WJC: Team Finland 2018 U20 WJC Roster Talk

[FiLe]

In part those lopsided minutes are explained by the bountiful PP opportunities we've been given, so it's not all the coach's fault. The ES rotation has been more evenly managed, though not without still favoring the top lines somewhat. But I've no further comment on that. Whether it's still bad management or not is something I could see having arguments for and against.

However, I did notice something else that pretty well explains why Ahokas favors Innala over Kupari. The former happens to be 7+2 in his 9 pre-WJC U20 games this year. Feel free to disagree, but that gives Ahokas enough cover in my eyes. I wouldn't either bench a guy who's been producing like that for me, at least not after a meager two-game slump.

Also kinda puts a new twist to the complaint of Ahokas not bringing enough scorers... Given that Räsänen plays PP and Kupari is no grinder either, it takes a pretty one-tracked mind to say that the third line was supposed to be all two-way. Perhaps the very thing Ahokas did was pick players he found offensively superior to some of the names he snubbed.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

In part those lopsided minutes are explained by the bountiful PP opportunities we've been given, so it's not all the coach's fault. The ES rotation has been more evenly managed, though not without still favoring the top lines somewhat. But I've no further comment on that. Whether it's still bad management or not is something I could see having arguments for and against.

However, I did notice something else that pretty well explains why Ahokas favors Innala over Kupari. The former happens to be 7+2 in his 9 pre-WJC U20 games this year. Feel free to disagree, but that gives Ahokas enough cover in my eyes. I wouldn't either bench a guy who's been producing like that for me, at least not after a meager two-game slump.

Also kinda puts a new twist to the complaint of Ahokas not bringing enough scorers... Given that Räsänen plays PP and Kupari is no grinder either, it takes a pretty one-tracked mind to say that third line was supposed to be all two-way. Perhaps the very thing Ahokas did was pick players he found offensively superior to some of the names he snubbed.

I agree. Kupari is a shiny new toy so people will assume Ahokas is just being conservative for picking a more experienced guy

 

[FiLe]

Looks like Ahokas listened to me. (As if.)

Shamelessly tooting my own horn here, forgive me:

I'm mostly just musing here, of course. I don't expect anything drastic to happen any time soon, since, as I said, early days. But if they do have a plan B for the PP units, it is a high time to utilize that. Early days or no, we haven't lacked opportunities in these two games, and the percentage is horrible. Ahokas, I don't ask you to do what I laid out here, but good god, man, do *something*.

Well, Ahokas did something with the PP preceding the game - and hey, we got our first "official" PP goal of the tournament. Yay.

Then, later, at the end of the 2nd:

It's still early days, but if something easy were to be done, one could try playing some musical chairs with the centre lane. Like this:

Vesalainen - Räsänen - Tolvanen
Heponiemi - Kuokkanen - Koivula
Innanen - Ikonen - Kupari

Put Räsänen into his "chemistry spot" with those familiar wingers and give Kuokkanen a new start.

Jussi. Wow. You actually listened to me. Well, this was before Tuulola was added, but you got the idea spot on. There's no need to question whether you should stick to this or not.

 

[Critical13]

Rasanen cut?

I know who I am cheering against

 

[Mick Riddleton]

Impressed by the 5th round pick by the Bruin's of 6'5" Centre Joona Koopanen. So far in 3 games he has 3 pts and plus 3, good all around player.

 

[Opak]

I actually thought that Innala was pretty good in this game. His speed along the boards through the neutral zone really helped Finland's transition game tonight.

Impressed by the 5th round pick by the Bruin's of 6'5" C/LW Joona Koopanen. So far in 3 games he has 3 pts and plus 3, good all around player.

Koppanen has been surprisingly good in this tournament. Not a fancy player, but does many things right. Needs to get faster though, to become more effective at higher levels.

