NHL cautiously optimistic about 2021 World Cup.

[Yakushev72]

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.

Of all the creative excuses to explain how Canada and the NHL had failed to live up to their own billing, this one in particular is one of my favorites. The premise of it is that if you take any random stumblebums off the street and have them skate together for 6 months, they will go out and dazzle and embarrass Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, etc. Brilliant talents like Orr will always be humbled by well-organized players who make pretty passing combinations, is how I guess that goes.

 

[Czechboy]

I've never liked the World Cup/Canada Cup as much as pro Olympics.

If they want to do it.. they have to have the Top 8 ranked nations in it (I'd prefer Slovakia but not sure they are Top 8). I get it's a 5 team tournament for Gold but whoever the other 3 are, I'd enjoy watching them play. I doubt you'd see more than 1 or 2 blowouts. FTR.. I think a fully Pro Swiss team could definitely upset a few teams. I'm just not sure who their goalie would be.

The 6 team idea is pretty good too and make it a shorter tournament. However, it does nothing to develop the other nations programs and that is important too.

Please god, no gimmick teams of any kind. I want to see the best US team... I want to see the best Canadian team.

If they do Gimmick teams.. I hope the Swiss/Slovak players boycott it.

 

[Jahara]

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 **** the tournament up spectacularly anyway.

"Legitime" tournament in 2004 that turned out to be a dull and boring one. Team Europe was a clear upgrade and a good way to get rid of Germany. Tiresome that so many people can't see the good side of it.

 

[JackSlater]

"Legitime" tournament in 2004 that turned out to be a dull and boring one. Team Europe was a clear upgrade and a good way to get rid of Germany. Tiresome that so many people can't see the good side of it.

I don't know "legitime" but whether you considered the 2004 tournament to be dull and boring has no bearing on legitimacy as a best on best or even an international tournament. The entertainment factor is largely random and varies from tournament to tournament. Even then, the 2004 semi-final between Canada and Czech Republic was a classic and there were other games that were highly entertaining.

 

[vorky]

"Legitime" tournament in 2004 that turned out to be a dull and boring one. Team Europe was a clear upgrade and a good way to get rid of Germany. Tiresome that so many people can't see the good side of it.

I would not say that people can not see.

It is all about the principle that games/tournaments of national teams can not be run/organised by the private/commercial league. Such games should be organised by the international governing body of that sport, like FIFA, UEFA, FIBA, IIHF, or generally by the IOC.

And it is even more absurd when such a tournament is a combination of national teams (countries) and entities which are not even a sovereign country like Young Guns or whatever.

The league can organise games/tournament of their clubs against clubs of another league or leagues. That is a legitimate approach by the league. But a tournament of countries, like really?

 

[Theokritos]

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.

They had the support of the three NHL clubs that were based in Canada (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver), so the best players from those three teams would have formed the Canadian teams facing the Soviets in the series.

But it's fair to say that Eagleson shaped the series as we know it since he changed its scope and brought the entire NHL into it.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Of all the creative excuses to explain how Canada and the NHL had failed to live up to their own billing, this one in particular is one of my favorites. The premise of it is that if you take any random stumblebums off the street and have them skate together for 6 months, they will go out and dazzle and embarrass Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, etc. Brilliant talents like Orr will always be humbled by well-organized players who make pretty passing combinations, is how I guess that goes.

Hmm, well the 1980 Olympics would certainly be a good example. Hockey is the ultimate team game. Baseball is probably at the other end of the spectrum as the most individualistic team sport.

 

[BOS358]

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%.

Read my post #165...While there are plenty on this board who think that way, I do not. Plenty of people on this board spew such nonsense and my intention was to mock them. Do not lump me in with the "wah wah wah best on best" crowd.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I would not say that people can not see.

It is all about the principle that games/tournaments of national teams can not be run/organised by the private/commercial league. Such games should be organised by the international governing body of that sport, like FIFA, UEFA, FIBA, IIHF, or generally by the IOC.

And it is even more absurd when such a tournament is a combination of national teams (countries) and entities which are not even a sovereign country like Young Guns or whatever.

The league can organise games/tournament of their clubs against clubs of another league or leagues. That is a legitimate approach by the league. But a tournament of countries, like really?

So it's been 111 years and the IIHF still hasn't figured out how to hold their own best on best tournament, actually they spent most of that time actively working to stop one from ever happening. The IIHF is a joke and for most of its existence the IOC has been no better.

 

[Peiskos]

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?

It’s always funny when you attempt to use the fact that games were played on a Canadian sized rink as an excuse, Canada has never had issues winning on any sized ice. Excuses excuses, the mark of a loser.

The results are clear as day for all to see, go ahead and list all the best vs best tournaments ever played and count the amount Canada has won. The proof is in the pudding, Canada is #1 and by a landslide, for anyone to deny this is proof of mental impairment.

