WJC: Open Letter to the hockey elite

[Number 57]

I don’t mind having 10 teams at the WJC. It means more hockey for me, and quess what? I like hockey.

Anything above 10 would propably not work, however.

If we are talking about strength of teams only your comment makes absolutely no sense. So we have the big 9 (with Germany and Switzerland) + one more like say Austria.

What's the difference between Austria and countries like Latvia, Norway, Danemark, Belarus, Ukraine? There is basically no difference especially at the junior stage where teams change so much in any given year. Impossible to know who will be the strongest. One of these countries get promoted to group 1 but the following year, they've lost most of their players anyway cause there are too old. Makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no point in having one nation (Austria) get shelled all tourney long and then relegated the following year. Better expand the tournament to 16 teams as teams 9 through 16 are of about equal strength anyway. Let the top 8 battle it out for Gold and bottom 8 have exciting matchups to avoid relegation. That's how you'll grow the game.

 

[BMann]

I think if you really really love a sport you would want to see it grow and grow so that others could experience it. Either by watching it or playing it. And hockey is an exciting skilled game. The climate factor does not come into it anymore given anyone with a will can create artificial rinks now.

The comments I read are just the same sentiments I see expressed when it comes to developing other sports that I love like rugby union where a few established teams just want to keep things as they are and the old traditions instead of actively developing the sport. World Rugby like the IIHF have done more to develop the sport globally than any of the old established nations.

You do get the odd missionary from Canada as in Mongolia. It has to start somewhere and while the timeframe of it becoming a truly international sport with a tranche of competitive nations may be a century or more these old fashioned views that who cares about hockey's international growth or let's restrict the top tournaments to the same teams over and over again is going to do nothing for the sport. It will shrink and wither compared to others.

 

[BMann]

If we are talking about strength of teams only your comment makes absolutely no sense. So we have the big 9 (with Germany and Switzerland) + one more like say Austria.

What's the difference between Austria and countries like Latvia, Norway, Danemark, Belarus, Ukraine? There is basically no difference especially at the junior stage where teams change so much in any given year. Impossible to know who will be the strongest. One of these countries get promoted to group 1 but the following year, they've lost most of their players anyway cause there are too old. Makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no point in having one nation (Austria) get shelled all tourney long and then relegated the following year. Better expand the tournament to 16 teams as teams 9 through 16 are of about equal strength anyway. Let the top 8 battle it out for Gold and bottom 8 have exciting matchups to avoid relegation. That's how you'll grow the game.

And the Austrian federation looking at their own development programme and seeing how they can improve it from attracting more kids, better talent identification, better junior coaching and making sur the best kids get to a more competitive junior league while Austria's is not up to scratch. It's completely doable and not just in Austria.

 

[BadgerBruce]

According to the IIHF, Denmark has 2,527 registered male players and 26 ice pads.

IIHF Member National Association Denmark

I would ask the OP to explain why his strategy for improving Danish hockey focuses on international junior age games against vastly superior competition instead of increasing participation, building infrastructure, and recruiting skilled teachers/trainers.

 

[Hntz]

If we are talking about strength of teams only your comment makes absolutely no sense. So we have the big 9 (with Germany and Switzerland) + one more like say Austria.

What's the difference between Austria and countries like Latvia, Norway, Danemark, Belarus, Ukraine? There is basically no difference especially at the junior stage where teams change so much in any given year. Impossible to know who will be the strongest. One of these countries get promoted to group 1 but the following year, they've lost most of their players anyway cause there are too old. Makes no sense whatsoever..

As I already mentioned in this thread, I’m not worried about the skill difference between teams outside the top-6. I just don’t like the idea of having the top-6 nations get 5+ blowout games during one tournament.

 

[Frederik95]

According to the IIHF, Denmark has 2,527 registered male players and 26 ice pads.

IIHF Member National Association Denmark

I would ask the OP to explain why his strategy for improving Danish hockey focuses on international junior age games against vastly superior competition instead of increasing participation, building infrastructure, and recruiting skilled teachers/trainers.

Thats a valid question and one that very hard to answer simply but i will try.
Denmarks focus is on the building and development of hockey in the country. For instance by building 2 new arenas that should be ready by 2024 i believe. At the same time we are trying to make it easier for kids to get involved by making hockey more easy for them to watch both live and on TV. This has for instance come by a new TV deal where all games in a season is shown on a streaming platform.

The reason why i focused on this and what the idea of the internation focus is due to a few things. One being that one of the best way to recruit kids and new players is by being exposed to hockey in news and TV. When Denmark was in the top group of the Juniors the games was shown on TV and it was regularly mentioned. The second thing is that it's a huge carrot in front of the next generation that they can make it far in hockey and go play against the best in the sport. Even without being an NHL talent with hard work.
Another way it helps is in terms of learning from the best. Having games and trips to north America where you see how the top of the crop practice, the drills they do, how the system of hockey Canada is are amazing for both the players and Team Denmark's hockey union. It's learning from the best and transferring it to the danish system which is a lot easier if you can play them because let's be honest. I don't think Canada would want a preseason game against the Danish teams unless they make the Juniors.

 

[Frederik95]

Open it up to 16 teams in 4 groups based on rankings on 01 Dec prior to tourney (but countries set the year prior...so 16 seed could be ranked 18th by IIHF list).
Group A: 1, 5, 9, 13
Group B: 2, 6, 10, 14
Group C: 3, 7, 11, 15
Group D: 4, 8, 12, 16

Three round robin games within each Group. At the end of the prelims, playoff games seed as follows: (1) B1 vs C2, (2) A1 vs D2, (3) C1 vs B2, (4) D1 vs A2. Round 2: (5) W1 vs W3 and (6) W2 vs W4 with loser bracket (7) L1 vs L3 and (8) L2 vs L4. Gold game would be (18) W5 vs W6 and Bronze (17) L5 vs L6.
Similar playoff for 3rd and 4th in each group: (9) B3 vs C4, (10) A3 vs D4, (11) C3 vs B4, (12) D3 vs A4. Round 2: (13) W9 vs W11 and (14) W10 vs W12 with loser bracket (15) L9 vs L11 and (16) L10 vs L12. But with the losers of (15) and (16) being relegated. Round 1 would be games 9, 10, 11, 12, round 2 would be games 13-16.

Current ranking would have Canada playing Germany, Slovakia, and Kazakhstan, Finland would have Czechia, Latvia and Belarus, Russia would be grouped with Sweden, Norway and France, while the USA would face Switzerland, Denmark and Great Britain. Some blowouts likely, but each group has one decent tune-up for the top seed. The playoff round would likely end up Finland/Sweden, Canada/Swiss, Russia/Czechia and USA/Germany...top seed gets the "easiest" game. And round 2 is almost guaranteed to have some good games. By seeding, round 2 would be CAN/USA and FIN/RUS, with FIN/CAN for gold. Also by seeding, France and GB drop out, with Italy and Austria getting promoted.

Every team gets at least 5 games with at least 3 being "appropriate level" and with the medal round teams getting a 6th.

Obviously, I am in favor of more teams being involved. The exposure is huge for those countries. And the blowouts may hurt at the time, but they turn into fuel for the players and the countries to improve. And the more the game improves in countries outside the current powerhouses, the more chance we have for players like Draisaitl, Kopitar, and others to get exposed to the game and development programs that can actually help them. More better players is good for everyone involved in hockey. Except those trogs that want to keep it isolated so they have less real competition.

Current rankings:
1. Canada
2. Finland
3. Russia
4. United States
5. Germany
6. Czechia
7. Sweden
8. Switzerland
9. Slovakia
10. Latvia
11. Norway
12. Denmark
13. Kazakhstan
14. Belarus
15. France
16. Great Britain

I do think 16 teams are too many. The gap between the 10 and 14 arent super big but the jump between 14 and 16 is sadly kinda big. It works on a none age limited level because there is more players to pick from and i think the Worlds are a prove of that, but at juniors i think 4 groups of 3 teams is the best way to do it. It allows more teams to go, grants at least one big game for the small teams and we go faster to the medal games with a very interesting and fun relegation group. For me it fixes the most of the issues. Then i feel we can work towards maybe getting 4 more in within the next 10 or so years when the futher exposure from new nations coming up a few times within those years, have paid off

 

[Frederik95]

I personnaly agree and would widen the field of the World Juniors and many other hockey tournaments even more. Playing only once every 3 years in the main group and getting shelled 11-1 is simply not enough to generate interest and motivate the higher ups to invest.