 

[Hockeyisl1fe]

Our defense is starting to live up to the hype, the puck moving ability is insanely good. I love the 4th line, they are easily the best at cycling. We need the top lines to perform better tho. There were some flashes here and there (Heponiemi's goal for example), but too many times it looked like they weren't on the same page.

 

[TheFinnishTrap]

I didn't even realise Luostarinen would have been eligible. IMO he has been better than Ikonen this season, and would have been a fine option to center some line.

 

[Breakers]

Our defense is starting to live up to the hype, the puck moving ability is insanely good. I love the 4th line, they are easily the best at cycling. We need the top lines to perform better tho. There were some flashes here and there (Heponiemi's goal for example), but too many times it looked like they weren't on the same page.

Every D-man on this list is from Finland

 

[Ippenator]

Like some have already mentioned, Kuokkanen has been pretty bad. Kuokkanen is not at all a center really, and that I would have at least known well after seeing him play at that position before.

Kuokkanen and Vesalainen also simply continuing with similar point production that they had in last years tournament. Absolutely disappointments both of them. Of course also Tolvanen’s production has been a huge disappointment so far, but he at least has shown some real good effort and has done some pretty nice plays in general. The line just does not simply work at all and Eeli has also been very unlucky so far.

Other disappointments in the tournament so far: Ikonen, Innala, Kotkansalo (an absolute tirefire and shouldn’t really been in the team instead of E. Räsänen), Juolevi and Vaakanainen. Even Heiskanen and Heponiemi have been quite disappointing. Not that either of them has been really bad. Just not even close to as dominating as I was expecting them to be.

The biggest dissapointment for me so far has been the coach Ahokas though. The players he left out (Kotkaniemi, Nyman, Somppi and E.Räsänen first of all), is just plain stupidity. It seems that Ahokas is a much more conservative coach than I thought he would be, which doesn’t really promise a very good result for Finland in this tournament.

But the game against the USA should really tell us better how Finland is after all as a team. I’m still definitely hoping for them to turn it around.

 

[Gsus]

That fourth line played great last night! I like the hustle. The first goal was a prime example how I want to see fourth (and all) lines play on the boards. Great back check from Koppanen, a little hustle with a smart pass from Nurmi to get Jääskä space and Koppanen is there to finish it.

 

[ijuka]

I don't get why you need to run Vesalainen over Heponiemi with Tolvanen. Swap the two and the rest should work out.

Vesalainen just doesn't function there at all. He needs to be the only skill guy on his line, no one else gets the puck. Maybe having him on the third line to get 3 lines of threats would work.

 

[FiLe]

Other disappointments in the tournament so far: Ikonen, Innala, Kotkansalo (an absolute tirefire and shouldn’t really been in the team instead of E. Räsänen), Juolevi and Vaakanainen.

I can get why other names on this list might receive varying degrees of critique, but what on earth has Vaakanainen done to earn your ire? He's pretty much been 100% mistake free - which is all one can ask of him, given his role.

Also, calling Kotkansalo a "tirefire" is a huge hyperbole. The game vs. Canada was a subpar performance from him, but since then he really has pretty much done everything one should expect from your run-of-the-mill stay-at-home d-man. As in, nothing flashy, but nothing disastrous either.

 

[Ippenator]

I can get why other names on this list might receive varying degrees of critique, but what on earth has Vaakanainen done to earn your ire? He's pretty much been 100% mistake free - which is all one can ask of him, given his role.

Well honestly I might have to agree with you in a way. You are right, he has been pretty much mistake free. But I had higher expectations on him. That he would in fact be able to have some kind of an offensive role even. Not big necessarily, but at least bigger than he has had so far. He has after all some potential for that too. Just haven’t seen any of that in this tournament.

 

[FiLe]

Well honestly I might have to agree with you in a way. Hou are right, he has been pretty much mistake free. But I had higher expectations on him. That he would in fact be able to have some kind of an offensive role even. Not big necessarily, but at least bigger than he has had so far. He has after all some potential for that too. Just haven’t seen any of that in this tournament.

