Some details about the World Cup...

[Gylf]

This tournament will be great and every big hockeycountry will be thrilled once it starts. As always.

Does anybody have any news on the format?

These tournaments, inkl both World Cup and Olympics, haven't had as good of a format as the Canada Cup had with every team playing every team at least once. I also wan't the round-robin to matter more.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Nope, the only thing different was that countries had more NHL players then. That was not the case in Sotchi, due to players aging or injuries. Once again, Finland played better even in 2014 than in 2004.

Finland in the last OG was a great example of what has gone terribly wrong with best on best Olympic hockey. Just another team with nowhere near the talent to play entertaining hockey against the big boys. Ultra defensive hockey is effective, and makes less talented teams competitive, but is awful to watch. I remember how excited people were back in '98 to see some offensive hockey with the best players on the ice since the NHL was so defensive / conservative. Thank god there are at least a few teams that can just go for it. If everyone played like Finland we'd have a lot of 0-0 games going to shootouts.

 

[Jussi]

Finland in the last OG was a great example of what has gone terribly wrong with best on best Olympic hockey. Just another team with nowhere near the talent to play entertaining hockey against the big boys. Ultra defensive hockey is effective, and makes less talented teams competitive, but is awful to watch. I remember how excited people were back in '98 to see some offensive hockey with the best players on the ice since the NHL was so defensive / conservative. Thank god there are at least a few teams that can just go for it. If everyone played like Finland we'd have a lot of 0-0 games going to shootouts.

If we had had all our players healthy, do you think we would have played as defensively or not gotten more shots/scoring chances? For crying out loud, did you even pay attention to the rosters? And it's not like Canada scored more than 4 goals a game either. Everyone can defend on the international stage, you play according to what style is best suited to your roster at hand.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

If we had had all our players healthy, do you think we would have played as defensively or not gotten more shots/scoring chances? For crying out loud, did you even pay attention to the rosters? And it's not like Canada scored more than 4 goals a game either. Everyone can defend on the international stage, you play according to what style is best suited to your roster at hand.

Does not change the fact the hockey still sucked far more then the last World cup.

 

[Jussi]

Does not change the fact the hockey still sucked far more then the last World cup.

It's more a matter of evolution of hockey. Defenses and defensive strategies have evolved immensely in 10 years. It's always easier to defend than attack.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

It's more a matter of evolution of hockey. Defenses and defensive strategies have evolved immensely in 10 years. It's always easier to defend than attack.

Maybe, but 2010 was on NHL rinks in 2010 and the games were mostly great and defensive strategies have not evolved immensely since then.

Come to think of it, Torino did not have a lot of great games either.

People are starting to blame the big ice, which I am not sure if I buy but Sochi did not do the big ice game any favours, nor did Torino.

 

[JackSlater]

They had them in 2004 and it didn't make the games any better.

And other times, it has. I don't even understand the relevance of "entertainment" to how significant a tournament it, but the points being made in this regard about World Cup vs Olympics aren't even true. In some instances Canada/World Cup hockey was more entertaining (1987, 1996 for example) while in other cases Olympic hockey was more entertaining (1998, 2010). There is no actual evidence that Olympic hockey is inherently more entertaining, or played at a higher level.

If we are just looking at how well the teams play, I could just as easily say that the Olympics are a poor tournament because teams barely get any practice time together and are just thrown right into a tournament. I wouldn't say that, because it's moronic, but it is just as valid as complaining that professional hockey players at the highest level are out of form for the World Cup and thus the tournament is of lesser quality.

No, they don't. You're mistakenly assuming the IIHF and European countries would have a problem with an Olympic tournament without NHL players. It would only increase chances of winning/medalling. The fact is NHL can't do a World Cup without European countries and needs to give something back to them and i'm not sure if tehy can give anything to e.g. Russia.

I don't know about European countries but the IIHF clearly wants NHLers at the Olympics. Look at any of the multitude of Fasel quotes on the matter or watch his Olympic press conference with Bettman.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

If we had had all our players healthy, do you think we would have played as defensively or not gotten more shots/scoring chances? For crying out loud, did you even pay attention to the rosters? And it's not like Canada scored more than 4 goals a game either. Everyone can defend on the international stage, you play according to what style is best suited to your roster at hand.

Sorry, but even your players that were hurt just aren't that good relatively speaking and whether they were there or not wouldn't have changed anything. The main reason Canada didn't score more goals is because everyone they played (except maybe the USA) just collapsed around their goalie for 60 minutes. The 2014 OG will be remembered as almost unwatchable hockey.

