The future of international hockey

[JackSlater]

I like how you keep speaking for Canadians as if you're an authority.

I'm Canadian.

Team Europe was a joke - I was cheering for them in the Final because I thought it would be hilarious if they won and undermined the entire farce of a tournament.

Did they even have an anthem selected? Was it going to be Ode to Joy? (the EU anthem?)

Canada clearly didn't have an issue competing as they won the whole thing. As I outlined earlier, the team that was really crippled in the entire affair was the USA.

I wanted to play a full-strength USA and I wanted a team like Switzerland to get another shot at a best-on-best upset as they did to Canada in 2006.

Those kind of gimmicks undermined any value for the tournament as a measuring stick, which is why no one attended it or really watched it, even in NA.

There are no bragging rights associated with this glorified all-star game.

Please stop speaking for a country you clearly aren't a citizen of, and maybe ask Canadians how they felt instead of simply succumbing to your own preconceptions and stereotypes. It's insulting.

The oh so enlightened European who comes to edify the ignorant masses of HFBoards with cutting edge 1970s era rhetoric regarding Canadian boogeymen, accuracy be damned, is a classic site trope. You can usually pair it with a weirdly submissive relationship with the hockey teams of the USSR and conspiracy theories regarding the intentions of the NHL.

 

[NyQuil]

For example in goal instead of the top NHL goalies Nabokov and Khabibulin they had Bryzgalov from the AHL as well as Sokolov and Fomichyov from the Russian league.

There wasn't anything structural that restricted their participation. Khabibulin refused to go and Nabokov had surgery.

Big hole in goal: Khabibulin to skip World Cup

Russia has suffered a major blow to its buildup for the hockey World Cup: No. 1 goaltender Nikolai Khabibulin said he would miss the event later this year.

www.espn.com

In 1991, Canada didn't have Mario Lemieux, Joe Sakic, Patrick Roy, Ray Bourque or Cam Neely. Steve Yzerman was left off the team. That doesn't automatically negate its status as a "best on best" tournament, but I suppose it could if I applied your logic.

The moniker "best on best" isn't about some hypothetical best case scenario for each team but rather the lack of structural impediments to a given player playing in the tournament.

Top players can still miss the tourney whether due to injury, coaching selections or disorganization within the country's federation.

 

[edog37]

My first post. Have been thinking about the topic for some time and finally had enough energy to write a few thoughts on this matter.

To give you some context, I’ve been deeply disappointed with the present state of international hockey. It has been over eight years since we last saw a genuine best-on-best international hockey tournament. Six years ago, in 2016, the World Cup of Hockey brought some short-term comfort, but quite frankly that tournament with experimental teams hardly qualified as a real international tournament. It was certainly entertaining hockey, but still felt more like a pre-season exhibition than a real international tournament.

I am trying to discuss in this post some of the factors that have brought us here. Obviously, the IIHF and the NHL are ultimately accountable for the current stalemate. When you have a big North American sports league with its aspirations and a Europe-based international sports federation with its authority trying to decide who should be the flag-bearer of hockey on international level, an open confrontation is one of the least surprising results.

My main argument is that the tensions between the two organizations rise from the differences in European and North American sports culture. I also think that the disagreement is quite chronic and fans should not hold their breath waiting for it to be resolved. Thus, the final question is how a regular fan like me should deal with the situation. I am trying to write down a couple of thoughts on that as well.

So, why are we here?

Firstly, I believe that the North American audience, including NHL owners, do not fully understand the significance of international competition for European sports fans. Competition between nations is a defining feature of European history, having a profound effect also on the evolution of European sports culture.

For Europeans, international games are not just international games. Of course, on surface a hockey match between Finland and Sweden or Finland and Russia is just a hockey match, a sports event, but in reality there are deeper and more profound perceptions as well as lots of history included. I am quite sure that a majority of European fans consider international competition the highest form of sports.

Now, do not get me wrong, my purpose is not to say that international competition is meaningless to North American sport fans. It definitely is not. However, the whole concept of competition between nations is absolutely a fundamental starting point for European sports.

Secondly, there is a differing emphasis on the function of sports between Europe and North America. One can specify at least three overarching functions for sports: entertainment, business and culture. Naturally, these functions do not exclude each other. It is quite clear that in North America the emphasis is on the first two functions, whereas in Europe, sports are ultimately a function of culture. Just watch European soccer fans, who support their favorite team almost on a spiritual level. I am not saying that the functions have a rank order; rather the functions are real and affect how sports are perceived in Europe and North America.

You have to consider the aforementioned factors when assessing any negotiations between the NHL and the IIHF.