In case you haven't noticed, he's been slotted to the third pair and has mostly played behind our bottom-six, with no PP time either. So him not having an "offensive role" is not exactly his fault. He's simply been following the instructions from the bench. Though I wouldn't call it Ahokas' fault either, since with five high-profile d-men, at least one of them kinda has to settle for the role described.

 

[Ippenator]

I can get why other names on this list might receive varying degrees of critique, but what on earth has Vaakanainen done to earn your ire? He's pretty much been 100% mistake free - which is all one can ask of him, given his role.

Also, calling Kotkansalo a "tirefire" is a huge hyperbole. The game vs. Canada was a subpar performance from him, but since then he really has pretty much done everything one should expect from your run-of-the-mill stay-at-home d-man. As in, nothing flashy, but nothing disastrous either.

Well here I definitely have to disagree with you though. He has been horrible with the puck. Absolutely worst defenceman of the whole team. He is so slow with his reactions both defensively and offensively, that his place should not just simply be in the team, in any kind of role. I was very much afraid that he will be bad when I saw him chosen to the team, but I wasn’t still expecting this bad. I would really rather see him on the bench than playing even one more minute in the tournament.

 

[Opak]

It's still early days, but if something easy were to be done, one could try playing some musical chairs with the centre lane. Like this:

Vesalainen - Räsänen - Tolvanen
Heponiemi - Kuokkanen - Koivula
Innanen - Ikonen - Kupari

Put Räsänen into his "chemistry spot" with those familiar wingers and give Kuokkanen a new start.

I wonder which guy should be the centerman on that 2nd line, Heponiemi or Kuokkanen? Neither of the two gentlemen has been anything special as a center in this tournament...

The good news is that this USA game is pretty much worthless, so this would be the perfect time to experiment with the lineup. I'd at least throw the lines/pairings into a blender (not the 4th, it is what it is), just to see if anything interesting comes up. I'd also start some other goalie, IMO there's absolutely no reason to give another start to Luukkonen.

Innala - Räsänen - Tolvanen
Kuokkanen - Kupari - Heponiemi
Vesalainen - Ikonen - Tuulola
Jääskä - Koppanen - Nurmi
Koivula

Välimäki - Jokiharju
Heiskanen - Vaakanainen
Juolevi - Salo
Kotkansalo

Lehtinen
Halonen
Luukkonen

I really want to see them try Kupari at center and Kuokkanen at wing. If it doesn't work, just put one of Kuokkanen/Heponiemi back at center and put Koivula/Kupari at wing on that line. As an alternative possibility, I'd also consider swapping Ikonen/Kupari at center in the 2nd and 3rd lines...

 

[Hockeyisl1fe]

The hate on Luukkonen ... it was ridiculous in the GDT that some blamed him on the goals. How about the blown coverage and forwards being unable to recover? And no reason to give him another start? Him being our best goaltender by a mile is a pretty good reason imo.

 

[FiLe]

Well here I definitely have to disagree with you though. He has been horrible with the puck. Absolutely worst defenceman of the whole team. He is so slow with his reactions both defensively and offensively, that his place should not just simply be in the team, in any kind of role. I was very much afraid that he will be bad when I saw him chosen to the team, but I wasn’t still expecting this bad. I would really rather see him on the bench than playing even one more minute in the tournament.

In other words, he's been your run-of-the-mill stay-at-home d-man. Since he's the only one of that type in the lineup, his performance may stand out a little in contrast of the others, but it's still unwarranted to bash him like that. Maybe you need to recalibrate your expectations a little. One shouldn't compare him to our first rounders, but to the performances of the bread-and-butter d-men of the previous years, and he really doesn't stand out among them as horribad.

What's even more foolish is to compare him to some imagined performance of E.Räsänen, since that comparison is indeed based on nothing but one's imagination.

