Puck Daddy: Team Europe World Cup players frustrated with format

[Hardyvan123]

Except... when has anyone ever claimed that WHC is best-on-best?

I'm well aware of that tournament's limitations. But there clearly are people who don't realize those of the World Cup if there won't be euro players. So there *is* irony in there, not just where you think it is. But I guess that's nothing new by now.

Really how many players in Europe (ie non NHLer's) that are going to add to the overall talent of the tournament.

For the most part they are interchangeable lower need parts to most teams in the tournament and many would have a hard time cracking one of the 2 non traditional teams as well.

For sure the NHL tournament is going to miles ahead of the WHC in a best on best metric.

That's even before the assumption that the non NHL players wont get released.

 

[FiLe]

Really how many players in Europe (ie non NHLer's) that are going to add to the overall talent of the tournament.

For the most part they are interchangeable lower need parts to most teams in the tournament and many would have a hard time cracking one of the 2 non traditional teams as well.

For sure the NHL tournament is going to miles ahead of the WHC in a best on best metric.

It's binary, really. If even a single team is restricted in player selection by any other means than injuries, it's not best-on-best. How "close" it gets still does not mean it's fully there. Just like a WHC that may be running with 26 out of 30 NHL teams out of the playoffs already is not considered one - even in the odd case that all of the relevant players are out there playing for their country.

And the gimmick teams are totally irrelevant to this argument, because they would not be there in a true best-on-best environment when there would be enough teams with their players supplied from elsewhere. Like I said earlier, the only thing explaining their necessity is if the arranging party can't supply enough players for the event's purposes otherwise.

Finally, yes, for the millionth time, if you add the World's 7th and 8th best hockey nations in their best possible setups, they're going to be as competitive as the two gimmicks. By claiming otherwise all one is really doing is revealing one's own ignorance.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's binary, really. If even a single team is restricted in player selection by any other means than injuries, it's not best-on-best. How "close" it gets still does not mean it's fully there. Just like a WHC that may be running with 26 out of 30 NHL teams out of the playoffs already is not considered one - even in the odd case that all of the relevant players are out there playing for their country.

And the gimmick teams are totally irrelevant to this argument, because they would not be there in a true best-on-best environment when there would be enough teams with their players supplied from elsewhere. Like I said earlier, the only thing explaining their necessity is if the arranging party can't supply enough players for the event's purposes otherwise.

Finally, yes, for the millionth time, if you add the World's 7th and 8th best hockey nations in their best possible setups, they're going to be as competitive as the two gimmicks. By claiming otherwise all one is really doing is revealing one's own ignorance.

So basically nothing to go on on except for the it's not international argument and the fact that you are upset about it.

The only ignorance here is the blind assumption that players who are clearly inferior as a team might somehow play better and be more competitive and might draw more interest than a team centered around McDavid

Emotion truly does blind logic sometimes.

It's pretty obvious, even before the tournament has even come close to happening that any team led by McDavid is going to draw more interest and be competitive much moreso than anything the Swiss and Slovaks can muster at this point.

 

[Canuckistani]

It's pretty obvious, even before the tournament has even come close to happening that any team led by McDavid is going to draw more interest and be competitive much moreso than anything the Swiss and Slovaks can muster at this point.

And the Dallas Stars would be more competitive than team Hungary at the WHC next spring so should they be invited instead?

Or might that make a mockery of the whole "international hockey" thing?

 

[Canuckistani]

For sure the NHL tournament is going to miles ahead of the WHC in a best on best metric.

No one claims the WHC is best-on-best so you're setting the bar pretty low.

What's most pathetic and frustrating is that the NHL could easily have had a full best-on-best format but chose instead to needlessly scuttle their own credibility by including two joke teams and sabotaging Canada and USA by denying them their full teams.

The only way to keep this from being a complete atrocity against hockey is if the NHL stays in the Olympics, in which case the world cup will serve as a warm-up that we can all safely disregard safe in the knowledge that the real thing will still take place.

