Toggle sidebar

NHL Network documentary on 1996 World Cup to air September 14th

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Fenway

Fenway

HF Bookie and Bruins Historian
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2007
70,960
106,063
Cambridge, MA
No work on distribution in Canada


NHL Network To Launch New Documentary Series, NHL Network Originals

As the National Hockey League celebrates its 100th season in 2016-17, NHL Network will explore hockey’s rich history and tradition in its first-ever documentary series, NHL Network Originals. To mark the start of the 2016 World Cup of Hockey, the first installment of NHL Network Originals is Orchestrating An Upset: The 1996 World Cup of Hockey, premiering on Wednesday, September 14 at 10:00 p.m. ET, 20 years to the day that Team USA defeated favored Team Canada to win the inaugural World Cup of Hockey.


Narrated by Rock and Roll Hall of Famer and hockey fan James Hetfield of Metallica, the hour-long program features members of Team USA from 1996, including general manager and Hall of Famer Lou Lamoriello, head coach Ron Wilson, and players Tony Amonte, Bill Guerin, Hall of Famer Brett Hull, captain and Hall of Famer Brian Leetch, Mike Richter, Keith Tkachuk, and Doug Weight, discussing their journey to tournament champions, which many fans and media thought was unattainable. Team USA’s come-from-behind series victory in the finals against Team Canada is closely examined, as Team Canada’s Theo Fleury and Hall of Famers Eric Lindros, Mark Messier, Scott Stevens, and Steve Yzerman discuss losing the one-goal lead in the deciding game with less than four minutes left to play at Montreal’s Molson Centre.
Click to expand...
Click to read more...
 
Canuckistani said:
It's like the NHL is taunting us.

"This is how great the World Cup was before we decided to screw with it."
Click to expand...

The World Cup is still a lot of fun to watch. Did you see the young guns play last night? They looked great.

Sit back, relax, and enjoy the best players playing against each other in Sept
 
Canuckistani said:
You'll understand the complaints when this gimmick garbage completely replaces best-on-best hockey.
Click to expand...

Well...it's still technically best on best...since these are the best players available in the format, and it's not exactly like any of the best players in the world are missing...
 
ResilientBeast said:
Well...it's still technically best on best...since these are the best players available in the format, and it's not exactly like any of the best players in the world are missing...
Click to expand...

Those fawning over TNA will think twice in 2020 when Connor McDavid is hands-down the greatest player in the world and he still won't be old enough to play for Canada.
 
I was pissed after the 1996 WC final, especially that it was Brat Hull who scored twice for the US.

But the event itself was a classic. Lots of great games and memorable goals. And it was pretty cool having games played in Europe as well.
 
ResilientBeast said:
Well...it's still technically best on best...since these are the best players available in the format, and it's not exactly like any of the best players in the world are missing...
Click to expand...

If countries cannot select their best healthy players, as is the case in this tournament, it's clearly not a best on best tournament. They are not actually able to select their best. High level exhibition though. If best on est just means that most of the best players are present, then we might as well dub the NHL a best on best.

As for the 1996 World Cup, game three of the final is my most disappointing loss for Canada. Disappointing because of who wasn't there, disappointing because of Hull's role in it, and disappointing because of what Richter did. Great game and a good capper to a great tournament. Probably the most entertaining tournament I have seen. Much, much better than the 1991 tournament.
 
JackSlater said:
As for the 1996 World Cup, game three of the final is my most disappointing loss for Canada. Disappointing because of who wasn't there, disappointing because of Hull's role in it, and disappointing because of what Richter did. Great game and a good capper to a great tournament. Probably the most entertaining tournament I have seen. Much, much better than the 1991 tournament.
Click to expand...

Disappointing also because Hull's tying goal was a clear high-stick.

At least Canada has been wreaking revenge on the US in best-on best events ever since.
 
Canuckistani said:
Those fawning over TNA will think twice in 2020 when Connor McDavid is hands-down the greatest player in the world and he still won't be old enough to play for Canada.
Click to expand...

