey talent at about the same rate as Brazil and Nigeria. In California, you can't skate outdoors in the neighborhood as a kid - you have to be rich enough to live in an area that has the rare indoor ice arena. With more population than the entire nation of Canada, California probably hasn't produced enough hockey players to fill the fingers of one hand.

 

[Yakushev72]

So if USA had 145 million people, by your logic their population would be 100 percent larger than Russia's, cause 145 divided by 145 is 1. Your idea of percentages is certainly interesting.

If the USA had 150 million people, and Russia had 135 million people, then Russia would have 90% of the population of the USA. If Russia had 150 million, then Russia would have 100% of the population of the USA.

 

[Jablkon]

I can't believe that you're challenging my argument, because I know from previous encounters that you're a very intelligent guy, so I can't believe that you don't accept the premise that having more indoor rinks is better than having less. You can't reliably run hockey programs on outdoor rinks. So when Canada has 6X as many rinks as Russia, while having only about 20% of its population, I can't believe that you don't consider that a huge imbalance in hockey resources. In fact, you do, you're just not willing to admit it. Its just one of many indices, but it explains why Canada has 4X as many hockey players as Russia, at the same time that Russia has 4.5X as many potential hockey prospects.

I don't know whether every kid in Canada has enough money to play at a high level or not, but differences in per capita income between the two countries suggest the answer is yes. I never said anything about California, because California is producing hockey talent at about the same rate as Brazil and Nigeria. In California, you can't skate outdoors in the neighborhood as a kid - you have to be rich enough to live in an area that has the rare indoor ice arena. With more population than the entire nation of Canada, California probably hasn't produced enough hockey players to fill the fingers of one hand.

Having more indoor rinks is just one of many steps for better hockey development. You probably wanted to mention percantage of kids who have access to rink. USA comparison is actually pretty good for russian case. Despite they dont have hockey everywhere they manage to built great development program. And speaking about quality of players it was the worst starting point among all the top countries. I dont think that such blatant disbalance between offence and defense in Russia is caused by lack of rinks. Also the fact that Russia is constantly unable to handle the pressure does not have any relation to it.

 

[kabidjan18]

Yedlin also has the touch of a donkey. The best player in the world is a midget of Italian descent.

We are talking about the US. There's no debate that the USMNT's demographic makeup would be drastically different if all the kids available chose to player soccer.

 

[Xokkeu]

We are talking about the US. There's no debate that the USMNT's demographic makeup would be drastically different if all the kids available chose to player soccer.

Demographically the US soccer team might be the most representative of any sport. Minus the preponderance of German born players.

The fallacy is that there is a demographic of specific athletic distinction.

The US will be better at hockey as more kids play, more rinks are built and the culture expands. But there is no demographic deficit because it doesn't exist.

 

[kabidjan18]

Demographically the US soccer team might be the most representative of any sport. Minus the preponderance of German born players.

The fallacy is that there is a demographic of specific athletic distinction.

The US will be better at hockey as more kids play, more rinks are built and the culture expands. But there is no demographic deficit because it doesn't exist.

Most well represented doesn't mean a single thing. This demographic equality only exists due to the lack of interest in the most successful demographic. You're using the word fallacy horribly. You offer absolutely no evidence, you haven't in a single post of yours. A demographic deficit as you call it absolutely exists in hockey, as well as in soccer. One single demographic that makes up about 14% of the American population makes up more than 80% of the ESPN FB 300, and almost 90% of the ESPN BB 100. That same demographic dominates national track and field teams, and even the few representatives from that demographic dominate athletically relative to their American peers in the respective sports such as Carlin Isles and Deandre Yedlin. You simply have no evidence to back up your notion that this is a fallacy. You can't expect others to prove their points while you refrain from proving your own. Right now hockey is limited to a very small demographic both ethnically and socioeconomically in the US and that more than makes a difference in the ability to produce top end talent.