 

[usahockey22flyers]

So basically nothing to go on on except for the it's not international argument and the fact that you are upset about it.

The only ignorance here is the blind assumption that players who are clearly inferior as a team might somehow play better and be more competitive and might draw more interest than a team centered around McDavid

Emotion truly does blind logic sometimes.

It's pretty obvious, even before the tournament has even come close to happening that any team led by McDavid is going to draw more interest and be competitive much moreso than anything the Swiss and Slovaks can muster at this point.

Should we replace Iceland at Euro 2016 for Barcelona?

 

[Hardyvan123]

And the Dallas Stars would be more competitive than team Hungary at the WHC next spring so should they be invited instead?

Or might that make a mockery of the whole "international hockey" thing?

It's an NHL tournament not an IIHF one or should there only be one single template for everything?

I'd rather see the better players than a team that can collectively stay in a game.

Perhaps the guys so outraged by the format should post a poll with Team Swiss and Slovaks versus the U23?

 

[Canuckistani]

It's an NHL tournament not an IIHF one or should there only be one single template for everything?

It would be one thing if the NHL claimed it was a mickey mouse event that was only marginally better than a "Toews vs Lidstrom" all-star game.

But the NHL itself is marketing this sham as a "best-on-best international tournament" which is it not on both counts.

Again, I don't care one bit so long as the NHL stays in the Olympics.

 

[MMANumminen]

There shouldn't be qny marketing bs and forced entertainment rules. 8 best nations, with their top players. Good enough let's play

 

[Hardyvan123]

No one claims the WHC is best-on-best so you're setting the bar pretty low.

What's most pathetic and frustrating is that the NHL could easily have had a full best-on-best format but chose instead to needlessly scuttle their own credibility by including two joke teams and sabotaging Canada and USA by denying them their full teams.

The only way to keep this from being a complete atrocity against hockey is if the NHL stays in the Olympics, in which case the world cup will serve as a warm-up that we can all safely disregard safe in the knowledge that the real thing will still take place.

Simple question for the naysayers here.

Is the quality of teams and players better in the NHL world Cup or the WHC?

It's not the Olympics we get that but it is a heck of alot closer to the "best on best standard" than the WHC right?

 

[Hardyvan123]

There shouldn't be qny marketing bs and forced entertainment rules. 8 best nations, with their top players. Good enough let's play

Why should the NHL, or anyone holding a tournament follow the lead or suggestions of those who are entirely critical beyond belief.

Once again which teams hold the most marquee and interest of any hockey fan, the NAU23 and rest of Europe team or Slovakia and Switzerland?

I also can't wait for the "best on best" crowd to criticize the inclusion of the South Korean hockey team in the next Olympics.

 

[FiLe]

Is the quality of teams and players better in the NHL world Cup or the WHC?

It's not the Olympics we get that but it is a heck of alot closer to the "best on best standard" than the WHC right?

Overall quality is better, yes. But if this was about overall quality, they should have just brought in eight mixed teams to maximize parity.

International "best-on-best standard" requires that all teams are national teams. That's why they call it a "standard". So "no" to the latter question. It does not respond to the standard at all.

Once again which teams hold the most marquee and interest of any hockey fan, the NAU23 and rest of Europe team or Slovakia and Switzerland?

Show of hands? I go for the latter.

I also can't wait for the "best on best" crowd to criticize the inclusion of the South Korean hockey team in the next Olympics.

If the South Koreans come out with their best possible roster, there is nothing to criticize. At least as far as the tournament's best-on-best status and it responding to the "standard" is concerned.

Whether they could have had another, better *national* team in their stead is of course something that can be debated. But that is an entirely separate issue.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Once again which teams hold the most marquee and interest of any hockey fan, the NAU23 and rest of Europe team or Slovakia and Switzerland?

Show of hands? I go for the latter.

Um okay.

 

[JackSlater]

Simple question for the naysayers here.

Is the quality of teams and players better in the NHL world Cup or the WHC?