TNA and TE will not be around for next tourney. They're only here now because of the lack of time for pre-qualifying games to select two more national teams, and the need to have eight teams for a balanced bracket. I should say maybe not a need, but a convenient way to have more of the best players around and a consolation for the European players that would not have otherwise had a chance to play this time around.

It was a reasonable compromise, but it's not how the tourney will be set up next time. But if being grumpy is easier...
 
ResilientBeast said:
Well...it's still technically best on best...since these are the best players available in the format, and it's not exactly like any of the best players in the world are missing...
Click to expand...

Uhoh, here we go. :laugh:

Prepare to be descended upon by the best on best definition police who can't accept the simple fact that best on best means different things to different people.

But indeed, the best players in the world are playing in the tournament and they're playing against each other so ...
 
Canuckistani said:
The NHL has said no such thing. They'll "re-evaluate" things after the event, meaning if enough gullible fans like the gimmicks you can be sure they'll return.
Click to expand...

Well if they'll re-evaluate, why do you keep insisting that the gimmick teams will be back?

Also, if enough fans want the gimmick teams back then there is some logic to giving the fans what they want. I'm sure you think otherwise but if the majority is happy ...
 
Here are complete games from 1996 just uploaded to YT






​


Promoters added a nice touch for the anthems as in Philadelphia O Canada was sung by Lyndon Slewidge from Ottawa and in Montreal the US Anthem was sung by Boston's Rene Rancourt for Game 2 and Hartford's Tony Harrington for Game 3.
 
Fenway said:
Here are complete games from 1996 just uploaded to YT






​


Promoters added a nice touch for the anthems as in Philadelphia O Canada was sung by Lyndon Slewidge from Ottawa and in Montreal the US Anthem was sung by Boston's Rene Rancourt for Game 2 and Hartford's Tony Harrington for Game 3.
Click to expand...


Now I know what I'm doing this weekend - thanks!
 
Gary Nylund said:
Well if they'll re-evaluate, why do you keep insisting that the gimmick teams will be back?

Also, if enough fans want the gimmick teams back then there is some logic to giving the fans what they want. I'm sure you think otherwise but if the majority is happy ...
Click to expand...

The majority of which fans? The ones in North America, the only ones Bettman cares about.

So the international game will suffer because the NHL wants to pander to casual hockey fans who don't really give a crap about international competition. Great.
 
Gary Nylund said:
Uhoh, here we go. :laugh:

Prepare to be descended upon by the best on best definition police who can't accept the simple fact that best on best means different things to different people.

But indeed, the best players in the world are playing in the tournament and they're playing against each other so ...
Click to expand...

Interesting, rather inconsistent platform from someone who has posted multiple times that this tournament is not a best on best. The definition of best on best as just being "best players against each other" can be applied to the NHL and particularly the NHL all star game. We don't often hear people calling the all star game a best on best... since most people knows that there is more to the term than simply best players against best players.

Gary Nylund said:
Well if they'll re-evaluate, why do you keep insisting that the gimmick teams will be back?

Also, if enough fans want the gimmick teams back then there is some logic to giving the fans what they want. I'm sure you think otherwise but if the majority is happy ...
Click to expand...

You are no longer assuring people that the gimmick teams are a one time thing? Interesting.
 
Last edited:
Sabresfansince1980 said:
Meaning - I will believe whatever is the best option that keeps me grumpy. Have at it.
Click to expand...

Meaning that no one knows if the gimmick teams will be back. Your suggestion that they are a one time thing is speculation that is by no means certain. All there is to do is wait and see.
 
JackSlater said:
Meaning that no one knows if the gimmick teams will be back. Your suggestion that they are a one time thing is speculation that is by no means certain. All there is to do is wait and see.
Click to expand...

The poster I quoted has already made up his mind, and prefers to be grumpy about his presumption. I'm not grumpy, so I'll get over it if I'm wrong...even though I'm quite certain I won't be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom