And where would you test european players?? WC must be the top of the season every year, at least for europen leagues. Otherwise it would cause decline of hockey popularity in Europe and generally decline of quality. Just NA fans have a problem that it is not the best of best. But who really cares? I am not interested to see same 20 players every year. Yes, if Canada send C or D team which would dominate I would have concerns about this tourney. But the point is - these CDs struggle. So I do not really know where is the issue...
Some details about the World Cup...
- Thread starter UsernameWasTaken
- Start date
- Status
And where would you test european players?? WC must be the top of the season every year, at least for europen leagues. Otherwise it would cause decline of hockey popularity in Europe and generally decline of quality. Just NA fans have a problem that it is not the best of best. But who really cares? I am not interested to see same 20 players every year. Yes, if Canada send C or D team which would dominate I would have concerns about this tourney. But the point is - these CDs struggle. So I do not really know where is the issue...
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
Technically, it doesn't describe the Canada Cup as an IIHF world championship, but instead says that Canada proved to be the best team in that tournament. As good as the Czechoslovaks were, the Soviets sent a B Team composed of future stars, but missing most of their big guns.
Regardless, the point is that no individual country has the right to set up its own definition of a World championship, with schedules and venues and travel that overwhelmingly favor the home team(s), since the US benefits from favorable conditions as well, and call it a World championship. That would be bogus under any description.
Jussi
Registered User
Just for comparison, a member of Team Finland at the World this years, Olli Palola, played a total of 103 games this season, setting a new record in Finland. That includes all regular season games and playoffs, 8 ET games, two other pre-season games, 3 EHT games plus the Worlds.
Jussi
Registered User
I do not think somebody disregard it. It is just quite untouchable for european fans and WHC is simply more popular. Czech fans are quite proud of being in final in 76 and I personally like CZ perfomance in 2004 but it will just not be my tourney....Past canadian cups had always spirit of big rivalry when even players could not meet each other. But time changed and I think europeans are generally more sensitive when they considering if it is traditional or "artificial". In my opinion NA guys are generally more easy to accept for example new teams in league without any history which is always issue here, so this could be the reason why World cup is always forgotten. But maybe I am mistaken and they will manage to organize regular big tourney.....
habsrule4eva3089
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2008
- 4,278
- 1,084
The consensus from our Euro friends is what basically what Canadians think of the World Championships. At the end of the day, the quality of Hockey in the World Cup will be a massive improvement with the World's best players playing and whether it's regarded as legit or not, it's a way superior spectacle and entertaining product watching these players in action then what we see daily at the Worlds which are also played on the defensive inducing larger surface. A tournament like this every 2 years is definitely an improvement for the International calendar.
Even most KHL fans on this site find it useless.
I know that, but it's still a kind of a draft.
Any country can set up a tournament. Indeed the Russians did just that (the Izvestia).
What's most telling, in terms of its prestige and meaning, is who shows up.
With the exception of Russia in 1976 and 1991 (when they chose to submit a sub-par squad) everyone at the Canada Cup brought the best team they could.
Even the IIHF recognizes the event as being the first (and for many years the only) best-on-best tournament.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,807
- 15,473
No it doesn't describe it as an IIHF World Championship. It called the winners "true" world champions, which obviously implies something about the IIHF's own World Championships. I agree regarding the Soviet team, and wouldn't consider the 1976 CC to be a great Canadian victory over USSR by any stretch.
It was never called the World Championship. It was a tournament that featured the world's best players representing their countries. The IIHF calling their tournament a World Championship and then scheduling it against by far the strongest hockey league in the world is more "bogus". Holding a world championship and then missing out on most of the worlds best players is ridiculous.
The World Cup has flaws, with schedule and hosting being chief among them. Getting the best players to actually show up and play is far more important than any other issue though. It seems that the two issues, in 2014 anyway, are connected so it will be interesting to see how it plays out. The tournament will be fatally flawed if the NHL completely disregards all other leagues.
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,547
- 2,820
A higher level of play doesn't always ensure for better entertainment, or even intensity level. For instance, apart from 1 or 2 games, the 2004 World Cup was rather dull imo.
jekoh
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 4,416
- 4
The NHL All-Star game is not usually regarded as very exciting either, yet it features the world's very best.
cutchemist42
Registered User
This tourney structurally has its flaws, and even despite best-on-best, we truly don't know the hockey quality until it's played. I personally remember 1/2 World Cups being terrible, I was only 10 during the first one.
This all depends on how players respond to a shorter summer, and if they bother truly getting ready or not. Baseball's WBC similar complaints from skeptics/fans too because for almost all the countries, the spring was meant for getting back into playing form.