It's not the Olympics we get that but it is a heck of alot closer to the "best on best standard" than the WHC right?

The quality of players will presumably be better in the World Cup. As has been explained to you numerous times though, the issue is that a supposedly international tournament is using non-national teams. Implicit in discussion of best on best is the assumption that we are talking about an international tournament. Otherwise we could just be discussing the NHL, since the world's best players already play there against each other already. The WHC is not a best on best because such a huge portion of the world's best players are not present. The World Cup isn't best on best because it isn't an actual international tournament.

 

[xxxx]

The quality of players will presumably be better in the World Cup. As has been explained to you numerous times though, the issue is that a supposedly international tournament is using non-national teams. Implicit in discussion of best on best is the assumption that we are talking about an international tournament. Otherwise we could just be discussing the NHL, since the world's best players already play there against each other already. The WHC is not a best on best because such a huge portion of the world's best players are not present. The World Cup isn't best on best because it isn't an actual international tournament.

Of course you don't need a tournament to be international to be best-on-best. It's a different tournament, not typical, but it is a best-on-best on its own merits.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The quality of players will presumably be better in the World Cup. As has been explained to you numerous times though, the issue is that a supposedly international tournament is using non-national teams. Implicit in discussion of best on best is the assumption that we are talking about an international tournament. Otherwise we could just be discussing the NHL, since the world's best players already play there against each other already. The WHC is not a best on best because such a huge portion of the world's best players are not present. The World Cup isn't best on best because it isn't an actual international tournament.

Okay we get it, you have a hangup on the non traditional makeup of the 2 non nation teams.

And once again this tournament is an NHL and is a one off, probably due to the MCDavid/Eichel factor in part.

It still doesn't change the question of the NHL world cup being closer to the Olympic standard (which is only recent BTW) of the term best on best than the WHC.

In fact one can easily make the argument, when taking away emotional hangups, that the 2 non nation teams actually increase the best on best competent of the tournament with them replacing the 7th and 8th best hockey nations in the world right now.

To suggest otherwise like another poster has done just isn't backed up with anything logical.

I'll leave it up to readers to decide if the NAU23 team is better than the Slovakia or Swiss National teams right now.

 

[JackSlater]

Of course you don't need a tournament to be international to be best-on-best. It's a different tournament, not typical, but it is a best-on-best on its own merits.

Best what? Best players against best players? We see that already in the NHL. Everyone knows what best on best means, to try to pretend every best on best tournament that people refer to isn't international is disingenuous at best, idiotic at worst. Would you call a tournament with the world's best players sorted by the alphabet a best on best? Is the all star game best on best?

Okay we get it, you have a hangup on the non traditional makeup of the 2 non nation teams.

And once again this tournament is an NHL and is a one off, probably due to the MCDavid/Eichel factor in part.

It still doesn't change the question of the NHL world cup being closer to the Olympic standard (which is only recent BTW) of the term best on best than the WHC.

What is your point? Who is talking about the WHC? Everyone knows that the World Cup will have better players - to say otherwise is idiotic. Everyone can also see that the WHC is an international tournament, while the World Cup is not.

Oh and thank you, oh wise one, for alerting us all to the nature of the Olympics. I bet most people were completely unaware that NHLers didn't participate until 1998.

In fact one can easily make the argument, when taking away emotional hangups, that the 2 non nation teams actually increase the best on best competent of the tournament with them replacing the 7th and 8th best hockey nations in the world right now.

To suggest otherwise like another poster has done just isn't backed up with anything logical.

I'll leave it up to readers to decide if the NAU23 team is better than the Slovakia or Swiss National teams right now.

Ah yes, accusing people who can actually follow and construct coherent arguments of being blinded by emotion. I recommend at least comprehending an argument before looking for such ways to defend your baseless claims.

Since you do not understand the basic logic of what people have been telling you:

1. Everyone knows that the Young Gunz and the Euro Leftovers are more talented teams than Slovakia and Switzerland. Everyone.

