NHL cautiously optimistic about 2021 World Cup.

[Spirit of 67]

While team N.A was fun to watch I don't want to see the non national teams again, it just doesn't work as an international tournament and makes it some sort of side show not an international tournament. If it is a proper international tournament then great let's get it going.

As I've said, I'm good either way.
The last tournament, had it been called the NHL/NHLPA Autumn Classic it likely would've been better received.
The hockey was certainly better than the Sochi Olympics was.

 

[Tomas W]

Sad but true. The other tournaments were fine, not perfect and in some cases great. The 2016 abomination was a joke however and the bad taste remains.

A a bit torn about what I thought of the set up of the last tournament.

On one hand, the "gimmick" teams played very well and the U23 NA allstars was fun to watch.

On the other hand it downgraded the seriousness of the tournament.

I still prefer the Olympic best-on-best, they seem like the most real championships.

 

[Elvs]

The NHL did not want to allow inferior German and Slovak players in its All-Star Showcase and certainly did not want to split any tournament revenue with them. So what did they do? They added the North America and Europe to replace the 7 and 8 teams! Instead of having a bunch of Adler Mannheim benders trying to skate with John Tavares and Sidney Crosby, they featured the best playing the best. For on-ice quality, that was the only way to go to have all the best players on the same ice. As a fan of "best-on-best," you should be cheering the inclusion of those teams.

This inferior Slovakia that you speak of beat USA 4-1 in the World Championship three months ago. Yeah, USA didn't have all their best players but neither did Slovakia. They were missing Tomas Jurco, Peter Cehlarik, Marek Hrivik, Marek Viedensky, Zdeno Chara and Jaroslav Halak off the top of my head. The U.S. team featured Patrick Kane, Jack Eichel, Johnny Gaudreau, Dylan Larkin, Alex Debrincat and Ryan Suter.



Meanwhile you are completely leaving Switzerland out of the discussion, even though they are clearly better than Germany and even Slovakia.

Timo Meier, Nino Niederreiter, Nico Hischier, Kevin Fiala, Sven Bärtschi, Roman Josi ... Are you saying these guys can't even skate with Crosby and Tavares? Yeah okay.

 

[Yakushev72]

I actually think the exact opposite was true. The authoritarian nature of the USSR meant that basically their entire national team could be based out of Moscow, spread across 2 or 3 clubs, which was ultimately done to support the national team program. I'm not talking about whatever myths were out there 50 years ago, just pointing out obvious facts and that we now know team experience and practice time together is a critical element of the game. There is no doubt that the USSR got the most out of what was a limited hockey program and limited player pool and for that they deserve recognition.

You didn't come out and say it, but it sounds like you are referring to CSKA and Dynamo in Moscow. This sounds like the "communist fiends enslave hockey players" narrative. And it is true that the focus of hockey in the USSR was on winning medals and glory on an international stage, while the focus of Canadian hockey was more on corporate profits. But people who had more knowledge about Soviet hockey would recognize that from the 1950's through the 1970's, almost all Soviet hockey players actually came from Moscow and its suburbs. That is where all the rinks were. It was estimated in 1988, effectively the end of the Soviet hockey era, that there were fewer than 60 indoor rinks in the entire USSR. It wasn't until the late 1970's that a small trickle of talent started emerging from a handful of cities, some quite small, outside the Moscow area. The most notable hockey centers outside Moscow were Chelyabinsk, Voskresensk, Penza and Yaroslavl. Voskresensk was a city of only 80,000 population, and yet 4 graduates of their hockey school earned Gold Medals at the 1988 Olympics in Canada.

 

[Jussi]

You didn't come out and say it, but it sounds like you are referring to CSKA and Dynamo in Moscow. This sounds like the "communist fiends enslave hockey players" narrative. And it is true that the focus of hockey in the USSR was on winning medals and glory on an international stage, while the focus of Canadian hockey was more on corporate profits. But people who had more knowledge about Soviet hockey would recognize that from the 1950's through the 1970's, almost all Soviet hockey players actually came from Moscow and its suburbs. That is where all the rinks were. It was estimated in 1988, effectively the end of the Soviet hockey era, that there were fewer than 60 indoor rinks in the entire USSR. It wasn't until the late 1970's that a small trickle of talent started emerging from a handful of cities, some quite small, outside the Moscow area. The most notable hockey centers outside Moscow were Chelyabinsk, Voskresensk, Penza and Yaroslavl. Voskresensk was a city of only 80,000 population, and yet 4 graduates of their hockey school earned Gold Medals at the 1988 Olympics in Canada.