 

[Lepardi]

I remember how excited people were back in '98 to see some offensive hockey with the best players on the ice since the NHL was so defensive / conservative.

Yeah, it was really exciting to see the Czech Republic beat Canada 2-1 on penalties in the semis and Russia 1-0 in the final to take the gold medal.

Come to think of it, Torino did not have a lot of great games either.

Could it be that North Americans didn't like the games that much because Canada and USA got knocked out pretty quick?

 

[The Bad Guy*]

Yeah, it was really exciting to see the Czech Republic beat Canada 2-1 on penalties in the semis and Russia 1-0 in the final to take the gold medal.



Could it be that North Americans didn't like the games that much because Canada and USA got knocked out pretty quick?

I can only speak for me not all fans of the U.S and Canada but Canada won gold in 2014 yet I clearly said above in my previous post that the games sucked so no.

We won, but the games were very subpar in terms of excitement and entertainment.


I guess I can ask you the same question, do European fans think the World Cup games in 2004 sucked because they didn't win?

 

[Lepardi]

I guess I can ask you the same question, do European fans think the World Cup games in 2004 sucked because they didn't win?

I think the 2004 World Cup didn't suck. It was a good tournament. I thought that Torino 2006 was a good tournament as well. The semi-final against Russia was probably the best game Finland has ever played.

I found Sochi a bit boring too.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I think the 2004 World Cup didn't suck. It was a good tournament. I thought that Torino 2006 was a good tournament as well. The semi-final against Russia was probably the best game Finland has ever played.

I found Sochi a bit boring too.

There were a couple of good games in Torino but overall I was not impressed. I think the bad ice that seemed to be there had a lot to do with it, I never saw so many players trip and fall of their own accord as in those games. I just found a lot of the play by teams sloppy. I will agree that some of the games involving Finland were quite good.

Overall I would give that tournament a C for entertainment value personally. That is about what I would give for the last world cup too. The world cup in 1996 I would rate higher and Canada lost the finals to the U.S in that one

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Yeah, it was really exciting to see the Czech Republic beat Canada 2-1 on penalties in the semis and Russia 1-0 in the final to take the gold medal.

Agreed, the Czechs won in 98 because they executed a sound defensive game when nobody expected the teams to play like that. I've heard a lot of people say it was Hasek and jagr, but not the case.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

There were a couple of good games in Torino but overall I was not impressed. I think the bad ice that seemed to be there had a lot to do with it, I never saw so many players trip and fall of their own accord as in those games. I just found a lot of the play by teams sloppy. I will agree that some of the games involving Finland were quite good.

Overall I would give that tournament a C for entertainment value personally. That is about what I would give for the last world cup too. The world cup in 1996 I would rate higher and Canada lost the finals to the U.S in that one

The 96 wcup was an a+ in terms of entertainment but probably our most painful loss

 

[Jussi]

Maybe, but 2010 was on NHL rinks in 2010 and the games were mostly great and defensive strategies have not evolved immensely since then.

Come to think of it, Torino did not have a lot of great games either.

People are starting to blame the big ice, which I am not sure if I buy but Sochi did not do the big ice game any favours, nor did Torino.

I can easily say on Finland's behalf that we played like crap tactically and defensively throughout that tournament and the differences between the coaching staff and NHL players are well documented.

 

[JackSlater]

Agreed, the Czechs won in 98 because they executed a sound defensive game when nobody expected the teams to play like that. I've heard a lot of people say it was Hasek and jagr, but not the case.

Glad to see another Canadian say this, because it's very annoying to read over and over that Hasek stole the game for Czech Republic, when in reality the Czechs played better hockey for most of the game and the goaltending was basically even.

The 96 wcup was an a+ in terms of entertainment but probably our most painful loss

Sorry, but that can't be true. Don't you know that the games were held in August and September?

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I can easily say on Finland's behalf that we played like crap tactically and defensively throughout that tournament and the differences between the coaching staff and NHL players are well documented.

O.K.

But at least it made for more entertaining games.

 

[Jussi]

O.K.

But at least it made for more entertaining games.

When the tops teams with their best players are well organized defensively and commit few errors, the entertainment value tends to take a hit. Let's not even try and pretend the SC finals haven't had an abundance of defensive individual errors, which in turn have provided more goals and entertainment. In international competitions it would require a major talent advantage and bad defensive strategies to increase the goal averages.

 

[Jussi]

Sorry, but even your players that were hurt just aren't that good relatively speaking and whether they were there or not wouldn't have changed anything. The main reason Canada didn't score more goals is because everyone they played (except maybe the USA) just collapsed around their goalie for 60 minutes. The 2014 OG will be remembered as almost unwatchable hockey.