So, what this means for the fans and the future of international hockey?

To be honest, not seeing NHL players in Beijing was one of the biggest disappointments I have experienced as a hockey fan - and this is coming from someone who usually understands the owners’ perspective just fine. For months, I had zero interest to follow the NHL. Of course, the coronavirus was a good and understandable explanation for the NHL to justify its decision, but we all know where the owners are with their commitment to international competition.

I guess we should accept that regular best-on-best hockey might have been just a temporary experiment from 1998 to 2014. We will probably get an NHL-led World Cup of Hockey every now and then, but otherwise international competition in hockey will most of the time not be based on the best players playing against the best players, at least for the foreseeable future.

Accepting this has actually enabled me, as a fan, to enjoy the current international hockey as it is. I know that during the Hockey World Championships there is always speculation about B teams playing C teams, or what the results could have been with everyone icing their best team. As justifiable as this speculation is, it originates, however, from assumptions that have really not been part of international hockey since 2014. As of now, I am just trying to ignore the whole concept of best-on-best. International hockey is still fun and enjoyable to watch, even if it materializes only with the best players available.

we have best on best every year including this one...its called the Stanley Cup Playoffs. And as far as the Olympics in Beijing were concerned, the NHL absolutely made the right call. There is no way the Olympics should have ever been held there in the first place.

 

[Snauen]

we have best on best every year including this one...its called the Stanley Cup Playoffs. And as far as the Olympics in Beijing were concerned, the NHL absolutely made the right call. There is no way the Olympics should have ever been held there in the first place.

The NHL=Best on best, with a mischmasch of the best players randomly spread out in 32 teams.. The OP i clearly talking Best on best from nationality. What's the point of nations if we cant even have our best hockeyplayes playing for us in a two-week tournament, once a year?? What is the point of supporting the Ukraine as a nation , why not let everyone join under the Russian flag already.. the reasoning is somewhat the same, isnt it

 

[Albatros]

There wasn't anything structural that restricted their participation. Khabibulin refused to go and Nabokov had surgery.

Big hole in goal: Khabibulin to skip World Cup

Russia has suffered a major blow to its buildup for the hockey World Cup: No. 1 goaltender Nikolai Khabibulin said he would miss the event later this year.

www.espn.com

In 1991, Canada didn't have Mario Lemieux, Joe Sakic, Patrick Roy, Ray Bourque or Cam Neely. Steve Yzerman was left off the team. That doesn't automatically negate its status as a "best on best" tournament, but I suppose it could if I applied your logic.

The moniker "best on best" isn't about some hypothetical best case scenario for each team but rather the lack of structural impediments to a given player playing in the tournament.

Top players can still miss the tourney whether due to injury, coaching selections or disorganization within the country's federation.

Structural within the FHR rather than the WCoH sure, it's also not the IIHF that is structurally restricting World Championship rosters since decades anymore, but the end result was the same and I'm not sure how that can be then celebrated as best-on-best hockey.

 

[Albatros]

I like how you keep speaking for Canadians as if you're an authority.

I'm Canadian.

Team Europe was a joke - I was cheering for them in the Final because I thought it would be hilarious if they won and undermined the entire farce of a tournament.

Did they even have an anthem selected? Was it going to be Ode to Joy? (the EU anthem?)

Canada clearly didn't have an issue competing as they won the whole thing. As I outlined earlier, the team that was really crippled in the entire affair was the USA.

I wanted to play a full-strength USA and I wanted a team like Switzerland to get another shot at a best-on-best upset as they did to Canada in 2006.

Those kind of gimmicks undermined any value for the tournament as a measuring stick, which is why no one attended it or really watched it, even in NA.

There are no bragging rights associated with this glorified all-star game.

Please stop speaking for a country you clearly aren't a citizen of, and maybe ask Canadians how they felt instead of simply succumbing to your own preconceptions and stereotypes. It's insulting.

Feel free to be insulted, but the truth is that at least on this forum there is hardly ever any Canadian addressing any of the many failures of the past editions of the Canada Cup, the World Cup of Hockey, or even the Olympics with NHLers that ultimately made them something else than "best-on-best" hockey. Usually the narrative is all about what went wrong in '16 just because McDavid couldn't play for Canada.

 

[NyQuil]

Feel free to be insulted, but the truth is that at least on this forum there is hardly ever any Canadian addressing any of the many failures of the past editions of the Canada Cup, the World Cup of Hockey, or even the Olympics with NHLers that ultimately made them something else than "best-on-best" hockey. Usually the narrative is all about what went wrong in '16 just because McDavid couldn't play for Canada.