The Soviets only ever managed to win 1 best vs tournament, 1981. That’s it. Embarrassing if you ask me.

 

[Jahara]

I don't know "legitime" but whether you considered the 2004 tournament to be dull and boring has no bearing on legitimacy as a best on best or even an international tournament. The entertainment factor is largely random and varies from tournament to tournament. Even then, the 2004 semi-final between Canada and Czech Republic was a classic and there were other games that were highly entertaining.

The format made it dull and more boring that it could have been. Every team made it to the knockout stage and that made the group stage less important. A big reason the 2016 edition was more entertaining and fun to watch was the mixed teams that raised the level. Team Europe made it to the finals. Slovakia would probably not have made the same thing and a team like Germany would of course not be near that level. Team U23 was wrong but they actually was the most fun team to watch.

I would not say that people can not see.

It is all about the principle that games/tournaments of national teams can not be run/organised by the private/commercial league. Such games should be organised by the international governing body of that sport, like FIFA, UEFA, FIBA, IIHF, or generally by the IOC.

And it is even more absurd when such a tournament is a combination of national teams (countries) and entities which are not even a sovereign country like Young Guns or whatever.

The league can organise games/tournament of their clubs against clubs of another league or leagues. That is a legitimate approach by the league. But a tournament of countries, like really?

Why should it be like it always have been then and why not try something new? People are way too conservative about these things and I doubt the golf world complains Ryder Cup and branding Team Europe a "gimmick team". How much of a "gimmick team" are a team like Vegas Golden Knights then? It is just a creation and people buys the concept since it has been done before in North American sports. The whole idea with Team Europe was the raise the level and possibly reach out to lesser nations.

I have made the comparison before but in case a World Cup would be played in basketball with 6-8 countries I probably would care a bit more in case they had a Team Europe with a Swedish player like Jonas Jerebko in the squad. That is a better way than having a minnow nation just filling out a spot for the sake of it.

 

[Yakushev72]

Hmm, well the 1980 Olympics would certainly be a good example. Hockey is the ultimate team game. Baseball is probably at the other end of the spectrum as the most individualistic team sport.

The problem with your analysis is, just 13 days earlier, on February 9, 1980, the Soviets toyed with Team USA in Madison Square Garden and beat them 10-3. You can't make up that much ground in 13 days! There were a combination of circumstances that explained the USA's miracle at Lake Placid, as best explored by ESPN network in their "30 for 30: Of Miracles and Men" documentary, but the bottom line is that Team USA outfought and outworked the Soviets and gained a well-earned win.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

The problem with your analysis is, just 13 days earlier, on February 9, 1980, the Soviets toyed with Team USA in Madison Square Garden and beat them 10-3. You can't make up that much ground in 13 days! There were a combination of circumstances that explained the USA's miracle at Lake Placid, as best explored by ESPN network in their "30 for 30: Of Miracles and Men" documentary, but the bottom line is that Team USA outfought and outworked the Soviets and gained a well-earned win.

The 1980 US team played 61 games together in the 5 months preceding the Olympics. It was the first and only time the Soviet national team entered a tournament where another team had more experience playing together than they did. People love the "miracle" angle, but it really all came down to preparation and a bit of luck.

In 1980 the Soviets beat the USA 10-3 and then 13 days later lost to the US 4-3.
In 1981 the Soviets lost to Canada 7-3 and then 4 days later beat Canada 8-1.

That's just how hockey works sometimes. It's not really about making up ground in 4 or 13 days. Blowouts happen, that's just the game.

 

[Hanji]

The 1980 US team played 61 games together in the 5 months preceding the Olympics. It was the first and only time the Soviet national team entered a tournament where another team had more experience playing together than they did. People love the "miracle" angle, but it really all came down to preparation and a bit of luck..

Do you have a source for that? I'm somewhat certain a heavy pre-olympic schedule was the norm for all our teams, yet we still usually got our butts handed to us. I know for sure the 1984 and 1994 teams played 65 and 57 pre-olympic games.

 

[Nino33]

The site hockeydb indicates the US Olympic team had a heavy 1975-76 schedule
U.S. Olympic Team 1975-76 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.com



I wouldn't consider the US efforts before 76/80/84 Olympics to be "more experience playing together" than the Soviets (not even close)...the Soviets played hockey 11 months a year, practicing 1200 hours a year https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id...ad-was-greatest-international-hockey-team-all

I don't think the US was ever practicing on average over 3.5 hours a day (and they certainly weren't doing it 11 months a year for years) & Soviet players had played together for years (including in the Soviet Hockey league)

 

[vorky]

The format made it dull and more boring that it could have been. Every team made it to the knockout stage and that made the group stage less important. A big reason the 2016 edition was more entertaining and fun to watch was the mixed teams that raised the level. Team Europe made it to the finals. Slovakia would probably not have made the same thing and a team like Germany would of course not be near that level. Team U23 was wrong but they actually was the most fun team to watch.


