Russia is the weakest team in the top 6 NT?

[Yakushev72]

This is beyond stupid. Yes, the biggest period of physical maturation takes place in puberty. That does nothing to disprove the common knowledge that people are still building their physiques in their teens. Hence why we see players significantly bulk up from the time they are drafted and the time they are in the NHL. Of course physical differences are only one difference. A 19 year old player is inevitably more experienced than their 16/17 year old selves, and has gone through many additional hours of training. It's so ridiculous that it shouldn't even register a reply, so I guess it's my fault for taking the bait.



Once again, it's laughable to suggest that players barely improve from the ages of 17 to 19. Any tangible result indicates that there is improvement, and even simply watching players indicates this. If any coach thought the way you do, we would see a great number of 16 and 17 year olds at this tournament.

I have also never mentioned an asterisk, so either you are confusing me with someone else or have simply inferred far too much, with both options being highly plausible. The results are what they are, there is nothing inherently unfair about the WJC. The reality is that different countries are without their best players in essentially every given year. This wouldn't be an issue except that countries are affected in vastly different ways. For instance, Russia/USSR has missed 15 players at the WJC due to the NHL. Canada has missed over 200 players at the WJC due to the NHL. Obviously that's a significant benefit to Russia/USSR.

By counting 200 players, you must be going all the way back to the early 80's, when the NHL was talent-starved, and it was much easier for an 18-year old to win a roster spot. During some of those years, there were as many as 14 under age teenagers who were skating regular shifts in the NHL. Of the list that I have seen, there are no more than 2 or 3 per year who were better than the guys who were actually on the team, and who could have made a difference.

 

[JackSlater]

By counting 200 players, you must be going all the way back to the early 80's, when the NHL was talent-starved, and it was much easier for an 18-year old to win a roster spot. During some of those years, there were as many as 14 under age teenagers who were skating regular shifts in the NHL. Of the list that I have seen, there are no more than 2 or 3 per year who were better than the guys who were actually on the team, and who could have made a difference.

Now that is pure speculation on your part, especially considering that you seemingly don't even watch the current NHL, better yet the NHL of the 1980s. The players who make the NHL are almost always better than their peers who remained in junior. Cases of a Kyle Clifford, who would have been absolutely useless at the WJC, making the NHL as a teenager are quite rare. Of course no one can say definitively that any player would or would not have made a difference, but it's obvious that the NHLers are better than their junior counterparts almost every time. Your willingness to conclude that players you know nothing about would not have made a difference is nothing but a refusal to accept the context of the WJC and the implications of the context.

This is a matter for a different thread though, so I won't continue discussing WJC in a thread about Russia supposedly having the sixth strongest national team.

 

[Jablkon]

Canada would still win like 60% of WJC if it would have all its best player's... well Canada> Russia is about as big difference as Russia> Czech. About 3-5 Russians would make team Canada A and about 5 Czechs would make team Russia. Then Czech has more NHL players than Russia so when looking at depth it actually makes Czech look better compared to Russia than just A team. If you take 50 best players from Russia and 50 From Czech players 25-50 in depth chart they aren't that different from each other eventough Russia has edge in top end talent forwards not SO much in depth

I don't agree here. The difference between Canada and Russia is much bigger. Czechs and Russians had pretty much eqaul quality on paper between 1996 - 2006. Czechs were much more succesfful though. Since Malkin, Ov...etc. and czech decline in past russians looks obviously better on paper. Still mutual games are pretty tight. The biggest outplay for me was 2:1 2010 OG, where russians were better. On the other side russians have been demolished on ice by Canada

Sorry, you might speak about WJC....

 

[moropanov]

Yeah after i thought about it some more Russia is not in clearly different tier than Czech, when talking about A National team maybe like 60-40% better at most 65-35.

 

[tinozz]

No they didn't that game wasn't close at all other than on the scoreboard but at no point did Finland look like they were a threat to score and at no point did Canada have to take any risks to run up the score.

Canada controlled that game from the start and it was a thorough ass kicking.

so you're saying for example that lets say shots are 40-10 and scoreboard is 0-5

you're gonna say canada won the game but they lost on scoreboard

 

[moon*]

so you're saying for example that lets say shots are 40-10 and scoreboard is 0-5

you're gonna say canada won the game but they lost on scoreboard

What?

 

[Yakushev72]

What?

He is talking about "alternative" methods of judging a game, aside from the final numbers on the scoreboard. Such as "we lost 5-0, but totally beat them in Shots on Goal totals," or, "maybe we only beat them by 1 goal in overtime, but we killed them in the neutral zone in between the blue lines." What he is talking about are creative ways to measure meaninglessness.

 

[xxxx]

He is talking about "alternative" methods of judging a game, aside from the final numbers on the scoreboard. Such as "we lost 5-0, but totally beat them in Shots on Goal totals," or, "maybe we only beat them by 1 goal in overtime, but we killed them in the neutral zone in between the blue lines." What he is talking about are creative ways to measure meaninglessness.

Of course that at the end of the day, eventually the score is the only thing that matters. But that still doesn't mean you can't say "the other team was better", or "much better than it shows on the scoreboard".

For example, out-shooting Latvia like 55-10, you don't even need to watch that game to say, that Canada was better much more than just for a one-goal win. Any sane person who didn't know the score would be definitely surprised that it ended with a one goal win.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

I actually can't believe one comment I made spawned this thread

 

[moon*]

He is talking about "alternative" methods of judging a game, aside from the final numbers on the scoreboard. Such as "we lost 5-0, but totally beat them in Shots on Goal totals," or, "maybe we only beat them by 1 goal in overtime, but we killed them in the neutral zone in between the blue lines." What he is talking about are creative ways to measure meaninglessness.

Ok but what does that have to do with the Canada-Finland game?

Canada beat them on the scoreboard, beat them in the neutral zone, killed them in the defensively and were light years better in the offensive zone.

There wasn't a single part of the game in which Finland was better.

 

[Yakushev72]

Of course that at the end of the day, eventually the score is the only thing that matters. But that still doesn't mean you can't say "the other team was better", or "much better than it shows on the scoreboard".

For example, out-shooting Latvia like 55-10, you don't even need to watch that game to say, that Canada was better much more than just for a one-goal win. Any sane person who didn't know the score would be definitely surprised that it ended with a one goal win.

The problem with that is that all shots on goal stats tell you is that the puck was inside the offensive zone or close enough outside of it to get off a shot that goes in the direction of the net. Shots on goal stats are strongly affected by power-play/penalty ratio, and changes in strategy over the course of a game that results in shifts to a more defensive mode. When you start to protect a narrow lead, your SOG rates go down and the other teams' go up.

While I am sure there was a difference in the dynamics of Latvia's play in comparison to Canada's, the fact is that one stoke of the stick could have taken Latvia into OT, and one more stroke could have eliminated Canada from medal contention. I'm sure Latvia just sat back and tried to keep the game within a goal, but if they ended up winning, I think Canada wouldn't have felt great about that.

 

[PepperoniSlapshot*]

Russia beat Canada (4-3) again for the 2nd time in 4 years at the Youth Winter Olympics

Looks like Russia's development is coming back strong and looking great for 2018/2022