I would have a 16-team tournament. There are a lot of positive things from having a bigger tournament:

1 - Games between teams of equal strength (like Russia-Canada, or Norway-Denmark) will be very exciting and the competition very high. We always talk about Canada shelling Austria but what about an exciting Latvia vs Ukraine matchup where underrated and unknown prospects get to show their stuff to an international audience? That would be fun to watch.

2 - Sure, Canada will rout teams like Austria and Belarus, but honestly, who cares? Start the tourney earlier (like Dec. 19) and scrap the pre-tournament games. Start Canada vs 2-3 lowly teams and treat them as ''tune-up'' games. Simple as that. If you don't want to watch, then don't and wait for the quarterfinals.

3 - Some smaller nations miss out on icing exciting prospects because on any given year they could find themselves relegated to the second division. Imagine if last year, Germany had been playing in division 2? This is a team that could potentially ice Stutzle-Peterka-Reichel-Seider... Makes no sense at all.

4 - There will be a lot of competition and excitement about the lower end of the standings. Sure Canada, Russia, etc will advance to the quarters and that's when the real tourney starts for them. But for the other smaller countries every game matters as they try to avoid relegation at all cost. These games will be highly exciting and a nice opportunity for prospects to showcase what they can do. These exciting games will mean a lot to these countries.

Germany and Switzerland had to suck for 30+ years and invest a ton of money/time into their hockey program, and it's just starting to pay dividends now. Let all the nations play and generate interest in their home land.

I agree with a ton of points and i do think within maybe 10 years hockey is ready for 16 teams on a junior level where its competative enough to be interesting. Especially in a system where its more akin to what we seen in the Euros in football with 16 teams and then have a relegation playoff or placement games to determine who goes down. However right now i dont think a team like France should be up quite yet. They arent quite ready on a junior level. Mens level absolutely but i think 12 is better for now and then work towards the 4 added teams by the next decade!
Outside that i fully agree!

 

[Frederik95]

And the Austrian federation looking at their own development programme and seeing how they can improve it from attracting more kids, better talent identification, better junior coaching and making sur the best kids get to a more competitive junior league while Austria's is not up to scratch. It's completely doable and not just in Austria.

To add to this. One of the things i remember is that since the adventures for Denmark in the Juniors from 2015-2019, the danish league has become a lot better over the past 6 years. It put Denmark on the map and a lot of North Americans and Russians has come to it after it. Either right after collage or to restart a broken career in the KHL which just ups the overall level. The only... downside is that the youngsters are stuck on less impactful roles which is a major topic for debate in Denmark and something that needs fixing imo.

However one thing thats clear is that overall excitment of hockey is higher than ever from fans and players due to players like Kirill Kabanov and Martin Lefebvre joining the league and setting new standards while also teaching the younger players.

 

[Frederik95]

As I already mentioned in this thread, I’m not worried about the skill difference between teams outside the top-6. I just don’t like the idea of having the top-6 nations get 5+ blowout games during one tournament.

I do see that point and i dont think anyone really wants blowouts, but its kinda.. a necessary evil for the smaller nations to grow.
Imo the best way to prevent it without ruining all of the hockey development is to change the structure of the tournament and and 2 more teams to help it. 4 groups of 3 teams depending on last years seeding or ranking in for instance the following:
1-8-9
2-7-10
3-6-11
4-5-12


So lets take last years rankings and add the Belarus who was promoted and Latvia who came second

Group A: USA, Slovakia, Switzerland
Group B: Canada, Czechia, Austria
Group C: Finland, Germany, Belarus
Group D: Russia, Sweden, Latvia.