Basically you’re alleging that no tournament is perfect because someone is missing which is holding up an unreasonable and impossible standard.

2016 was useless because of Team Europe and the Young Stars team. Just because you’d prefer to believe otherwise doesn’t alter what the prevailing attitude is regarding that tournament.

Do you see a lot of Canadians crowing about the World Cup in 2016? Of course not, and rightly so. It was a useless exercise.

It doesn’t fit your narrative that Canadians are selfish glory hunters so it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t believe me.

The truth is that you have already made up your mind regarding what Canadians believe despite what an actual Canadian is saying to you right now.

 

[Albatros]

Basically you’re alleging that no tournament is perfect because someone is missing which is holding up an unreasonable and impossible standard.

2016 was useless because of Team Europe and the Young Stars team. Just because you’d prefer to believe otherwise doesn’t alter what the prevailing attitude is regarding that tournament.

Do you see a lot of Canadians crowing about the World Cup in 2016? Of course not, and rightly so. It was a useless exercise.

It doesn’t fit your narrative that Canadians are selfish glory hunters so it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t believe me.

The truth is that you have already made up your mind regarding what Canadians believe despite what an actual Canadian is saying to you right now.

If it's one or two players due to injury, sure. If the roster as a whole is no better than at the IIHF World Championships then I'm not sure what's the point of the "best-on-best" moniker.

I don't have a problem with Canadians, merely the stupid usage of the term "best-on-best" that almost rivals "generational".

 

[NyQuil]

Structural within the FHR rather than the WCoH sure, it's also not the IIHF that is structurally restricting World Championship rosters since decades anymore, but the end result was the same and I'm not sure how that can be then celebrated as best-on-best hockey.

The fact that you can’t distinguish between holding a tournament while the most important games of the most important league in the world are taking place and a national federation not being organized enough for a single player to want to attend is indicative of a level of willful ignorance that is not productive.

If it's one or two players due to injury, sure. If the roster as a whole is no better than at the IIHF World Championships then I'm not sure what's the point of the "best-on-best" moniker.

I don't have a problem with Canadians, merely the stupid usage of the term "best-on-best" that almost rivals "generational".

I don’t really care what you call it.

Call it NHL playoff inclusive if you want, it doesn’t matter.

The outcome is the same.

Regardless of whether a player actually wants to attend, they are prevented from doing so due to their professional employment.

The benefit of the internationalization of the NHL is that citizens of Europe are much more predisposed to want to see a NHL playoff inclusive tournament.

 

[JackSlater]

Feel free to be insulted, but the truth is that at least on this forum there is hardly ever any Canadian addressing any of the many failures of the past editions of the Canada Cup, the World Cup of Hockey, or even the Olympics with NHLers that ultimately made them something else than "best-on-best" hockey. Usually the narrative is all about what went wrong in '16 just because McDavid couldn't play for Canada.

Your projections are pretty embarrassing. Better dig up some quotes because your ability to guess at what Canadian hockey fans think is putrid.

The fact that you can’t distinguish between holding a tournament while the most important games of the most important league in the world are taking place and a national federation not being organized enough for a single player to want to attend is indicative of a level of willful ignorance that is not productive.



I don’t really care what you call it.

Call it NHL playoff inclusive if you want, it doesn’t matter.

The outcome is the same.

Regardless of whether a player actually wants to attend, they are prevented from doing so due to their professional employment.

The benefit of the internationalization of the NHL is that citizens of Europe are much more predisposed to want to see a NHL playoff inclusive tournament.

Someone should tell that noted Canadian sycophant organization the IIHF to stop talking about best on best.

Top Story of the Century

Regarding the IIHF's number 6 story of the century - the 1976 Canada Cup:

"Darryl Sittler scores the OT winner versus Czechoslovakia as six top nations play best-on-best."

"This was the first truly international tournament featuring “best on best” from the best countries in the world"

"The 1976 Canada Cup was the maturation of international hockey, the event that took international hockey out of a “European” context and into a global context of best on best, the winners crowned, in one sense, true world’s champions."

 

[vergji]

With the NHL having a lock on all of the best players in the world, I don't see why the IIHF is needed to have a best-on-best tournament. I would prefer to have the IIHF fall by the wayside and have the NHL control international hockey. 1996, 2004, and 2016 were far better than the Euro-centric IIHF could produce.

Barring that, I saw another poster float a Summit Series between the USA and Canada. That would be a great starter for the NHL to revive best-on-best hockey.

This reply shows how clueless americans are on this topic

 

[Albatros]

Your projections are pretty embarrassing. Better dig up some quotes because your ability to guess at what Canadian hockey fans think is putrid.