I wonder which guy should be the centerman on that 2nd line, Heponiemi or Kuokkanen? Neither of the two gentlemen has been anything special as a center in this tournament...

If you'd watched yesterday's game, you might have noticed it's Kuokkanen.

The good news is that this USA game is pretty much worthless, so this would be the perfect time to experiment with the lineup. I'd at least throw the lines/pairings into a blender (not the 4th, it is what it is), just to see if anything interesting comes up. I'd also start some other goalie, IMO there's absolutely no reason to give another start to Luukkonen.

Out of curiosity, when's the last time you remember a complete shakeup of the lines has happened in an NT tournament? Especially after a game that was soundly won? And if you can't recall, could you imagine any reason why no pro coach ever seems to do it?

 

[Hockeyisl1fe]

About E. Räsänen: am I the only one here who watched the u18s this year? If his skating hasn't improved hugely, he doesn't belong to the lineup.

 

[Opak]

The hate on Luukkonen ... it was ridiculous in the GDT that some blamed him on the goals. How about the blown coverage and forwards being unable to recover? And no reason to give him another start? Him being our best goaltender by a mile is a pretty good reason imo.

I was trying to refer to the fact that UPL seems to be the #1, so there's no reason to start him in a meaningless game, especially in a back-to-back situation. I'd rather rest him for the quarters and make sure he's healthy and ready to go.

Admittedly, I'd also love to see one of the other goalies get a chance to prove themselves.

If you'd watched yesterday's game, you might have noticed it's Kuokkanen.

Out of curiosity, when's the last time you remember a complete shakeup of the lines has happened in an NT tournament? Especially after a game that was soundly won? And if you can't recall, could you imagine any reason why no pro coach ever seems to do it?

I wasn't asking which player played center yesterday, I was asking which guy should play center on that line. There's a difference.

I also wouldn't call yesterday's performance "a sound win" -- they barely got by Slovakia, despite the score. Hence why I'd like to experiment with the lineup, especially in a game that has zero meaning whatsoever. It's a nothing to lose, possibly something to gain type of situation. If the lineups don't work, it's fine, Ahokas can just go back to whatever he wants to do for the QF game. I view this as a glorious opportinity to try and improve the lineup, it'd be foolish to not try something like that, only to go back to trying the same things over and over and over again.

Also, just because there's no past cases of something happening in a NT tournament, it doesn't mean that something like that should never be attempted. Last year's coach firing, for example, was considered "unprecedented", yet it ended up happening and was very much necessary.

 

[FiLe]

I also wouldn't call yesterday's performance "a sound win" -- they barely got by Slovakia, despite the score. Hence why I'd like to experiment with the lineup, especially in a game that has zero meaning whatsoever. It's a nothing to lose, possibly something to gain type of situation. If the lineups don't work, it's fine, Ahokas can just go back to whatever he wants to do for the QF game. I view this as a glorious opportinity to try and improve the lineup, it'd be foolish to not try something like that, only to go back to trying the same things over and over and over again.

Again I wonder if you've actually watched the tournament at all, since our each game has been better than the previous one. The team's on a rising trend, and you want to risk that development by blowing the lineup wide open? If the new lines don't work, you've just wasted time that could have been used to further gel the current lineup. Yes, there is a chance that completely blending the lines leads to something better, but it's not the "nothing-to-lose" situation you describe it to be. There is a very real tradeoff to consider.

Also, just because there's no past cases of something happening in a NT tournament, it doesn't mean that something like that should never be attempted. Last year's coach firing, for example, was considered "unprecedented", yet it ended up happening and was very much necessary.

Uhh... you realize that's a total apples and oranges comparison? Because some unrelated unprecedented thing happened in a wholly different context that supported said action, you leap to a conclusion that this unprecedented thing may happen too, despite the context not supporting it in any way?