I don't think people are arguing about that. Point is that people also know that the best players were placed in "army teams", everyone with some knowledge of hockey history knows the Green Unit, Bykov, Khomutov etc. played for ZSKA. It was a huge help that the best played in the same club team for the same coach as well.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

You didn't come out and say it, but it sounds like you are referring to CSKA and Dynamo in Moscow. This sounds like the "communist fiends enslave hockey players" narrative. And it is true that the focus of hockey in the USSR was on winning medals and glory on an international stage, while the focus of Canadian hockey was more on corporate profits. But people who had more knowledge about Soviet hockey would recognize that from the 1950's through the 1970's, almost all Soviet hockey players actually came from Moscow and its suburbs. That is where all the rinks were. It was estimated in 1988, effectively the end of the Soviet hockey era, that there were fewer than 60 indoor rinks in the entire USSR. It wasn't until the late 1970's that a small trickle of talent started emerging from a handful of cities, some quite small, outside the Moscow area. The most notable hockey centers outside Moscow were Chelyabinsk, Voskresensk, Penza and Yaroslavl. Voskresensk was a city of only 80,000 population, and yet 4 graduates of their hockey school earned Gold Medals at the 1988 Olympics in Canada.

Good point, we had totally different systems. It's worth pointing out that during that same era the vast majority of NHLers were Canadian, yet only a small percentage played for Canadian clubs. Hotboxing our top players in one city or region to make the national team stronger was never considered on this side of the pond.

 

[Yakushev72]

I don't think people are arguing about that. Point is that people also know that the best players were placed in "army teams", everyone with some knowledge of hockey history knows the Green Unit, Bykov, Khomutov etc. played for ZSKA. It was a huge help that the best played in the same club team for the same coach as well.

What you say is not inaccurate, but it is superficial. There were other factors involved. The Defense Ministry had the most money and resources, so the national team coach was usually (not always) the coach at CSKA. The Soviet system was built around lines and defense pairings, not teams. In theory, each club team was built around the first line, so on CSKA you had Petrov-Kharlamov-Mikhailov, Spartak had Yakushev-Shadrin-Shalimov, Torpedo had Skvortsov-Varnakov-Kovin, and so on throughout the league. CSKA usually had at least 2 national team-level lines, based on the fact that players gravitated to CSKA for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that service on the CSKA roster qualified as fulfilling their military obligation. But the bottom line is, with the most meager of resources, the USSR could always put at least 4 high quality lines on the ice in international tournaments.

 

[Yakushev72]

Good point, we had totally different systems. It's worth pointing out that during that same era the vast majority of NHLers were Canadian, yet only a small percentage played for Canadian clubs. Hotboxing our top players in one city or region to make the national team stronger was never considered on this side of the pond.

If you read the story, and believe what you read, it was never about a Canadian national team. As the story goes, Alan Eagleson got fed up with having Soviet teams depicting themselves as "World Champions" when he knew in his heart that only one country - Canada - deserved recognition in hockey. According to published accounts, he decided to organize a series, to benefit the NHLPA of which he was Director, with the goal of embarrassing the Soviets and establishing in no uncertain terms who was boss in hockey in front of a world audience. In that respect, Eagleson and Canada totally failed in their mission, although I do think the NHLPA got a lot of revenue from the series.

 

[Peiskos]

If you read the story, and believe what you read, it was never about a Canadian national team. As the story goes, Alan Eagleson got fed up with having Soviet teams depicting themselves as "World Champions" when he knew in his heart that only one country - Canada - deserved recognition in hockey. According to published accounts, he decided to organize a series, to benefit the NHLPA of which he was Director, with the goal of embarrassing the Soviets and establishing in no uncertain terms who was boss in hockey in front of a world audience. In that respect, Eagleson and Canada totally failed in their mission, although I do think the NHLPA got a lot of revenue from the series.

