Some details about the World Cup...

[Slimmy]

I agree, they don't have your interest at heart,their interest is business.But then again neither does the KHL or AHL or Finnish league or coca cola or walmart.

Should we stop all possible international tournaments because they don't have the little guys interest at heart?

I am not sure what money the swedish elite and khl league pays for overseas development of talent, are you saying they dole out good money to the national programs of those players while the nhl doesnt? What did the SEL Sloveina give for Anze Kopitars services?

What is the KHL giving Canada for Nigel Dawes?

Maybe you can clear this up

No, we shouldn't "stop all possible international tournaments". We should leave that to the IIHF which represents the hockey federations and in contrast to the NHL or the KHL or Wallmart is not a business. That's the whole point I was trying to get across.

 

[1Gold Standard]

But that was before the tournament, a tournament that had a format where basically every team went through. With the World Cup previously it was during the tournament before the playoffs.

Well apparently there will be only 1 host city (Toronto) for the World Cup 2016...so every team participating will have amble time to get there, adjust, train and prepare. there you go, problem solved!

 

[SanDogBrewin]

because it's heavily rigged in favour of the na teams. that's it. you need to be from na or to be a blind wannabe of the nhl to not see it.

Same could be said for always having the World Championships in May during the NHL playoffs. That always favors countries overseas.

 

[joe89]

Same could be said for always having the World Championships in May during the NHL playoffs. That always favors countries overseas.

I don't agree with the guy you quoted and I don't agree with you either. Only Russia have half an "A team" playing in Europe. Canada usually send the best team on paper alongside Russia, while USA simply doesn't give a crap(if they did, they could send a strong team too, but that's their choice).

Denmark, Slovakia and Switzerland are the teams that hurt the most whenever they can't get their NHLers. Canada, Sweden, Russia, Czechs, Finland will ice a competitive squad no matter what. If they gel or not is another matter.

There are pros and cons with every different scenario regarding NHLers.

 

[Yakushev72]

I'm sure Canada would have won in 2006 if we had just arrived in Italy a week earlier or so. We could have gotten more accustomed physically, sipped a little vino in the olive gardens, gelled personalities,mixed with the locals, experienced the culture and worked on our break out passing.

Because no way does Canada ever just flat out fail in a tournament because the team wasn't good enough.

Wouldn't every other team that played in Torino have the same excuses? The fact is, Canada's best weren't very good in 2006, getting shut out in the Quarterfinal round by a very mediocre Russian team. All the teams are good enough so that it takes getting the breaks and a good scheme to win. Canada won in 2010 and 2014 with better coaching and an excellent defensive scheme, not demonstrably better players.

 

[xxxx]

I don't agree with the guy you quoted and I don't agree with you either. Only Russia have half an "A team" playing in Europe. Canada usually send the best team on paper alongside Russia, while USA simply doesn't give a crap(if they did, they could send a strong team too, but that's their choice).

Denmark, Slovakia and Switzerland are the teams that hurt the most whenever they can't get their NHLers. Canada, Sweden, Russia, Czechs, Finland will ice a competitive squad no matter what. If they gel or not is another matter.

There are pros and cons with every different scenario regarding NHLers.

What? The IIHF World Championships favours the most of european teams, and almost always. Do you know something about Euro Hockey Tour? It's four tournaments between September and April with 4 teams (RUS, SWE, FIN, CZE). Then you have something similar for Germany, Belarus, USA and Slovakia if I remember right. Then, you have Euro Hockey Challange where almost all the teams (France/Norway/Sweden/Czechs, etc.) play 'friendly' games in before the WHC. Many players of the players playing these games (especiall Euro Hockey Tour, but also EHC) then go play at WHC. They have quite a lot of time to practise, to work on their chemistry, etc. So basically, when Swedish or Czech team goes to the IIHF WHC, they alredy have a pretty good chemistry. Not to say the tournament is on big ice, which also favors the european countries (it's not just size, it's also size of the offensive and defensive zone).

IIHF WHC definitely favours the europeans team. That's not an excuse or anything like that for the NA teams. I wouldn't mind the european ice, but the chemistry and stuff like that is definitely an advantage.

 

[JackSlater]

Wouldn't every other team that played in Torino have the same excuses? The fact is, Canada's best weren't very good in 2006, getting shut out in the Quarterfinal round by a very mediocre Russian team. All the teams are good enough so that it takes getting the breaks and a good scheme to win. Canada won in 2010 and 2014 with better coaching and an excellent defensive scheme, not demonstrably better players.