 

[Xokkeu]

Most well represented doesn't mean a single thing. This demographic equality only exists due to the lack of interest in the most successful demographic. You're using the word fallacy horribly. You offer absolutely no evidence, you haven't in a single post of yours. A demographic deficit as you call it absolutely exists in hockey, as well as in soccer. One single demographic that makes up about 14% of the American population makes up more than 80% of the ESPN FB 300, and almost 90% of the ESPN BB 100. That same demographic dominates national track and field teams, and even the few representatives from that demographic dominate athletically relative to their American peers in the respective sports such as Carlin Isles and Deandre Yedlin. You simply have no evidence to back up your notion that this is a fallacy. You can't expect others to prove their points while you refrain from proving your own. Right now hockey is limited to a very small demographic both ethnically and socioeconomically in the US and that more than makes a difference in the ability to produce top end talent.

Okay bud. Hopefully we just get some more NFL players to run past Messi and block Iniesta and tackle Ronaldo. Then we'll surely win the World Cup.

Anyway not interested in continuing this theme.

 

[iCanada]

If the USA had 150 million people, and Russia had 135 million people, then Russia would have 90% of the population of the USA. If Russia had 150 million, then Russia would have 100% of the population of the USA.

You're getting tripped up by the "100% larger" verbage here.

It is implied, by the larger, that this percentage is to be added on top of the original.

126% of 145 million is 182.7 >180 + 145 = 325 million

 

[Urbanskog]

I never said anything about California, because California is producing hockey talent at about the same rate as Brazil and Nigeria. In California, you can't skate outdoors in the neighborhood as a kid - you have to be rich enough to live in an area that has the rare indoor ice arena. With more population than the entire nation of Canada, California probably hasn't produced enough hockey players to fill the fingers of one hand.

It isn't the 60s anymore. In fact they have as many hockey players per capita as Russia if we are to trust the IIHF's and USA Hockey's participation numbers here.

 

[Lepardi]

If the USA had 150 million people, and Russia had 135 million people, then Russia would have 90% of the population of the USA. If Russia had 150 million, then Russia would have 100% of the population of the USA.

You said 321 million is 221 percent more than 145. You must have come to this conclusion by calculating that 321 divided by 145 equals 2.21. If this your way of calculating percentages, it means that 150 million is 100 percent more than 150 million, cause 150 divided by 150 equals 1.

321 million is NOT 221 percent more than 145. 321 million is 121 percent more than 145.

 

[JackSlater]

I can't believe that you're challenging my argument, because I know from previous encounters that you're a very intelligent guy, so I can't believe that you don't accept the premise that having more indoor rinks is better than having less. You can't reliably run hockey programs on outdoor rinks. So when Canada has 6X as many rinks as Russia, while having only about 20% of its population, I can't believe that you don't consider that a huge imbalance in hockey resources. In fact, you do, you're just not willing to admit it. Its just one of many indices, but it explains why Canada has 4X as many hockey players as Russia, at the same time that Russia has 4.5X as many potential hockey prospects.

I don't know whether every kid in Canada has enough money to play at a high level or not, but differences in per capita income between the two countries suggest the answer is yes. I never said anything about California, because California is producing hockey talent at about the same rate as Brazil and Nigeria. In California, you can't skate outdoors in the neighborhood as a kid - you have to be rich enough to live in an area that has the rare indoor ice arena. With more population than the entire nation of Canada, California probably hasn't produced enough hockey players to fill the fingers of one hand.

I agree with your most basic premise that more rinks allows for more kids to be discovered in general. What I disagree with is the disparity between the percentages you posted for the different countries. The California example simply proves the point with regard to USA at least. You say that USA is getting access 100% of the talented kids, but states like California and Texas produce very few players despite massive populations. There is obviously a lot of room for growth in USA.

In any event, the main disagreement is about the specific percentages. I am still curious about how they were arrived at, since reaching the talented kids is different than simply having rinks for them to play in.