Considering our biggest absentees were at the center position and our defensive and offensive strategies (puck possession) are heavily dependent on having good puck distributors as well as defensively sound players, it most certainly would have affected our performances had Filppula, Koivu, Ruutu and Barkov been healthy.

 

[Yakushev72]

Like in 1981 and 1996 ?

You should note that the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991, 23 years ago. As far as the US goes, 1996 was the last time the US successfully challenged Canada in that kind of tournament. That's too stale to support a hot rivalry. You have to be successful more often than that to create some suspense. My point is that you need to create some suspense as to who is going to win before you can start to generate some interest. Right now, it would surely look like a lock for Canada before the puck was dropped, which would do nothing to create any interest for the tournament.

 

[Yakushev72]

When the tops teams with their best players are well organized defensively and commit few errors, the entertainment value tends to take a hit. Let's not even try and pretend the SC finals haven't had an abundance of defensive individual errors, which in turn have provided more goals and entertainment. In international competitions it would require a major talent advantage and bad defensive strategies to increase the goal averages.

Good point! There's a huge difference between winning an Olympic Gold Medal and a Stanley Cup. For the SC, you are part of a business organization that is marketing its product to the general public in places where people don't play hockey growing up. If, as in the 1990's, teams start using "zone defenses," or traps, by another term, the league will just legislate against it, opting for 8-7 scores over 1-0.

In the Olympics, you're not part of a business enterprise, and you don't really care about how many people are in the seats or watching on TV (I'm talking about the teams and the fans, not Rene Fasel). You want to win for national pride. If a trap gets you an important win, you could care less about style points. In my opinion, 9-8 scores only prove how damn easy it is to score.

 

[Yakushev72]

I can only speak for me not all fans of the U.S and Canada but Canada won gold in 2014 yet I clearly said above in my previous post that the games sucked so no.

We won, but the games were very subpar in terms of excitement and entertainment.


I guess I can ask you the same question, do European fans think the World Cup games in 2004 sucked because they didn't win?

I am sensing a Guinness record in the category of hockey games that really sucked generating months and months of discussion.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

Good point! There's a huge difference between winning an Olympic Gold Medal and a Stanley Cup. For the SC, you are part of a business organization that is marketing its product to the general public in places where people don't play hockey growing up. If, as in the 1990's, teams start using "zone defenses," or traps, by another term, the league will just legislate against it, opting for 8-7 scores over 1-0.

In the Olympics, you're not part of a business enterprise, and you don't really care about how many people are in the seats or watching on TV (I'm talking about the teams and the fans, not Rene Fasel). You want to win for national pride. If a trap gets you an important win, you could care less about style points. In my opinion, 9-8 scores only prove how damn easy it is to score.

Winning a Stanley Cup is 100x or heck 10000x times more difficult then winning a 6 game tournament. Now most people here probably don't expect you to understand how difficult it is to win Hockey's most DIFFICULT trophy but there is nothing comparable in terms that feeling of fulfillment when winning the Cup. You can go to any Canadian city with an NHL team and if Canada doesn't win in Sochi or any other Olympics for the next 20 years, and their team wins the Cup, that'll be fair change for them. This isn't the KHL where it's skating like ballerinas for 6 months a year, it's a painful painful way to the top and that feeling when winning is incomparable to winning an Olympic medal. The two are on par but Stanley defines you as a Hockey player, not the opposite. Keep seeing your posts bashing league play, but it's hard for you to understand when you have no team to support, no allegiances from the time you can walk, other then one tournament a year at the Worlds, it's difficult to understand sport that way when your not emotionally tied to a team.

 

[Yakushev72]

Unfortunately for you the NHL holds all the power here and they know that if they committed to the next OG now in exchange for Euro commitment to a WCup that there is no guarantee that the top Euro players would actually show up at the WCup since their national teams can't force them to come.

The NHL holds no power in this situation at all. The NHL is the supplicant in this case. Especially for teams that have national team players in the KHL (there could be more by 2016), the NHL would have to try to find a way to persuade them to act against their own best interests. Good luck with that! If pulling out of the Olympics is the trump card, as Jussi mentioned above, a lot of European federations would be sensing an unexpected shot at an Olympic medal, and the KHL would be salivating at the windfall that they would find in using the Olympics to showcase the league.

 

[jekoh]

Winning a Stanley Cup is 100x or heck 10000x times more difficult then winning a 6 game tournament.

No, it's not.

Playing more games does not make a competition any more difficult to win.