Someone should tell that noted Canadian sycophant organization the IIHF to stop talking about best on best.

Top Story of the Century

Regarding the IIHF's number 6 story of the century - the 1976 Canada Cup:

"Darryl Sittler scores the OT winner versus Czechoslovakia as six top nations play best-on-best."

"This was the first truly international tournament featuring “best on best” from the best countries in the world"

"The 1976 Canada Cup was the maturation of international hockey, the event that took international hockey out of a “European” context and into a global context of best on best, the winners crowned, in one sense, true world’s champions."

In 1976 there were European players that were not permitted to play by their North American teams, you can frame the story as you like but it was never an even playing field.

 

[JackSlater]

In 1976 there were European players that were not permitted to play by their North American teams, you can frame the story as you like but it was never an even playing field.

I'm quoting the IIHF, which seems higher on the 1976 Canada Cup than I am actually.

 

[member 305909]

Let's hope they have learned the lesson and won't include any more gimmick-teams. I haven't heard anyone saying that was a good idea not once.

However, someone in a deciding position must have thought it was a marvellous idea. Otherwise they wouldn't have come up with those teams.

 

[gstommylee]

IIHF and NHL needs to (would be nice) to find a deal, where NHL has more reason to care about the World Championships. Perhaps making the world cup work, or just uplift the World Championships. Only problem: IIHF and the countires make alot of money keeping it every year. But if it could be held at around Xmas, leagues having bit longer break around xmas to keep the tournament. It could work even every year, but maybe every other year better. NHL just would need to have something to gain there, money I guess. But if NHL was heavily involved it would be refreshing to see that instead of all star game every year even for NHL fan I would think. Best on Best international hockey is something that I've never seen Canadians being against (or US people).

I could see the smaller nations having qualifier, like they do in FIFA. That they could have basically every year, or every other that too. They would play for who gets the last 5ish spots in a something like 8, max 10 team tournament. Top 5 ranked teams would automatically qualify. If some top country dropped out of top5, Im sure they'd have no hard time getting qualified. I'd be ready to have USA and Canada automatically qualify as they have the strongest league, if thats what it took. Qualifiers would be the thing for smaller nations and have money prizes, too. And always few smaller nations would get their shot in the best-on-best games.

Xmas time is worlds jrs tournament, they won't have both at the same time.

 

[NyQuil]

Let's hope they have learned the lesson and won't include any more gimmick-teams. I haven't heard anyone saying that was a good idea not once.

However, someone in a deciding position must have thought it was a marvellous idea. Otherwise they wouldn't have come up with those teams.

Someone in the NHL marketing department no doubt.

 

[Hanji]

Wait, now the various iterations of the Canada/World Cup from '76 to '04 (that included Russia) were legit best on best tournaments? and here all along I was told that they were nothing more than just NHL commercial pre-season exhibition games for shits and giggles.

Glad we finally set that straight.

modern day Russian national team is hardly an elite level team. 1 aging center, a couple of wingers and 2 goaltenders is hardly an elite team make. Wouldn't have much of an impact at any legit best on best tournament. They won't be missed...other than their pre-game arena walk-ins where they try to convince themselves that they are still elite...of course the hot air in their balloon is generally gone halfway through the opening period.

Yea, nice try there Ace.

Russia has by far the best goaltending of any nation; which by itself makes them a threat in elimination games. They also arguably have the best wingers.

Russia can immensely impact the outcome of a tourney. They do as such every year at the WJC. If I'm not mistaken they've won the most medals the last 10 years.

Not having Russia in a 'best v best' is laughable. But whatever, virtue signalling is more important,



So stupid.

 

[Boonk]

we have best on best every year including this one...its called the Stanley Cup Playoffs. And as far as the Olympics in Beijing were concerned, the NHL absolutely made the right call. There is no way the Olympics should have ever been held there in the first place.

No it isn't, the Stanley Cup is not a best on best and you can keep crying about it.

 

[The Cannon of Tesoma]

What that 'Best-on-best' tournament really means?

It's clear that gathering up all statistically best skilled players doesn't automatically gel up as the best possible team. If the term means that all participating national hockey federations to the tournament have in theory full and unrestricted access to their nations' player pool, then it makes more sense, but that doesn't mean all individually best players would or even should appear in their respective national teams, as such combination isn't necessary the best for building the best team possible.

...

And if Russia is missing, then a tournament can't be called Best-on-best no matter what other circumstances might be.

 

[saskriders]

I like the idea of having a World Cup in in Summer Olympic years, to ensure a best on best tournament every other year. But I feel like there is nothing that makes the World Cup unique from the Olympics and special in general, and because of this there not is much to play for. How do you think these issues could be solved?