 

[Yakushev72]

I agree with your most basic premise that more rinks allows for more kids to be discovered in general. What I disagree with is the disparity between the percentages you posted for the different countries. The California example simply proves the point with regard to USA at least. You say that USA is getting access 100% of the talented kids, but states like California and Texas produce very few players despite massive populations. There is obviously a lot of room for growth in USA.

In any event, the main disagreement is about the specific percentages. I am still curious about how they were arrived at, since reaching the talented kids is different than simply having rinks for them to play in.

If I ever included the USA in my discussion of Canada and Finland getting close to 100% of available talent, and I haven't found such an inclusion, then that is incorrect and I take it back. In factoring out potential to produce hockey players, I look at some obvious indices, such as the size of the talent pool, availability of rinks and other resources, hockey culture, and so on. These are rough estimates, not scientifically precise, but I believe they are valid for consideration. Its impossible to know what percentage of the talent pool has been reached, but what we do know is that talented kids have to be identified before age 16 to have a reasonable chance to make it to the elite level, and that can't be done without rinks or a hockey culture.

The US is a unique case, because it doesn't even come close to having a hockey talent pool comparable to 320 million, and more importantly, it doesn't have a hockey culture even approximating what is found in Canada and Finland. The acknowledged capital of American hockey is Minnesota. Minnesota has a hockey culture similar to Canada, but more importantly, it has the Wayne Gretzky factor. According to legend or truth, whichever applies, Gretzky's father flooded his backyard in the winter so that Wayne could basically fall out of his home on to a rink. Combining talent with a love for the hockey, Wayne allegedly developed the foundation for his talent and skill on the backyard rink. Kids in Minnesota and Moscow resemble Gretzky in this respect: they learned to skate outdoors where they had unlimited ice time, and could practice their moves with their buddies.

On the other hand, if you look at California, Texas and Florida, the hockey capitals of the Southern half of the US, where somewhere between 30 to 35% of the US population resides, there is no outdoor ice, and there is no hockey culture beyond the NHL promotions in LA, Dallas, Tampa and Miami. The vast majority of the talent pool in those states is directed toward other sports, and only a tiny sliver of the talent pool has access to expensive indoor rinks where they have to learn to skate, and develop all their skills in expensive suburban hockey programs.

If you look at NHL players from the US, the majority come from a few Northern-tier states near Canada, such as Minnesota, Michigan and Massachusetts, and production in the rest of the country is spotty and inconsistent. Instead of mass development, the US tries to isolate a few talented prospects like Auston Matthews, and then work with them intensively. The Miracle on Ice put hockey on the map in the US, but that was 36 years ago, and development has been incremental at best ever since.

 

[Yakushev72]

You said 321 million is 221 percent more than 145. You must have come to this conclusion by calculating that 321 divided by 145 equals 2.21. If this your way of calculating percentages, it means that 150 million is 100 percent more than 150 million, cause 150 divided by 150 equals 1.

321 million is NOT 221 percent more than 145. 321 million is 121 percent more than 145.

One hundred percent of something is something, without having been reduced by anything. 100% of 145 million is 145 million. Another way to state that is to say that 145 million X 1 = 145 million. 200% of 145 million = 290 million, or, you could say 145 million X 2. And so on. According to my calculator, the published American population estimates exceed the Russian population by 2.21 times, or 221%. So sue my calculator.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

I wouldn't mind if Canada won all the WHC tournaments if every other country won all the other tournaments.

 

[JackSlater]

If I ever included the USA in my discussion of Canada and Finland getting close to 100% of available talent, and I haven't found such an inclusion, then that is incorrect and I take it back. In factoring out potential to produce hockey players, I look at some obvious indices, such as the size of the talent pool, availability of rinks and other resources, hockey culture, and so on. These are rough estimates, not scientifically precise, but I believe they are valid for consideration. Its impossible to know what percentage of the talent pool has been reached, but what we do know is that talented kids have to be identified before age 16 to have a reasonable chance to make it to the elite level, and that can't be done without rinks or a hockey culture.