Group A is fairly even, although the US are clear favorites and can have a game where they fully outplay either Slovakia or Switzerland but i dont think its going to be multiple times
Group B is having one or two games that could get ugly due to how Austria is further behind the rest. But also this is a rough group for them against two known powerhouses in hockey. But its one per team
Group C is having a clear favorit, but Finland rarely blows out teams and Germany and Finland could be an interesting game for sure for first, with the newcomers getting a chance to upset Germany
Group D is having a true heavy weight match between Russia and Sweden and its really rough for the lower seed to make a lot of inroads here and this could be two rough games for them.

After this the top 2 goes to the quater finals with a random draw of first place teams vs. second place teams or you do group decided matchups between first and second.
The bottom team moves to a relegation round against each other with a lot on the line. After that the bottom team or bottom two teams goes down, to allow for a new to from 1A to go up

 

[BMann]

To add to this. One of the things i remember is that since the adventures for Denmark in the Juniors from 2015-2019, the danish league has become a lot better over the past 6 years. It put Denmark on the map and a lot of North Americans and Russians has come to it after it. Either right after collage or to restart a broken career in the KHL which just ups the overall level. The only... downside is that the youngsters are stuck on less impactful roles which is a major topic for debate in Denmark and something that needs fixing imo.

However one thing thats clear is that overall excitment of hockey is higher than ever from fans and players due to players like Kirill Kabanov and Martin Lefebvre joining the league and setting new standards while also teaching the younger players.

I remember when GB and Denmark were also rans and played each other in the same division. Now look at Denmark. The federation and clubs had a plan. Better talent spotting, coaching usually with Swedish coaches and then moving the best kids to a more competitive league like the Elitserien. Look at all the NHLers. And but for the ridiculous Olympic qualification process and restricting the number of sides Denmark would have been at a Winter Olympics which given the paucity of other sports Denmark competes in at a winter Olympiad would have increased the profile even further. And yes the knock on is that the general standard of domestic hockey also improves.

 

[BadgerBruce]

Thats a valid question and one that very hard to answer simply but i will try.
Denmarks focus is on the building and development of hockey in the country. For instance by building 2 new arenas that should be ready by 2024 i believe. At the same time we are trying to make it easier for kids to get involved by making hockey more easy for them to watch both live and on TV. This has for instance come by a new TV deal where all games in a season is shown on a streaming platform.

The reason why i focused on this and what the idea of the internation focus is due to a few things. One being that one of the best way to recruit kids and new players is by being exposed to hockey in news and TV. When Denmark was in the top group of the Juniors the games was shown on TV and it was regularly mentioned. The second thing is that it's a huge carrot in front of the next generation that they can make it far in hockey and go play against the best in the sport. Even without being an NHL talent with hard work.
Another way it helps is in terms of learning from the best. Having games and trips to north America where you see how the top of the crop practice, the drills they do, how the system of hockey Canada is are amazing for both the players and Team Denmark's hockey union. It's learning from the best and transferring it to the danish system which is a lot easier if you can play them because let's be honest. I don't think Canada would want a preseason game against the Danish teams unless they make the Juniors.

Thank you for replying in detail. Very much appreciated.

I’m not in a position to tell smaller hockey nations, like Denmark, how best to develop the game within their borders. At best, I can only offer a few general observations.

First, be wary of pinning the hopes and dreams for the future growth of the Danish game on transient groups of 16-20 year-old male amateur hockey players. They are very young men — many are school age — and they are not paid professionals earning a living from the sport. In other words, don’t ask a kid to do a man’s job. It’s simply unfair and unreasonable.

Second, there is no evidence that international hockey success leads to increased grassroots participation in the sport. For example, Canada hosted the 2010 Winter Olympics and took home Gold after defeating the US in a game that set national “most watched” viewership records. This was the Sidney Crosby “golden goal” Olympics.

Yet, Hockey Canada’s annual report in 2011 (covered the post-Olympics 2010-11 season) showed a DECLINE in male youth hockey registration numbers. I am not for a moment suggesting that correlation = causation, but I am suggesting that success on international stages offers no guarantee of even a short-term jump in hockey participation amongst the grassroots age groups.