I mean can you blame him? the Soviets beat up on 2nd rate teams for years and years with their very best and proclaimed they were the best, the history books clearly show that whenever the Soviets played Canada's best they got their asses kicked. Plain and simple. The Soviets have always and will always be remembered as #2. Anyone with even a few brain cells knows this.

This is to take nothing away from the Soviets though, great hockey teams, very talented. Canada was just better.

 

[Jahara]

The mixed teams were a joke and rendered the tournament a joke as well.

If the last tournament was a joke, the 2004 tournament was an even bigger joke. But I guess it is easier to fail in a traditional way instead of failing when trying something new.

I don't think we can even get to the format and timing without first going over the absurd stupidity of teams that aren't...national teams. There's a standard the whole world over adheres to for almost any sport.

"Leftover Europe" and "U23" are not, and will not ever make any sense as teams, because they are completely arbitrary, have no provenance and history to back it up and in the former case, doesn't even represent all of Europe (four European countries have their own teams), and in the other case, removes top end talent from two national sides that, on their best days, cannot steamroll the other top nations (RUS, FIN, SWE) even with all of their best players today. Artificially handicapping them is just ludicrous.

I'm still appalled anyone thought it was a good idea or participated in that circus and still thinks it is so. I can make an equally compelling team out of Players Born in 1997 with Green Eyes as a criteria. Canada playing Europe* (Europe, minus the European countries of Russia, Czechia, Finland and Sweden) in the finals was so dumb.

The next thing I would want to hear about is the status of International hockey and the Olympics going forward. An ASG replacement with future Olympics participation? Bring on Europe VS NA and ditch the rest of the teams. A replacement for senior international hockey? 6-8 national teams based on IIHF rankings. If it has to be NHLers only, top six and be done with it.

Big deal with teams that aren't national teams. It is just like Ryder Cup with a mixed European team for pragmatic reasons. It was a test and it raised the level and the entertainment. They probably won't do it again so stop all this predictable whining. Who missed a team like Germany? Probabely not even the Germans. But you are right about the U23 team since it weakened a team like USA this time. Calling it a circus just because of this test is simply wrong.

Try to be a little more progressive instead of just repeating the same things over and over again. That they won't play World Cup in 2020 is a FAR BIGGER problem than that what happened in 2016.

 

[Yakushev72]

I mean can you blame him? the Soviets beat up on 2nd rate teams for years and years with their very best and proclaimed they were the best, the history books clearly show that whenever the Soviets played Canada's best they got their asses kicked. Plain and simple. The Soviets have always and will always be remembered as #2. Anyone with even a few brain cells knows this.

This is to take nothing away from the Soviets though, great hockey teams, very talented. Canada was just better.

I can't help but admire your spectacularly brilliant brain cells! Thank you so much for sharing them with me and everyone else. I didn't really realize that "whenever" Canada and the Soviets played each other's "best," the Soviets "plain and simply" got "their asses kicked." I misled myself by failing to recognize the 4-3-1 asskicking the Soviets suffered in 1972, with total goals in the 8-game series tied at 34-34. And then I fooled myself by thinking that the Soviets didn't get their asses kicked in the 1979 Challenge Cup, 1981 Canada Cup and 1987 "Rendez-vouz 87." Then there were the one-sided 1-goal ass-kickings in the 1984-87 Canada Cups. All of those games were played on Canadian rinks except the Challenge Cup, which was played in New York. I am going to post this reply and immediately start my stopwatch to see how long it takes you to reply with ample excuses why the Challenge Cup, Canada Cup, and Rendez-vous 87 don't count?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I can't help but admire your spectacularly brilliant brain cells! Thank you so much for sharing them with me and everyone else. I didn't really realize that "whenever" Canada and the Soviets played each other's "best," the Soviets "plain and simply" got "their asses kicked." I misled myself by failing to recognize the 4-3-1 asskicking the Soviets suffered in 1972, with total goals in the 8-game series tied at 34-34. And then I fooled myself by thinking that the Soviets didn't get their asses kicked in the 1979 Challenge Cup, 1981 Canada Cup and 1987 "Rendez-vouz 87." Then there were the one-sided 1-goal ass-kickings in the 1984-87 Canada Cups. All of those games were played on Canadian rinks except the Challenge Cup, which was played in New York. I am going to post this reply and immediately start my stopwatch to see how long it takes you to reply with ample excuses why the Challenge Cup, Canada Cup, and Rendez-vous 87 don't count?