 

[Opak]

Again I wonder if you've actually watched the tournament at all, since our each game has been better than the previous one. The team's on a rising trend, and you want to risk that development by blowing the lineup wide open? If the new lines don't work, you've just wasted time that could have been used to further gel the current lineup. Yes, there is a chance that completely blending the lines leads to something better, but it's not the "nothing-to-lose" situation you describe it to be. There is a very real tradeoff to consider.

Uhh... you realize that's a total apples and oranges comparison? Because some unrelated unprecedented thing happened in a wholly different context that supported said action, you leap to a conclusion that this unprecedented thing may happen too, despite the context not supporting it in any way?

Better? Are you kidding me? It's been the same garbage game after game! The reason our team looked "better" is because our last two opponents have not been on Canada's level (no disrespect to either country). I'm not sure what "rising trend" you're seeing here. This lineup has been given three-ish games time to "gel" or develop chemistry and I'm not seeing much, I think it's time to try something else.

Sure, I might've made an "apples and oranges" example there. I don't think your reasoning is any better though -- by your original logic, nothing new should ever be tried or developed, because there needs to be "precedent" that supports each and every decision. Shame on me for thinking out of the box!

I think I'm done here. Since we're so far apart in our opinions, I don't see anything positive coming from continuing this discussion.

 

[FiLe]

Better? Are you kidding me? It's been the same garbage game after game! The reason our team looked "better" is because our last two opponents have not been on Canada's level (no disrespect to either country). I'm not sure what "rising trend" you're seeing here. This lineup has been given three-ish games time to "gel" or develop chemistry and I'm not seeing much, I think it's time to try something else.

Uh-huh. If you say so.

Sure, I might've made an "apples and oranges" example there. I don't think your reasoning is any better though -- by your original logic, nothing new should ever be tried or developed, because there needs to be "precedent" that supports each and every decision. Shame on me for thinking out of the box!

There does not need to predecent. There does need to be logic, however. There was, for example, logic behind the circumstances that led to the Rautakorpi firing - like Liitto already having Ahokas under contract, Ahokas being present in Montreal, and Ahokas knowing 2/3 of the players in the squad because he had spent plenty of time with them as the U16/U18 head coach. If they hadn't had such a suitable guy at a hand's reach, but instead had had to sign a replacement out of the blue on a moment's notice and fly him across the world, Rautakorpi wouldn't have gone anywhere.

Total blend-up of lines is generally considered a last-ditch effort among coaches - for some very good reasons. The signal it sends to the team is, "guys we've been total garbage, we have to do something". And I'm fairly certain that while our men and boys in Buffalo aren't deluding themselves by thinking all is just rosy, neither are they thinking they've been a complete mess. They've had scoring issues, yes, but they were still competitive even vs. Canada (and would have been even more so without a couple of garbage calls by the refs) and were in complete control with no nervousness whatsoever vs. both Denmark and Slovakia. So as a coach, you just don't go and send a signal like that, when it's unwarranted.

Perhaps in Eastside Hockey Manager we can min-max the lineups to our hearts' content in order to find the best possible combination for that cold, heartless processor, but not in real life, when we're managing real players with real emotions. And you have to be doubly so mindful when said players are still kids. Coaches are "conservative" and avoid desperation moves because - while they work occasionally - more often than not they simply end up blowing more dung into your face.

 

[MarVell]

Better? Are you kidding me? It's been the same garbage game after game! The reason our team looked "better" is because our last two opponents have not been on Canada's level (no disrespect to either country). I'm not sure what "rising trend" you're seeing here. This lineup has been given three-ish games time to "gel" or develop chemistry and I'm not seeing much, I think it's time to try something else.

Sure, I might've made an "apples and oranges" example there. I don't think your reasoning is any better though -- by your original logic, nothing new should ever be tried or developed, because there needs to be "precedent" that supports each and every decision. Shame on me for thinking out of the box!

I think I'm done here. Since we're so far apart in our opinions, I don't see anything positive coming from continuing this discussion.

I kind of agree with this guy.^^