Some details about the World Cup...

[habsrule4eva3089]

No, it's not.

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

More difficult games, more emotional games, more swings and flows, daily life of family situation, other outside stuff that occurs, beating a team in a best of 7 situation in comparison to winning a tournament where in one game a fluky goalie can steal a game? Common, how long have you been watching sports for? This is not Football World Cup, this is Ice Hockey, a sport where only 5 countries can ever in history win Olympic Gold, it's such a miniscule sport in terms of international competition you can't even compare both .

If you know Hockey you would not say winning a 6 game tournament is as difficult as Lord Stanley's Cup, sheesh Euro's on this board really don't understand how difficult it is, the Olympics is a cake walk compared to the NHL playoffs. I mean Canada had to win one group game, and then USA to get to the final. they had 2 difficult games to get to a Gold Medal game barring a fluke performance by that Latvian kid I mean coomon...WAKE UP people. Especially our Euro friends, do you realize how tough it is to win in the NHL. How much COMPETITION there is? It's ridiculous the competitive balance that's in the league right now.

 

[xxxx]

No, it's not.

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

Ok, maybe only 50 times harder.

You have to beat the other team 4 times, not just once. And you have to beat the truly best again 4 times. 1st round, 2nd round, 3rd round, 4th round. That's 16 wins that you need to be the Stanley Cup champion. I say it's way mor tougher than 6 wins, where actually only 3 of them matters.

But, on the other hand, I kinda agree with you. To win a game where any mistake can end your journey is also difficult. You have to prepare yourself just right for that one game, nothing else counts. Let's say it's like apples and oranges. Both is really tough.

 

[jekoh]

More difficult games, more emotional games, more swings and flows, daily life of family situation, other outside stuff that occurs, beating a team in a best of 7 situation in comparison to winning a tournament where in one game a fluky goalie can steal a game?

How exactly does facing a fluky goalie that can steal a game makes things any easier? It obviously makes it more difficult.

the Olympics is a cake walk compared to the NHL playoffs. I mean Canada had to win one group game, and then USA to get to the final. they had 2 difficult games to get to a Gold Medal game...WAKE UP people.

You obviously need to win more games in the SC playoffs, but you can also afford to lose games. Hell you can afford to lose up to 12!

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

How exactly does facing a fluky goalie that can steal a game makes things any easier? It obviously makes it more difficult.


You obviously need to win more games in the SC playoffs, but you can also afford to lose games. Hell you can afford to lose up to 12!

When you have the puck for 90% of the game, that lessens the difficulty. Agreed, but in a best of 7, there are adjustments made, tactics change, injuries occur, emotional tides turn, there is so so much that can happen in a best of 7 series. And to play 4 of these intensely competitive matches just to Win, is unbelievable. I'm not saying winning Gold is less of a satisfying feeling, but a way way less difficult and less satisfactory, especially knowing Canada let's be honest will most likely win Olympic Gold.

Do you realize what would happen in Montreal if the Canadiens win the Cup? I saw that little parade the Russians had for a World Championship, take that and multiply it by a millions and you'll have literally an entire province coming down to the Parade. You have to feel it, be in a Canadian city to understand what it means once the playoffs commence, there is no sight comparable in World Hockey to the sight of when a Canadian team will win the Stanley Cup, that's the mecca of the sport.

 

[jekoh]

Ok, maybe only 50 times harder.

You have to beat the other team 4 times, not just once.

And you can afford to lose three times.

Not any more difficult to win than a single elimination.

 

[xxxx]

And you can afford to lose three times.

Not any more difficult to win than a single elimination.

I would say that it is more difficult in some way. And in some way it's easier.

It's true that you play basically just 3 or 4 games at high-tempo at the olympics, but in the SC playoffs, you have to play every game on 110%. You have to play at that level whole month - or even a bit more. As you said, you may lose some games, but you still gotta give the effort every game. So you play something between 16 and 28 games in a really high pace, with the best you have in you. That's different. It's true that the olympics are tough in other way though - for example, players reffer to the gold-medal game as a game 7 of SC finals. As I said, both is difficult, one in a different way than the other.