I still think eaturing the best representation of the best team in the World, the Olympics is the best. The WHC and World Cup both have minuses that I feel the Olympics does not.
Olympics...........................NHL Invitational......WHC
This all depends on how players respond to a shorter summer, and if they bother truly getting ready or not. Baseball's WBC similar complaints from skeptics/fans too because for almost all the countries, the spring was meant for getting back into playing form.
I still think eaturing the best representation of the best team in the World, the Olympics is the best. The WHC and World Cup both have minuses that I feel the Olympics does not.
Olympics...........................NHL Invitational......WHC
The 2004 World Cup was similar to the 2006 Olympics, IMO. A few good games but overall nothing special.
I recall one classic game (Canada-Czech), a few good games (Sweden-Finland, Finland-USA, USA-Russia, Canada-Finland), and a whole bunch that were just meh.
The 1996 World Cup was a lot better.
Agreed. The Olympics since 1998 seem to elicit the fewest complaints. It's only drawback is that injuries are more of a factor than for a tournament in September.
The main drawback for the World Baseball Classic has been players simply declining (especially for Team USA). Plus there's also silly rules regarding pitch counts in order to reduce the risk of injury. So you'd have games where a pitcher went 6 innings of one-hit shutout ball, and then being replaced by some bum who gets lit up. Really added to the sense that it was a pointless exhibition.
Even so, the games have been incredibly exciting at times and it's taken very seriously in Japan, Korea, Cuba, Dominican, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. Only USA and Canada are more or less indifferent.
habsrule4eva3089
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2008
- 4,278
- 1,084
Your comparing an international ''Competition'' which players take seriously whether you believe it or not, to an exhibition game which involves players drinking and partying a whole weekend with a cherry on top which is a shinny session. That's quite humorous if you actually think that's viable.
The World Cup is will most likely resemble the exciting play of the 2010 Olympics, but that's just the nature of the beast when played on the NHL surface, where teams have no choice but to be aggressive and forecheck and skate hard. Attacking Hockey is always more entertaining and the World Cup should have plenty.
Jussi
Registered User
From a Finnish point of view, we've never played better hockey than in 2006 (in best-on-best Olympics). All our best players were healthy and in prime form. 2004 became an afterthought after that .
cutchemist42
Registered User
I really don'y know what can be done about American participation. When you looked at the USA WBC rosters, its mostly guys that had played on either the u18, u21, Olympic, or Collegiate USA teams already in the past. I remember back then, seeing the players that weren't playing for the USA, and a lot of them were not present in those Junior programs. I sometimes wonder if USA Baseball actually does have better working relationships with some players over others.
jekoh
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 4,416
- 4
Better players doesn't mean better hockey, was the point.
How seriously players actually take the World Cup remains to be seen.
Even in the case of the Olympics or the WC happening every two years, I believe the IIHF would like to have the money-machine WCh. It'd just get even more refusals from players who make the Olympic/WC teams.
And I'm European and think the WCh is a joke of a WCh. It can't be a legit WCh if all your best players aren't available because they are playing for their NHL team. Of course, I enjoy watching it and would like to have an international tournament in the late spring even in case of a biennial best-on-best event. But it's not a real World Championship for me.
Just looking at this from a neutral point of view and maybe I am being naive but how is this going to work? The KHL season starts early September with practice games the whole way through August and the rest of the major leagues and national federations in Europe have now committed (financially) to the Champions Hockey League which starts in late August.
Not saying there is anything wrong with it but is the plan to just have Canada, USA & Sweden playing? Those are the only 3 nations that are guaranteed to have enough players from the NHL to choose from.
Not saying there is anything wrong with it but is the plan to just have Canada, USA & Sweden playing? Those are the only 3 nations that are guaranteed to have enough players from the NHL to choose from.
As I recall, Finland's performance in 2006 was all the more amazing given who was absent.
Mikka Kiprusoff declined, while Joni Pitkänen, Ossi Väänänen, Tuomo Ruutu, Sami Kapanen and Antti Miettinen were all injured.
But even so, Finland put on a defensive show for the ages. Four shutouts in the opening round, a 4-3 win over the US and perfect 4-0 domination of Russia in the semi.
One of the greatest injustices in hockey history was Finland losing the final against Sweden.
Finland had a very good tournament that year but saying there was any injustice is going way too far.
You have to be able to win the big games, all of them not just some of them and Finland just couldn't get it done.It is what seperates the very good teams from the great ones.
2nd place is what they got and what they deserved.
Still a very good team just not quite good enough to be champion.
Question.
If Finland had won the world cup over Canada in 2002 would the silver in Torino still be considered by Finnish fans as their greatest showing as a senior National team?
- Status