I'm pretty sure the 1980 US Olympic team would have won the Challenge Cup and Rendez-vous Cup as well. Obviously not because they had better players but because they had a coach that actually understood the value of team preparation. It's hard to count those ones when the NHL players literally hadn't a single game or practice together before the series started. I'll give you '81 though, the USSR/Russia's only major tournament victory in my view.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

If you read the story, and believe what you read, it was never about a Canadian national team. As the story goes, Alan Eagleson got fed up with having Soviet teams depicting themselves as "World Champions" when he knew in his heart that only one country - Canada - deserved recognition in hockey. According to published accounts, he decided to organize a series, to benefit the NHLPA of which he was Director, with the goal of embarrassing the Soviets and establishing in no uncertain terms who was boss in hockey in front of a world audience. In that respect, Eagleson and Canada totally failed in their mission, although I do think the NHLPA got a lot of revenue from the series.

I don't think it was so much about Eagleson or any one person, but rather about the IIHF/IOC's banishment of all of our top players. Imagine if someone told Russia today that for the next 50 years they couldn't use any of their NHL or KHL players, but everyone else still could. That's pretty much what happened to us.

 

[vtmx]

World Cup 2016:
Czech Republic = 3 games 1 W, 1 OTL, 6 goals, 3 points.
USA = 3 games, 0 W, 3 L, 5 goals = 0 points.

Sportsnet:
"Czech Republic isn't competitive enough and don't score enough goals . They shouldn't be in the tournament".

Exactly why this entire tournament is a joke to everyone outside of North America. Just let NHLers play at the Olympics, that way everyone (meaning the fans) wins: you get a serious tournament with no gimmicky teams, every nation fields the best players they have regardless of what league they play in, and the players compete for medals which actually matter. Way better than holding NHLers hostage so they can play in a dumb sideshow of the league.

 

[BOS358]

This inferior Slovakia that you speak of beat USA 4-1 in the World Championship three months ago.

I know that. I was there and I probably drank enough after the game to keep Barrique in business for the next year. My post was mocking the "wah, wah, wah, best on best" crowd that exists on this board, but seemingly nowhere else. Also, having been to the last eight World Championships, I'm also well aware of the problems US has had against Germany.

 

[BOS358]

Just let NHLers play at the Olympics, that way everyone (meaning the fans) wins:

The fans may win, but the owners and the league certainly don't. And until that gets resolved in a manner satisfactory to the NHL, the players won't be going.

 

[JackSlater]

If the last tournament was a joke, the 2004 tournament was an even bigger joke. But I guess it is easier to fail in a traditional way instead of failing when trying something new.

No, a legitimate best tournament was not a "bigger joke" than the 2016 gimmick tournament that masqueraded as a best on best, or even international, tournament. The timing of the 2004 tournament was poor due to an outside factor. The 2016 tournament had no external issues, and the NHL managed to f*** the tournament up spectacularly anyway.

 

[Yakushev72]

I don't think it was so much about Eagleson or any one person, but rather about the IIHF/IOC's banishment of all of our top players. Imagine if someone told Russia today that for the next 50 years they couldn't use any of their NHL or KHL players, but everyone else still could. That's pretty much what happened to us.

They weren't singling out Canada. All professional players were ineligible for IIHF tournaments, regardless of nationality. By 1974, I think, the restrictions were lifted. By 1977, it was all active NHL players on the Team Canada roster for the WC.

The 1972 series was clearly all about Eagleson! You can argue what his motive was, but he took the initiative in selling the series to NHL owners, who went along only very reluctantly because they didn't want to spark a labor dispute over lost NHLPA revenue. Without Eagleson, the series would never have happened.