 

[jekoh]

When you have the puck for 90% of the game, that lessens the difficulty.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it's nonsensical to use the 'fluky goalie that can steal a game' argument to prove the single elimination is any easier than the 7-game series.

If one team's chances of going through are increased by what you call the flukiness of the 1-game elimination, then conversely the other team's chances are decreased by it. All in all, neither format makes the win any more difficult.

 

[JackSlater]

The issue with the Olympics is lack of team cohesion and tiny sample. It's harder for a strong team to win in the Olympics, since a single game can ruin you. It's harder for a weak team to win the Stanley Cup, because luck is much less of a factor. It's absurd to compare them anyway since they are completely different competitions.

 

[jekoh]

I would say that it is more difficult in some way. And in some way it's easier.

It's true that you play basically just 3 or 4 games at high-tempo at the olympics, but in the SC playoffs, you have to play every game on 110%. You have to play at that level whole month - or even a bit more. As you said, you may lose some games, but you still gotta give the effort every game. So you play something between 16 and 28 games in a really high pace, with the best you have in you. That's different. It's true that the olympics are tough in other way though - for example, some players reffer to the gold-medal game as a game 7 of SC finals.

You're basically arguing that the 400 m is more difficult to win than the 100 m. It's not. It takes longer to run but that does not make it more difficult to win.

 

[Jussi]

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.

Note that I wasn't implying there's bad hockey being playing the finals or playoffs. I think the Kings exhibit the kind of hockey more teams in the NHL should aim to play, especially with their break-outs. I'm one of those people who think the Western Conference final was a moral SC final as the Hawks truly matched the Kings in the modern tactical play when it comes to breaking out of your own zone under pressure (short pass, controlled puck possession instead of just dumping it out via the boards), entering the offensive zone and to a degree also defensive errors. i think the first game of that series was a better example of what the games in the NHL can be with two equally matched teams in coaching/tactics, material and goaltending. That game wasn't filled with defensive errors or goalie mistakes as later on in the series. One also must take into account when judging the quality of play in the finals that the Kings have played 3 7-game series already, it's natural that with the fatigue there's bound to be lapses in concentrations.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

You're basically arguing that the 400 m is more difficult to win than the 100 m. It's not. It takes longer to run but that does not make it more difficult to win.

Difficult; needing much effort or skill to accomplish, deal with, or understand.

Sochi 2014 - Canada defeats Norway, Austria, ''Finland'', ''Latvia, ''USA'', Sweden.

Games in quotes are difficult games. Count them, 2. Just 2. I put half for Latvia since having the puck for 5 minutes the entire game made them an opponent for some.

2014 Stanley Cup playoffs - Los Angeles Kings

Comeback from 0-3 down to win first round 4-3
Comeback from 2-3 down to win 2nd round 4-3
Beat defending Champions in Game 7 in overtime in Chicago to move on. (3rd straight game 7.)
Wins first 2 games in Finals in Overtime to lead series 2-0.

Now you are telling me Drew Doughty and Jeff Carter will say that the Olympics was a superior competition and more difficult to win then the war and battle that the Stanley Cup playoffs involves.

Good luck with that lol.

400m is the Olympics. 100m is the Stanley Cup playoffs.

I'm just comparing to 2014. It's a shame we might only see one actual Olympics which showed Hockey's true potential, of how our game is the World's best, and that was the one and only masterpiece of 2010. We might never see an international tournament of such caliber for years and years. Oh yah, by the way did you know it was played on the NHL surface... lol.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

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.

I just don't think any country is a lock in any tournament, I look at the U20 and WHC as examples. I also would not be opposed to eventually having the World Cup semi-final or finals being in Europe or Russia at some point. It should move around at some point.

If the NHL owners decide no more shutdowns for the Olympics, which is where I think they are going, then I think the World Cup comes back every 4 years.

 

[jekoh]

Now you are telling me Drew Doughty and Jeff Carter will say that the Olympics was a superior competition and more difficult to win then the war and battle that the Stanley Cup playoffs involves.

Doughty and Carter are only one half of the story: while I'm sure it was more difficult for the LA Kings to win their series than it was for Canada to knock out Latvia, obviously the reverse is true from their opponent's POV and it was more difficult for Latvia to beat Canada than for the LA Kings' opponents to knock them out of the SC.