 

[TruePowerSlave]

Just arrange the World Cup already. Make it a lengthy tournament with multiple teams, 8 teams means the whole thing is over in a second.

 

[karhukissa]

This best on best fixation is only in hockey fans head. Let's take couple of examples:

Italy and Netherlands doesn't qualify to World Cup of Soccer, the most glorious tournament there is in the world. Spain goes and wins it, would other fans go and say "Technically it wasn't a best on best tournament because of no Italy or Netherlands...." and Spanish fans being like "Damn it this doesn't feel as good..."

Same with Olympic basketball, Slovenia or France beats USA, "well they didn't have LeBron so we shouldn't be happy now..."

These tournaments are always best on best, whether it's absolutely best players of participating nations or best players currently available and willing to come. This constant speculating about "Don't care, no best on best" is just ridiculous. Just don't watch it if you don't care.

Miracle on Ice was actually hoax because it wasn't best on best. They should burn those films made of that tournament.

 

[JackSlater]

This best on best fixation is only in hockey fans head. Let's take couple of examples:

Italy and Netherlands doesn't qualify to World Cup of Soccer, the most glorious tournament there is in the world. Spain goes and wins it, would other fans go and say "Technically it wasn't a best on best tournament because of no Italy or Netherlands...." and Spanish fans being like "Damn it this doesn't feel as good..."

Same with Olympic basketball, Slovenia or France beats USA, "well they didn't have LeBron so we shouldn't be happy now..."

These tournaments are always best on best, whether it's absolutely best players of participating nations or best players currently available and willing to come. This constant speculating about "Don't care, no best on best" is just ridiculous. Just don't watch it if you don't care.

Miracle on Ice was actually hoax because it wasn't best on best. They should burn those films made of that tournament.

Those are terrible examples. The issue you cited with the World Cup is that some teams didn't qualify, not that the best players didn't bother showing up or couldn't show up. As far as basketball, I would think that any actual fan from Slovenia or France (or elsewhere) would recognize the difference between beating USA with all of its best players and a team like USA sent to the previous Olympics or some of the American FIBA world championship/cup teams.

Something isn't "best on best" just because you claim it is. Words have meaning, and best still means best. If the best players are not there to play for their nations then it isn't best on best. You can quibble about injuries and whatnot but simply holding a tournament does not make something a best on best level tournament, though your thinking has crept into Canadian broadcasting a bit in recent years. Finally, the miracle on ice is another terrible example. The reason that that is a big deal in USA while winning the gold medal in hockey at the 1960 Olympics is not is because the best Soviets were at the 1980 tournament and they were world class players on a world class team. It's a massive underdog story, not something that anyone has ever tried to claim as a best on best.

 

[karhukissa]

Those are terrible examples. The issue you cited with the World Cup is that some teams didn't qualify, not that the best players didn't bother showing up or couldn't show up. As far as basketball, I would think that any actual fan from Slovenia or France (or elsewhere) would recognize the difference between beating USA with all of its best players and a team like USA sent to the previous Olympics or some of the American FIBA world championship/cup teams.

Something isn't "best on best" just because you claim it is. Words have meaning, and best still means best. If the best players are not there to play for their nations then it isn't best on best. You can quibble about injuries and whatnot but simply holding a tournament does not make something a best on best level tournament, though your thinking has crept into Canadian broadcasting a bit in recent years. Finally, the miracle on ice is another terrible example. The reason that that is a big deal in USA while winning the gold medal in hockey at the 1960 Olympics is not is because the best Soviets were at the 1980 tournament and they were world class players on a world class team. It's a massive underdog story, not something that anyone has ever tried to claim as a best on best.

But only hockey fans moan about "best on best". I don't see why that World Cup argument isn't a valid one, since it's not absolutely best on best tournament, like we see here "Without Russia it's not best on best". Basically people already play that tournament down before it's even started or planned

For Slovenian basketball fans it doesn't make any difference whether they won team with LeBron or for example this last team USA which was in Tokyo olympics. They could send their D-Class team and it's still better than any other countries best team combined.

Exactly, nobody didn't claim it was best on best, but that didn't make it any lesser of a victory. It was a great story and massive shock, but if it happened today, hfboards would be saying that it was nothing, not all of the best Canadian guys were there.

 

[Albatros]

One difference between Europe and North America is also that in Europe there tend to be players associated with their national teams. Like in the case of Finland Marko Anttila would never ever qualify for a "best-on-best" tournament by this forum's usual definitions, yet fans would take him over most NHL players without hesitation.