Third, I am not personally aware of youngsters from any country becoming more interested in playing a sport after watching their nation’s best U20 players get ripped to shreds on television. I would, with respect, suggest that most children would not be attracted to any sport under such a scenario, and the bright lights, high production values, and all the other trappings of VIP sports broadcast coverage makes the situation worse, not better. High quality Train Wreck television probably isn’t Denmark’s best hope for increased youth participation in the sport.

Finally, most smaller hockey nations, including Denmark, have been IIHF members for 70+ years (the Danes since 1946). By this point, these nations should know that kids want to play particular sports because they perceive them to be a lot of fun, not because they want to fulfil some adult national pride agenda. If kids think a game is fun to play and their parents find it reasonably affordable, safe and accessible, grassroots numbers increase. When that happens, superior performance on international stages is just gravy.

 

[Yakushev72]

Last year I wrote a letter to the Canadian hockey fans, to offer a slightly different perspective in the debates of whatever the blowouts in the World juniors are helping the smaller nations. After the game between Canada and Austria, a few people have once again suggested that blowouts like that shouldn't be happening and that ten teams might be too many for the World Juniors. This is a direct response to those saying that the competitiveness or lack of it from the smaller hockey nations is hurting the World Juniors and hockey in general from someone from a smaller hockey. The games help us develop and grow hockey. Even in a blowout, it helps us get better.

An Open Letter To The Hockey Elite

Interesting letter, but my instincts tell me that the prospects of the Danes or the Austrians or the Dutch "getting better" enough to be competitive in the World Junior tournament is too remote to be realistic. There is no incentive for these countries to invest in sufficient infrastructure to become competitive with the existing hockey powers. At one time, there was the belief that European hockey could "take off" and really grow, but all of that has more or less disappeared. The only "major" hockey league in Europe, if you can call it that, is the KHL, but the KHL has been a total failure in luring European prospects to stay in Europe. Even in Russia, if you are good, you are gone - to the NHL. The NHL set out to make Europe kind of like a farm system for the NHL, and it has worked, thereby killing any future momentum toward building European hockey. It seems as though there is diminished interest and energy toward hockey even in European countries that have had some success at it, like Sweden. I don't see the point in significantly expanding the number of teams in the WJC.

 

[Frederik95]

Thank you for replying in detail. Very much appreciated.

I’m not in a position to tell smaller hockey nations, like Denmark, how best to develop the game within their borders. At best, I can only offer a few general observations.

First, be wary of pinning the hopes and dreams for the future growth of the Danish game on transient groups of 16-20 year-old male amateur hockey players. They are very young men — many are school age — and they are not paid professionals earning a living from the sport. In other words, don’t ask a kid to do a man’s job. It’s simply unfair and unreasonable.

Second, there is no evidence that international hockey success leads to increased grassroots participation in the sport. For example, Canada hosted the 2010 Winter Olympics and took home Gold after defeating the US in a game that set national “most watched” viewership records. This was the Sidney Crosby “golden goal” Olympics.

Yet, Hockey Canada’s annual report in 2011 (covered the post-Olympics 2010-11 season) showed a DECLINE in male youth hockey registration numbers. I am not for a moment suggesting that correlation = causation, but I am suggesting that success on international stages offers no guarantee of even a short-term jump in hockey participation amongst the grassroots age groups.

Third, I am not personally aware of youngsters from any country becoming more interested in playing a sport after watching their nation’s best U20 players get ripped to shreds on television. I would, with respect, suggest that most children would not be attracted to any sport under such a scenario, and the bright lights, high production values, and all the other trappings of VIP sports broadcast coverage makes the situation worse, not better. High quality Train Wreck television probably isn’t Denmark’s best hope for increased youth participation in the sport.

Finally, most smaller hockey nations, including Denmark, have been IIHF members for 70+ years (the Danes since 1946). By this point, these nations should know that kids want to play particular sports because they perceive them to be a lot of fun, not because they want to fulfil some adult national pride agenda. If kids think a game is fun to play and their parents find it reasonably affordable, safe and accessible, grassroots numbers increase. When that happens, superior performance on international stages is just gravy.