Why should it be like it always have been then and why not try something new? People are way too conservative about these things and I doubt the golf world complains Ryder Cup and branding Team Europe a "gimmick team". How much of a "gimmick team" are a team like Vegas Golden Knights then? It is just a creation and people buys the concept since it has been done before in North American sports. The whole idea with Team Europe was the raise the level and possibly reach out to lesser nations.

I have made the comparison before but in case a World Cup would be played in basketball with 6-8 countries I probably would care a bit more in case they had a Team Europe with a Swedish player like Jonas Jerebko in the squad. That is a better way than having a minnow nation just filling out a spot for the sake of it.

You could consider it conservative if you wish.

It is absurd when a country plays against an entity which is not a country. All story.

 

[finchster]

Olympics please, world cups are terrible especially the gimmick teams last time.

 

[Jahara]

You could consider it conservative if you wish.

It is absurd when a country plays against an entity which is not a country. All story.

I won't call it absurd and do prefer a mixed team in this case instead of Germany.

Olympics please, world cups are terrible especially the gimmick teams last time.

We have heard all that several times before. They could have the Olympics AND the World Cup. The last Olympics was terrible since it was just another nonsense tournament.

 

[vorky]

I won't call it absurd and do prefer a mixed team in this case instead of Germany.

That is your choice. I just say it is absurd case.

 

[Jahara]

That is your choice. I just say it is absurd case.

Absurd to prefer a good team like Sweden or Russia playing against a team with several good players like Team Europe instead of a minnow like Germany. Not really.

 

[vorky]

Absurd to prefer a good team like Sweden or Russia playing against a team with several good players like Team Europe instead of a minnow like Germany. Not really.

That is your point of view. Mine is different. So, a national team (country) can play only against another country if we consider it a legitimate competition.

 

[Jahara]

That is your point of view. Mine is different. So, a national team (country) can play only against another country if we consider it a legitimate competition.

Not calling it a legitimate competition is just a way of degrading it and making it sound suspicous. NHL tried it and in that case it should be seen as a legitimate competition.

 

[vorky]

Not calling it a legitimate competition is just a way of degrading it and making it sound suspicous. NHL tried it and in that case it should be seen as a legitimate competition.

It is your opinion. If you want to know mine, I recommend you to read #180 post.

 

[JackSlater]

Not calling it a legitimate competition is just a way of degrading it and making it sound suspicous. NHL tried it and in that case it should be seen as a legitimate competition.

As an international touranment or best on best, which is that the NHL presented it as, the 2016 world cup was not legitimate. It was a joke, and it should be degraded and discussed as the joke that it was.

 

[Yakushev72]

It’s always funny when you attempt to use the fact that games were played on a Canadian sized rink as an excuse, Canada has never had issues winning on any sized ice. Excuses excuses, the mark of a loser.

The results are clear as day for all to see, go ahead and list all the best vs best tournaments ever played and count the amount Canada has won. The proof is in the pudding, Canada is #1 and by a landslide, for anyone to deny this is proof of mental impairment.

The Soviets only ever managed to win 1 best vs tournament, 1981. That’s it. Embarrassing if you ask me.

Not only did I never mention rink size, but you totally missed the context of my point! I am talking about sharing home ice advantage. Have you ever noticed that in the Stanley Cup Final, not all 7 games are played in one city? If its Boston vs. Toronto in the Final, they don't play all 7 games in Boston, even if the Bruins agree to split the ticket revenue. Its about fair and equal competition. The Canada Cup never offered fair and equal competition to European participants, but it became markedly unfair after the Soviets whacked Canada 6-3 in the 1984 Canada Cup, and Alan Eagleson, who was the sole owner and proprietor of the Canada Cup, forbid European referees from working in the medal round for all time. That guaranteed a Canadian victory before the games started.

I am trying to gauge your age based on how you recount long-gone events, I am guessing you are a teen. Your boasts of "ass-kicking" tends to be what teens say when they are giggling, but in fact your claims are grossly inaccurate. Of the Canada Cups when the Soviets sent an "A" team (1981, 1984 and 1987), Canada never kicked the Soviets asses - they only barely scraped by with last minute 1-goal victories. In 1984, the Soviets beat Canada 6-3 in the round-robin, and then took advantage of a "Mike Noeth Special" to win 12 minutes into overtime, 3-2. In 1987, Canada and the Soviets tied, 3-3 in the round-robin, the Soviets won Game 1 of a best-of-3 final series, 6-5 in overtime; Canada won Game 2 at the end of double overtime; and then won Game 3, 6-5, with a goal by Mario Lemieux with one minute left. Only when teens talk to each other would that be considered "ass-kicking."