He was pretty obviously being sarcastic.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

Would be amazing to see if Canada can win this and then 2018 if NHL'ers are permitted. You might be looking at the most dominant era in International Hockey history of that feat is accomplished. There's a chance of history with the players available and players coming ala McDavid.
.
2002
2004
2010
2014
2016
2018

 

[Jonimaus]

Would be amazing to see if Canada can win this and then 2018 if NHL'ers are permitted. You might be looking at the most dominant era in International Hockey history of that feat is accomplished. There's a chance of history with the players available and players coming ala McDavid.
.
2002
2004
2010
2014
2016
2018

I'm not sure how it is in Finland, Russia and USA, but hockey is on the decline in Sweden. Pretty sure it won't be long until we won't be legit contenders for the gold. We'll always be a powerhouse because the sport is so small, but the gap between Canada and Sweden is increasing, and it won't be decreasing anytime soon.

The days of Forsberg, Sundin and Lidström are long gone.

Honestly, if I was Canadian I'd probably hope they didn't become as dominant as they probably will be. The international scene will suffer. Canada and Finland are pretty much the only 2 relevant hockey nations that will watch/love hockey regardless. Swedes, Russians, Czech and Switzerland always got football/soccer, so if we start to be dominated hard in hockey we'll just watch football instead. Majority of USA doesn't really care as it is, their population is just so huge it doesn't matter.

 

[Yakushev72]

I'm not sure how it is in Finland, Russia and USA, but hockey is on the decline in Sweden. Pretty sure it won't be long until we won't be legit contenders for the gold. We'll always be a powerhouse because the sport is so small, but the gap between Canada and Sweden is increasing, and it won't be decreasing anytime soon.

The days of Forsberg, Sundin and Lidström are long gone.

Honestly, if I was Canadian I'd probably hope they didn't become as dominant as they probably will be. The international scene will suffer. Canada and Finland are pretty much the only 2 relevant hockey nations that will watch/love hockey regardless. Swedes, Russians, Czech and Switzerland always got football/soccer, so if we start to be dominated hard in hockey we'll just watch football instead. Majority of USA doesn't really care as it is, their population is just so huge it doesn't matter.

You make very good points! Part of the problem is that there is no domestic identity for hockey in European countries anymore. The best players have been picked clean by the NHL. As of today, Russian hockey players are nothing more than itinerant laborers, like the guys who come from Mexico to pick fruit in the United States. Yes, they're making great money, but as of today, Russian hockey has no real identity. There are widespread, fairly heavily funded efforts to build a renaissance of hockey in Russia, but as of today, they are just basically day laborers who bank their money and go home.

 

[Jussi]

You make very good points! Part of the problem is that there is no domestic identity for hockey in European countries anymore. The best players have been picked clean by the NHL. As of today, Russian hockey players are nothing more than itinerant laborers, like the guys who come from Mexico to pick fruit in the United States. Yes, they're making great money, but as of today, Russian hockey has no real identity. There are widespread, fairly heavily funded efforts to build a renaissance of hockey in Russia, but as of today, they are just basically day laborers who bank their money and go home.

One could say that they are making too much money and have become complacent? I think that before the salaries exploded in the KHL, the Russian players were more focused on showcasing their talent and skill with the NHL in their minds but now that they know they can make similar if not more money in Russia, the same drive isn't there? Double egded sword?

While Swedes might not have that elite level talent now on the level of Forsberg and Sundin, they make up for it with unsurpassed depth among the European teams. They can fill a team, if not two, easily with fairly even lines and defensive pairings.

I don't think Canada are becoming too dominant as long as they continue to fail at the Worlds and WJC.

 

[Urbanskog]

I'm not sure how it is in Finland, Russia and USA, but hockey is on the decline in Sweden. Pretty sure it won't be long until we won't be legit contenders for the gold. We'll always be a powerhouse because the sport is so small, but the gap between Canada and Sweden is increasing, and it won't be decreasing anytime soon.

The days of Forsberg, Sundin and Lidström are long gone.

Honestly, if I was Canadian I'd probably hope they didn't become as dominant as they probably will be. The international scene will suffer. Canada and Finland are pretty much the only 2 relevant hockey nations that will watch/love hockey regardless. Swedes, Russians, Czech and Switzerland always got football/soccer, so if we start to be dominated hard in hockey we'll just watch football instead. Majority of USA doesn't really care as it is, their population is just so huge it doesn't matter.

Wouldn't that be your personal dream though?

 

[Jablkon]

O.K.No offense taken.