Since you mention Latvia, are you seriously going to argue that Canada would have found it more difficult to beat Latvia over a 7-game series? When you're the better team, a 7-game series makes it easier.

400m is the Olympics. 100m is the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Hmm, no, the SC takes longer, so that would obviously be the 400m.

 

[Jablkon]

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?

It is a long time and it was a different hockey. But saying that if was defensive hockey is very far from true. If you count shots etc. it does not seem like this. If CZ-CAN was 3:2 or 3:3 no one could be shocked, because both teams hit the post at least twice. The worst Czech game was against USA with the score 5:3 if I remember correctly..

For me first two olympics were very special. Torino missed some spirit and it was pretty much boring tourney. Vancouver was good. I can not judge Sochi because of terrible czech appearence, but what I noticed was somehow different team Canada. Canada adjusted its game to be able to win this tourney. I saw much more flexible team changing the pace of game, deffensive strategy etc. I was pretty much very impressed with last two canadian games that make me think that Canada really dominates now.....

typical signs of canadian hockey (crashing the net, very physical offensive style) were also sometimes their weakness but it seems to me that team Canada is now much more mature. Maybe that is what we are missing - bring back old Canada with fights, pucks throwing behind the net, surprised when any team beat them, arrogant, and it will be fun again)))

 

[Yakushev72]

I just don't think any country is a lock in any tournament, I look at the U20 and WHC as examples. I also would not be opposed to eventually having the World Cup semi-final or finals being in Europe or Russia at some point. It should move around at some point.

If the NHL owners decide no more shutdowns for the Olympics, which is where I think they are going, then I think the World Cup comes back every 4 years.

The problem with "some point," if you look at the history of the tournament, is that the tournament is only played on the average of once every 10 years. So that is tantamount to saying "don't worry, you'll have a chance to host it 2026 or 2036, but no later than 2096." It just lacks the immediacy, if you see what I'm saying, for having your turn. And for the KHL, it would mean postponing the start of the season for almost 2 months, which doesn't sound very likely, when you think about it.

My guess is that the NHL would rather not do any international competition at all, but might be willing to try to pull it off just one time in 2016 to make dumping the Olympics more palatable.

 

[xxxx]

You're basically arguing that the 400 m is more difficult to win than the 100 m. It's not. It takes longer to run but that does not make it more difficult to win.

Take it easy I'm not arguing...and you are right that these are two completely different things - like I said, apples and oranges. Both is difficult to win.

 

[Lepardi]

The issue with the Olympics is lack of team cohesion and tiny sample. It's harder for a strong team to win in the Olympics, since a single game can ruin you. It's harder for a weak team to win the Stanley Cup, because luck is much less of a factor. It's absurd to compare them anyway since they are completely different competitions.

The competition in the Stanley Cup playoffs is much more even than in the Olympics, because there is no salary cap in the Olympics. I think the Canadian team in Sochi had a total payroll of about 150 million dollars.

If the Olympic hockey tournament had eight teams, Canada would be about 2 to 1 to win it before the tournament. When there are eight teams left in the Stanley Cup playoffs, not one of them will ever be such clear favorites in a salary cap NHL.

Difficult; needing much effort or skill to accomplish, deal with, or understand.

Team Canada is superior to the Los Angeles Kings when it comes to skill.

Now you are telling me Drew Doughty and Jeff Carter will say that the Olympics was a superior competition and more difficult to win then the war and battle that the Stanley Cup playoffs involves.

I'm pretty sure Drew Doughty and Jeff Carter will tell you that it was far more difficult to make Team Canada for Sochi than it was to make the Kings roster. I think you should also ask Kyle Clifford and Willie Mitchell if they think it's easier to win an Olympic gold medal than it is to win a Stanley Cup. They're both Canadian too, just like Doughty and Carter.

 

[Xokkeu]

I haven't read the last few pages since the arguments started being recycled but any more actual details?

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

I haven't read the last few pages since the arguments started being recycled but any more actual details?

This post sums up so many threads.

 

[JackSlater]

The competition in the Stanley Cup playoffs is much more even than in the Olympics, because there is no salary cap in the Olympics. I think the Canadian team in Sochi had a total payroll of about 150 million dollars.