I will say the same to you. Really loved this reply and love all the points you made. I fully see the points and agree with a ton of it.

You are absolutely right that it's not right or the way to do it to pin the hope of a nation's hockey fans on kids. They are as you mentioned kids and i fully agree they shouldn't be responsible for building the hockey development. That is up to the union and adults who should be focusing on building new arenas, and infrastructure and making hockey accessible which is happening in Denmark. The same goes for the coaches and pro players who can live off hockey that absolutely needs to do the most to bring forward the development. Especially the Worlds are a way to do that and Denmark being in the top group has skyrocketed the growth far more than anything the kids are meant to do on a junior level.

And it is true that success internationally won't always help growth or development and its far from a guarantee that it does, but i think it does have a decent chance to show the sport to new people if exposed and marketed correctly which again is on the union and marketing department to do.

True that the blowout games hurt to watch and isnt great, but those rarely are the games that the smaller nations should win or are expected to win. This is told a ton of time and people kinda expect a blowout to happen over here when we meet Canada. However we are also told about someone like McDavid which some kids in Denmark might have a chance to watch for the first time and his speed and flair even when cheering against him is magical. The games that really matter however is the games against switzerland or Germany where its a chance to play those and show the best hockey for the players and hopefully make it a closer game than past years.

But i will agree that if there was a way to limit the blowouts it would be preferred because its not good to see a 10-0 scoreline. However to me its a pros vs. cons situation and i personally think the exposure and showcasing of hockey outweights the blowouts negative effect. For me the way to kinda do it is by the 4 groups of 3 teams in each. That allows more exposure and limites the amounts of a blowout for a nation during the games.

And absolutely love that last point and can only agree. Hockey and sport yes is about winning and getting better sure, but first it should be fun to play! That is the way to recuit and im glad you mentioned that because that is a very often lost point in it all and something i also forgot in my letter.

Again thank you for the nice reply and i happy to talk about this because it does bring new angles and views on it

 

[Frederik95]

I remember when GB and Denmark were also rans and played each other in the same division. Now look at Denmark. The federation and clubs had a plan. Better talent spotting, coaching usually with Swedish coaches and then moving the best kids to a more competitive league like the Elitserien. Look at all the NHLers. And but for the ridiculous Olympic qualification process and restricting the number of sides Denmark would have been at a Winter Olympics which given the paucity of other sports Denmark competes in at a winter Olympiad would have increased the profile even further. And yes the knock-on is that the general standard of domestic hockey also improves.

Having a plan is key in it all. The plan for growth needs to be perfect and right to work and getting in coaches and players from Sweden back in the late 1990s was a stroke of genius from the danish hockey federation. It changed everything. From how training and camps were done, to how the league and development was going about thing and it has sent danish hockey so much futher than anything we could have hoped for 20 years ago.

 

[Frederik95]

Interesting letter, but my instincts tell me that the prospects of the Danes or the Austrians or the Dutch "getting better" enough to be competitive in the World Junior tournament is too remote to be realistic. There is no incentive for these countries to invest in sufficient infrastructure to become competitive with the existing hockey powers. At one time, there was the belief that European hockey could "take off" and really grow, but all of that has more or less disappeared. The only "major" hockey league in Europe, if you can call it that, is the KHL, but the KHL has been a total failure in luring European prospects to stay in Europe. Even in Russia, if you are good, you are gone - to the NHL. The NHL set out to make Europe kind of like a farm system for the NHL, and it has worked, thereby killing any future momentum toward building European hockey. It seems as though there is diminished interest and energy toward hockey even in European countries that have had some success at it, like Sweden. I don't see the point in significantly expanding the number of teams in the WJC.