I think growing the sport in the world is on the NHL agenda, why wouldn't it be? huge growth in the sport likely ends up in more money for them.

But if they don't see that huge growth taking place with their involvement in 5 olympics now, they may want out of that involvement and concentrate on protecting their assets and doing other things internationally, it is a business after all. You nor I can fault them for that and the players sure as hell don't want their bottom line affected, they know who pays the bills and it sure as hell isn't some kid in Mongolia.

Just what is the IIHF doing for the growth of the game anyway? holding Tournaments in Rumania? They would be better off providing funding for the tons of kids in Canada, Russia, the Czech Republic and so on that can't friggen afford it then trying to establish hockey in tanzania or whatever foolish thing we could pass off as altruistic "feel good" so called game growing. Waste of resources IMO. we've already got a boatload of kids who can't even think of playing in already hockey popular countries to bother wasting money on stuff like that. Why not try promoting the world cup in Europe so as to establish a partnership with the nhl in a working manner so it becomes a truly international event in interest for the hockey loving countries and build on that to parts afar? It would probably go a long way in getting rid of a lot of euro posters complaints about how it can never be in Europe and travel time and no history and fear of no nhl olympic involvment and all that jazz.

But no, no vision and no interest in having any because they are fine with the way things as they are. They are comfortable with it as it is, having some tier 2 tournaments in budapest makes them sleep well at night and allows them to think they are doing what is best for the game.

I like your idealism and in a perfect world I would be right with you but it's not reasonable and quite frankly naive.[/QUOTE/]

To be honest Idon't think NHL has so much interest to get into deeper relation with IIHF. They are pretty happy with their position being outside of any association and representing counterpart to IIIHF IMO. I do not think it is healthy for this sport but it gives them much more power. It even seems to me that whenever IIHF organizes something succesfull,NHL has to come up with smth of its own to show up to everybody that there is always second side apart from IIHF.

So don't expect that these euro complaints will disappear... Anyway it is too much complex topic for this discussion.

 

[Yakushev72]

One could say that they are making too much money and have become complacent? I think that before the salaries exploded in the KHL, the Russian players were more focused on showcasing their talent and skill with the NHL in their minds but now that they know they can make similar if not more money in Russia, the same drive isn't there? Double egded sword?

While Swedes might not have that elite level talent now on the level of Forsberg and Sundin, they make up for it with unsurpassed depth among the European teams. They can fill a team, if not two, easily with fairly even lines and defensive pairings.

I don't think Canada are becoming too dominant as long as they continue to fail at the Worlds and WJC.

You could look at it the other way - the existence of the KHL puts pressure on Russians in the NHL to play better. If they are mediocre, or even worse, get sent down to the AHL, their bargaining power with KHL teams plummets. Of course, Russian-based teams would love to have Ovechkin or Maikin sign, which is why the KHL makes sure that salary cap provisions do not prohibit mega-salaries for the big names.

Having stars in the NHL is of no value to the national team unless they play well on the national team. At Sochi, the least effective Russian players were Malkin and Ovechkin. Russia would be much better off in my opinion if they build a national team around players in the KHL. There are significant advantages in doing so.

 

[Jonimaus]

While Swedes might not have that elite level talent now on the level of Forsberg and Sundin, they make up for it with unsurpassed depth among the European teams. They can fill a team, if not two, easily with fairly even lines and defensive pairings.

I don't think Canada are becoming too dominant as long as they continue to fail at the Worlds and WJC.

We're excellent at developing good 2nd liner/excellent 3rd liners, but I see nothing to replace Bäckström (although a bit younger), Zetterberg, Sedin etc. We've got a good defensive core though.

We've got players with potential, but nothing that screams "hey, this guy is the real elite talent deal". Let's hope for the best shall we?

 

[The Bad Guy*]

Wouldn't every other team that played in Torino have the same excuses? The fact is, Canada's best weren't very good in 2006, getting shut out in the Quarterfinal round by a very mediocre Russian team. All the teams are good enough so that it takes getting the breaks and a good scheme to win. Canada won in 2010 and 2014 with better coaching and an excellent defensive scheme, not demonstrably better players.

They have won back to back on small ice and big at home and away, you don't do that without having demonstrably better players.

Russia has failed on multiple consecutive attempts with demonstrably inferior players however, when you don't even have one world class defender on your roster you are not going to be taking down Canada and a few others.

It helps to have better players, in the end that is what wins.

You can think it is all about coaching and whatever you want and having good coaching does play a part, but in the end you have to have top quality players at all positions to do what Canada has and Canada has those players at all positions and Russia doesn't.