If the Olympic hockey tournament had eight teams, Canada would be about 2 to 1 to win it before the tournament. When there are eight teams left in the Stanley Cup playoffs, not one of them will ever be such clear favorites in a salary cap NHL.

For a strong team (Canada) the NHL playoffs would be easier. In a seven game series it is highly doubtful that Canada loses four games. In a single game elimination setting, Canada is very susceptible to losing. Likewise, a weaker team (Slovakia) would find the Stanley Cup more difficult since it would be hard pressed to win any seven game series against an elite team. In a one game setting however, their chances are decent. Stanley Cup format favours stronger teams, Olympic format favours weaker teams. Which one is harder to win? There isn't a definitive answer.

 

[Yakushev72]

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.

My guess is that you know not one single thing about the KHL, which is why you resort to Canadian stereotypes about Russian or European "ballerinas" that don't really care about money, success, winning...only looking pretty while pirouetting on the ice. In fact, league play in the KHL doesn't look that much different than in the NHL, because in the end, there isn't that vast a difference in skill and ability among professional hockey players, regardless of league. That's why Canada only got by Norway and Latvia by 3-1 and 2-1, respectively, in Sochi. In either case, a bounce or two could have produced a big upset.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

My guess is that you know not one single thing about the KHL, which is why you resort to Canadian stereotypes about Russian or European "ballerinas" that don't really care about money, success, winning...only looking pretty while pirouetting on the ice. In fact, league play in the KHL doesn't look that much different than in the NHL, because in the end, there isn't that vast a difference in skill and ability among professional hockey players, regardless of league. That's why Canada only got by Norway and Latvia by 3-1 and 2-1, respectively, in Sochi. In either case, a bounce or two could have produced a big upset.

Enough to know that the team that won went 12-2 before the final. Very difficult road for them, I'm sure they faced much competition on the road to winning it all, what difficulty it must've been beating the likes of the teams that they did.

You keep talking about skill skill skill, and how Canada didn't dominate, Hockey and sport is more then skill, a couple of dangles, and pretty passing plays looks nice but there's more to watch then just that. NHL isn't only superior just because of the elite skill level ( And Yes there is vast difference when one league has the World's best players while one has the have nots )but also because of the competition, any given night any team can win, any series can be taken by anyone.

And in regards to dominate, it was the most dominating Olympics since the NHL took part, you live in a 60's World where you think it's going to be like the soviets era of 10-1 , 13-1 scores. Watch the games, who's getting chances, who's controlling the puck, how's the defense reacting and where's the goaltender receiving his shots from. Canada dominated to a level we won't see in Olympic Hockey for a while, but no, wait, you have to win 10-1 to dominate, right?

Does Rafael Nadal win every game in 3 sets?
Do the Miami Heat sweep every team on their road to their dynasty?
New Zealand a Rugby powerhouse, dominated an entire tournament pundits would say like Canada did and yet, what score did they win the final by? 8-7.
I can on and on using World Sport events, in regards to a dominant performance sheesh.

I mean common, those days of outlandish scores are over. A bounce or two, could have , should have , would have. They didn't happen, because Canada was just too GOOD. As much as it pains you to read that

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

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.

I don't think any of those guys even make the Canada, Sweden or USA teams, and they provide nowhere near the firepower needed to run and gun with even the likes of the Czechs or Russians, so very unlikely that having those players would have changed Finland's game plan.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

No, it's not.

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

The shorter the competition the more random the outcome. It most certainly does make it harder for a weaker team to win over the long term. Kind of obviously really.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

For a strong team (Canada) the NHL playoffs would be easier. In a seven game series it is highly doubtful that Canada loses four games. In a single game elimination setting, Canada is very susceptible to losing. Likewise, a weaker team (Slovakia) would find the Stanley Cup more difficult since it would be hard pressed to win any seven game series against an elite team. In a one game setting however, their chances are decent. Stanley Cup format favours stronger teams, Olympic format favours weaker teams. Which one is harder to win? There isn't a definitive answer.

In league pay even a bad team wins 40% of the time. Generally speaking that means if you were to evaluate them on one games results you have a 40% chance of making a 100% wrong conclusion.