2. It is complete speculation that they will be more competitive, considering Switzerland and Slovakia being proven teams, while the gimmick teams have notable obstacles to overcome such as: cohesion, motivation, experience. All that in addition to the fact that their talent level still trails that of the top teams.

3. Most importantly - whether they are competitive or not does not matter. There is no place in a supposedly international tournament for non-national teams. That is based on the definition of international. If the NHL is going to make a non-international tournament, then by all means just maximize talent. They are presenting this as an international tournament though, and thus including non-national teams is wrong.

 

[Canuckistani]

Simple question for the naysayers here.

Is the quality of teams and players better in the NHL world Cup or the WHC?

You still somehow don't seem to get the point of international competition. It isn't purely about talent - there's also the whole "international" part of it in which players join national teams and play for their country.

North America U-23 is not a country, not is "Team Euro leftover." Thus they have no business being in an international competition.

By your logic soccer fans should want Real Madrid and Bayern Munich at Euro 2016 instead of Iceland and Albania. But of course they wouldn't because fans know the difference between club teams and national teams.

It's not the Olympics we get that but it is a heck of alot closer to the "best on best standard" than the WHC right?

Closer in terms of talent level, miles away in terms of national teams.

I also can't wait for the "best on best" crowd to criticize the inclusion of the South Korean hockey team in the next Olympics.

They're playing as the hosts, which is IOC rules. But note that South Korea is a country and not an age group or the leftovers of a continent. How you can't grasp the difference is simply beyond me.

 

[Canuckistani]

Of course you don't need a tournament to be international to be best-on-best.

Of course you do. Otherwise you might as well be talking about the NHL all-star game.

 

[1Gold Standard]

If anybody listened or watched PTS last evening, Bob McCown really voiced his opinion to Tom Renney about the gimmicky teams of the upcoming NHL September exhibition tourney.

 

[usahockey22flyers]

I'm ok with this gimmick tournament IF the NHL stays in the olympics...

TEAM EUROPE DOESNT EVEN SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGES!!!

 

[Lepardi]

Team Europe still does, to some extent, represents Europe.

What a great thing that would be to reminisce about 30 years from now: "Do you remember when Europe, to some extent, won the World Cup in 2016?"

Sweden, Finland, the Czechs and Russia represent Europe. Team Europe represents the idiocy of the organizers.

Neither of Europe or NA are countries, but they are politically and geographically clearly separated territories, continents.

Yes, Europe is a continent. Sweden, Finland and the Czech Republic are parts of that continent. Yet players from those countries are not playing for Team Europe. How very logical.

 

[Lepardi]

For the newspapers in France, Latvia, Norway, Germany, or Denamark, there would be basically no reason at all to mention this tournament when not having this european team. But there is a reason now.

If you think anybody in France will care about this tournament, that just goes to show that you don't know anything about France. It wouldn't matter if France itself was playing, nobody would still care. Ice hockey is totally irrelevant in that country.

 

[Lepardi]

The only ignorance here is the blind assumption that players who are clearly inferior as a team might somehow play better and be more competitive and might draw more interest than a team centered around McDavid

Last time I checked, McDavid was listed as Canadian. If he's that great, he should be playing for Team Canada. There's no need to create a bogus team to get him in and ruin the legitimacy of the tournament as a best-on-best for national teams. If Sweden manages to beat Canada in the final, the achievement will lose some of its prestige because Canada wasn't able to pick its players freely due to an asinine age limit.

 

[usahockey22flyers]

Last time I checked, McDavid was listed as Canadian. If he's that great, he should be playing for Team Canada. There's no need to create a bogus team to get him in and ruin the legitimacy of the tournament as a best-on-best for national teams. If Sweden manages to beat Canada in the final, the achievement will lose some of its prestige because Canada wasn't able to pick its players freely due to an asinine age limit.

You nailed it with your lsat 3 posts. It's a complete BS tournament.

"Team Europe"..."North American U23's"

What garbage