The US is a unique case, because it doesn't even come close to having a hockey talent pool comparable to 320 million, and more importantly, it doesn't have a hockey culture even approximating what is found in Canada and Finland. The acknowledged capital of American hockey is Minnesota. Minnesota has a hockey culture similar to Canada, but more importantly, it has the Wayne Gretzky factor. According to legend or truth, whichever applies, Gretzky's father flooded his backyard in the winter so that Wayne could basically fall out of his home on to a rink. Combining talent with a love for the hockey, Wayne allegedly developed the foundation for his talent and skill on the backyard rink. Kids in Minnesota and Moscow resemble Gretzky in this respect: they learned to skate outdoors where they had unlimited ice time, and could practice their moves with their buddies.

On the other hand, if you look at California, Texas and Florida, the hockey capitals of the Southern half of the US, where somewhere between 30 to 35% of the US population resides, there is no outdoor ice, and there is no hockey culture beyond the NHL promotions in LA, Dallas, Tampa and Miami. The vast majority of the talent pool in those states is directed toward other sports, and only a tiny sliver of the talent pool has access to expensive indoor rinks where they have to learn to skate, and develop all their skills in expensive suburban hockey programs.

If you look at NHL players from the US, the majority come from a few Northern-tier states near Canada, such as Minnesota, Michigan and Massachusetts, and production in the rest of the country is spotty and inconsistent. Instead of mass development, the US tries to isolate a few talented prospects like Auston Matthews, and then work with them intensively. The Miracle on Ice put hockey on the map in the US, but that was 36 years ago, and development has been incremental at best ever since.

The quote in question is this one:

Still, I think that the next country to break through and challenge for supremacy is Russia. In relative terms, only about 7 to 8% of kids with talent are discovered and developed, in comparison to near 100% for the other major powers (Canada, the US, Sweden and Finland).

Removing the USA makes it more palatable. Of course, it's impossible to say that any country is reaching 100% of the talented kids. In Canada for instance, hockey has become too expensive for many people to play, with ice time becoming more expensive and all of the equipment being pretty expensive as well. Also, as the demographics of Canadian youth change, there are fewer kids interested in hockey and more interesting in various other sports. These are issues that Hockey Canada has outlined and is trying to improve on. In general I agree with the premise, just not the specific percentages.

As to the Gretzky story, that is certainly true. It's somewhat common for households in Canada to have a backyard rink. Legend has it that some have taken it further. Specifically I remember that apparently Mario Lemieux's mother packed snow inside the house so that her sons could simulate playing hockey even when they had to come inside at night.

 

[Yakushev72]

The quote in question is this one:



Removing the USA makes it more palatable. Of course, it's impossible to say that any country is reaching 100% of the talented kids. In Canada for instance, hockey has become too expensive for many people to play, with ice time becoming more expensive and all of the equipment being pretty expensive as well. Also, as the demographics of Canadian youth change, there are fewer kids interested in hockey and more interesting in various other sports. These are issues that Hockey Canada has outlined and is trying to improve on. In general I agree with the premise, just not the specific percentages.

As to the Gretzky story, that is certainly true. It's somewhat common for households in Canada to have a backyard rink. Legend has it that some have taken it further. Specifically I remember that apparently Mario Lemieux's mother packed snow inside the house so that her sons could simulate playing hockey even when they had to come inside at night.

Without going through any more contorted statistics, let me just defend my comment about Russia by saying that despite having a climate that is suitable for kids playing hockey outdoors, a decent hockey culture and tradition, and very high incentives for kids to pursue a hockey career, it is true that large regions of the country have absolutely no hockey program to speak of, and are producing no decent players. I attribute most of it to the absence of investment in hockey structures, including rinks, coaches and leagues to compete in. But that might be changing, and if so, even a modest investment in new facilities could double or triple the number of kids with talent who get training in the game.