I can understand where the worry is coming from for sure, and there have been examples of false hope in the past (Italy after the 06 Olympics is another) in Europe. I don't think Denmark will be fully able to challenge the elite teams on a consistent level ever. As you mentioned the infrastructure around hockey lacks a bit when compared to top nations and probably always will. There is a ceiling somewhere for the growth potential over here, but I don't think Denmark or Austria has reached it yet and I do think they can become similar to what we see Germany or Switzerland being right now. A team that has major upset potential and shouldn't be taken too lightly by the big nations. As a principle ten nations at the WJC is fine, but with the adition of Belarus to the next WJC it does open a door for another nation to come in to the folds which i dont think would damage the competition. Especially since it can open up to a change in the structure to a more group stage system with 4 groups with 3 teams in each. That to me allows teams from the smaller hockey nation a better chance to establish themselves while avoiding multiple blowouts since they would be limited to one or two game against the top teams.

 

[Silky Johnson]

If World Cup cared about best teams they would increase the spots Europe has and lower the other continents. For a long time now most people who follow intensively football think Euros is higher quality than World Cup.

The Euros misses some of the top end teams (Brazil/Argentina ext) but the bottom end teams are better. It makes for a more balanced tournament but the World Cup still has the highest level of top end competition.

 

[morkkis35]

Interesting letter, but my instincts tell me that the prospects of the Danes or the Austrians or the Dutch "getting better" enough to be competitive in the World Junior tournament is too remote to be realistic. There is no incentive for these countries to invest in sufficient infrastructure to become competitive with the existing hockey powers. At one time, there was the belief that European hockey could "take off" and really grow, but all of that has more or less disappeared. The only "major" hockey league in Europe, if you can call it that, is the KHL, but the KHL has been a total failure in luring European prospects to stay in Europe. Even in Russia, if you are good, you are gone - to the NHL. The NHL set out to make Europe kind of like a farm system for the NHL, and it has worked, thereby killing any future momentum toward building European hockey. It seems as though there is diminished interest and energy toward hockey even in European countries that have had some success at it, like Sweden. I don't see the point in significantly expanding the number of teams in the WJC.

@Yakushev72: I think in general hockey developed quite good in Europe. How would you conclude that european hockey disapeared? What do you mean by major hockey league? For example at WHC 2019 The Finns won gold with a team full of players of the ("bad") finnish league against a team full or NHL regulars. Canada is obviously top notch in the Hockey World, but the arrogance of these posts in here is mindblowing. It seems like most here dont have one clue about whats going on in european Hockey, even less when it is about Junior programms.

@Anyone:
Switzerland for example had rough years in Ice Hockey in the Mens Team and also in the WJC they were a "elevator" team that went up and down between top and 2nd division. They are no powerhouse yet, but the results of the past years show the amazing development Swiss hockey did. Switzerland won twice a Silver Medal at WHC in the last 10 Years. Swiss Junior Programs get better, Trainings Centers and accademies are getting built. They are bringing more and more talented players to North America. National League (1st Swiss Leage) Teams are highly competive and compete with the best teams out of any European League. If 20 years ago, you would have asked in Canada or States about Swiss Hockey and how they will develop you would probably gotten the same answears you hear today when pple talk about austria and the likes.

Also for example Germany is on the right track, and has developed greatly.

Even though obviously thats just one little part of developing Hockey in these countries, i think that 10-12 Teams is a great Format and that the lower countries benefit from these tournaments big time.

I cannot understand the posts that say they dont care about developing hockey. I think the NHL gets so much better, more interesting and apealing to watch with players like: Draisaitl, Seider, Josi, Meier, Ehlers etc.
They had a chance to get to that level, and to play in the nhl cause hockey developed for years, and it will develop more in the future. How can anyone say that would be bad for the nhl or north america is beyond me. Or do u really think the nhl would be better off without europeans?

 

[ES]

Junior level tournaments would need better way to ensure that the best of that age group would be competing on top level.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

It is a myth that international tournaments like the World Juniors or even the Olympics are useful tools for growing the sport or helping developing countries improve. They are far too short and infrequent to have any meaningful impact in that regard. It is the day in and day out exposure of professional leagues that provide growth. It is a slow process but the only thing that actually works. All of the money the IIHF spends on development is basically a complete waste.