 

[Jets4Life]

The fans may win, but the owners and the league certainly don't. And until that gets resolved in a manner satisfactory to the NHL, the players won't be going.

There will be no NHL players at the Olympics, as long as it's not in a TV friendly time zone. If the Olympics were held in North America, the NHL would be all over that.

 

[mattihp]

The fans may win, but the owners and the league certainly don't. And until that gets resolved in a manner satisfactory to the NHL, the players won't be going.

International hockey is not about the owners. The league sure wins from the olympics because it makes a kid put on skates and learn the game. It creates new hockey nations and a deeper talent pool.

The world cup is watched by people who are already hockey fans. The olympics are watched by so many more. More is on the line.

 

[holyprime]

International hockey is not about the owners. The league sure wins from the olympics because it makes a kid put on skates and learn the game. It creates new hockey nations and a deeper talent pool..

He is right tough, the problem in this are the owners and the structure/legal framework of the NHL: It's a privately owned for-profit organisation that has a special working contract with it's employee's. And as long as they have the best players under contract, they can hold the sport and all the federations hostage if they think they are entitled for a compensation for the temporary release of "business assets".

Sadly, i don't see these things improve as long as the NHL is the "top dog", as demonstrated by them with their ideas for a "world cup" or deals they wanted/want to conduct with the players in the CBA: You can't make money, even with the possibly future GOAT, with a player that's 10 years old right now.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

They weren't singling out Canada. All professional players were ineligible for IIHF tournaments, regardless of nationality. By 1974, I think, the restrictions were lifted. By 1977, it was all active NHL players on the Team Canada roster for the WC.

The 1972 series was clearly all about Eagleson! You can argue what his motive was, but he took the initiative in selling the series to NHL owners, who went along only very reluctantly because they didn't want to spark a labor dispute over lost NHLPA revenue. Without Eagleson, the series would never have happened.

Ya, but the point is they effectively did single out Canada, at least to a much greater degree than any other hockey nation. No doubt Eagleson was a major participant in organizing the tournament (and handicapping Canada by barring WHA players from the team), but many Canadians wanted our best players to have a chance to represent the country, so if he hadn't been involved someone else would have organized something.

 

[BruinLVGA]

This inferior Slovakia that you speak of beat USA 4-1 in the World Championship three months ago. Yeah, USA didn't have all their best players but neither did Slovakia. They were missing Tomas Jurco, Peter Cehlarik, Marek Hrivik, Marek Viedensky, Zdeno Chara and Jaroslav Halak off the top of my head. The U.S. team featured Patrick Kane, Jack Eichel, Johnny Gaudreau, Dylan Larkin, Alex Debrincat and Ryan Suter.

Meanwhile you are completely leaving Switzerland out of the discussion, even though they are clearly better than Germany and even Slovakia.

Timo Meier, Nino Niederreiter, Nico Hischier, Kevin Fiala, Sven Bärtschi, Roman Josi ... Are you saying these guys can't even skate with Crosby and Tavares? Yeah okay.

Can't really fight against arrogance and ignorance, my friend. If one does not want to think, nor gain knowledge, there's nothing that can be done.

PS I agree with your post at 100%.

 

[Theokritos]

As the story goes, Alan Eagleson got fed up with having Soviet teams depicting themselves as "World Champions" when he knew in his heart that only one country - Canada - deserved recognition in hockey. According to published accounts, he decided to organize a series

Actually the series was negotiated on and finally agreed upon by the Soviet hockey federation and Hockey Canada in April 1972 without Alan Eagleson playing any major role yet. So the series was not organized by him and it would indeed have been held without him.

 

[Yakushev72]

Actually the series was negotiated on and finally agreed upon by the Soviet hockey federation and Hockey Canada in April 1972 without Alan Eagleson playing any major role yet. So the series was not organized by him and it would indeed have been held without him.

I think my story and your summary of the administrative paperwork necessary to play the series are both true. Hockey Canada has never controlled or had any major influence on the NHL, nor had they ever directed the use of NHL's best talent outside the confines of the league. Someone within the NHL's power structure had to be the catalyst, and according to the Toronto Globe and Mail, he was Alan Eagleson.