That's the difference in the end, better hockey players.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

They have won back to back on small ice and big at home and away, you don't do that without having demonstrably better players.

Russia has failed on multiple consecutive attempts with demonstrably inferior players however, when you don't even have one world class defender on your roster you are not going to be taking down Canada and a few others.

It helps to have better players, in the end that is what wins.

You can think it is all about coaching and whatever you want and having good coaching does play a part, but in the end you have to have top quality players at all positions to do what Canada has and Canada has those players at all positions and Russia doesn't.


That's the difference in the end, better hockey players.

Who would legitimately dispute that Canada has better hockey players then Russia at the moment?

 

[Canuckistani]

Yes, they're making great money, but as of today, Russian hockey has no real identity.

It's a far cry from the Soviet/Red Army days, but the Russian team today has more chemistry and a greater sense of itself than it's had in years.

Granted Sochi was a disaster, but since 2007 Russia has had a consistent core group of players who have turned up whenever available which has led to strong rosters and four WHC golds. They've failed at the top level, but have come a long way since the chaos of the 1990s and early 2000s.

 

[Canuckistani]

Wouldn't every other team that played in Torino have the same excuses? The fact is, Canada's best weren't very good in 2006, getting shut out in the Quarterfinal round by a very mediocre Russian team.

2006 was an inexplicable collapse, one that I still don't know what to make of. The roster itself was strong, with the notable exception of Crosby's absense. Canada had 18 players from the 2004 World Cup team that never trailed for a second. It was simply one of those events (like Nagano for USA or 2000 WHC for Russia) in which amazing talent somehow flops.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Would be amazing to see if Canada can win this and then 2018 if NHL'ers are permitted. You might be looking at the most dominant era in International Hockey history of that feat is accomplished. There's a chance of history with the players available and players coming ala McDavid.
.
2002
2004
2010
2014
2016
2018

Amen, Eva.

 

[Jussi]

You could look at it the other way - the existence of the KHL puts pressure on Russians in the NHL to play better. If they are mediocre, or even worse, get sent down to the AHL, their bargaining power with KHL teams plummets. Of course, Russian-based teams would love to have Ovechkin or Maikin sign, which is why the KHL makes sure that salary cap provisions do not prohibit mega-salaries for the big names.

Having stars in the NHL is of no value to the national team unless they play well on the national team. At Sochi, the least effective Russian players were Malkin and Ovechkin. Russia would be much better off in my opinion if they build a national team around players in the KHL. There are significant advantages in doing so.

I'd put the blame on coaching. Malkin has been great in other international tournaments. Even good coaching can't bridge the gap though when the opponent has more talent and equally good or better coaching. Besides, your KHL only national team couldn't even beat Finland a single time on the EHT last season.

 

[Exarz]

We're excellent at developing good 2nd liner/excellent 3rd liners, but I see nothing to replace Bäckström (although a bit younger), Zetterberg, Sedin etc. We've got a good defensive core though.

We've got players with potential, but nothing that screams "hey, this guy is the real elite talent deal". Let's hope for the best shall we?

Unfortunately this is true, and I think we see it already this season. Must be the worst draft year as a Swede, and I don't see any big names coming up in the next years..

Let's just hold our thumbs for Nylander's and Kylington's success!

 

[Yakushev72]

They have won back to back on small ice and big at home and away, you don't do that without having demonstrably better players.

Russia has failed on multiple consecutive attempts with demonstrably inferior players however, when you don't even have one world class defender on your roster you are not going to be taking down Canada and a few others.

It helps to have better players, in the end that is what wins.

You can think it is all about coaching and whatever you want and having good coaching does play a part, but in the end you have to have top quality players at all positions to do what Canada has and Canada has those players at all positions and Russia doesn't.

That's the difference in the end, better hockey players.

What I said was "demonstrably better," which connotes clear dominance. The closest Canada came to exhibiting dominance was in the defensive end. They won all of their games, and sincere kudos to them for that, but there were no individuals on the Canadian teams that clearly skated better, or faster, or handled the puck better, or shot better, than the top players from other competitive teams. You can say it all you want, but the record and the scoreboard shows that Canada won on better coaching and a brilliant defensive scheme.

 

[Yakushev72]

Who would legitimately dispute that Canada has better hockey players then Russia at the moment?

Has someone argued that Russia has better hockey players than Canada at the moment. I would love to read that post - which one was it?

 

[Rob]

I have no doubt the best Russians in the NHL will show up to play.