The future of international hockey

[JackSlater]

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.

Those teams didn't qualify for the world cup. Russia would not be there due to a failure to qualify, Russia wouldn't be there due to invading a neighbour and making wild threats, among other things. It isn't the same thing. I wouldn't rule Russia out of a 2024 World Cup either. I'd also hope that Slovenian fans have more wits about them than you paint, but who knows. Whether other sports talk about something being a best on best has nothing to do with whether something is a best on best.

The types of teams at the 1980 Olympic tournament did make it a lesser victory in hockey terms, just like the lesser quality of teams made the 1960 Olympic win something lesser. American fans like it because it was a massive upset, ie a "miracle". Winning the 1996 World Cup or if USA had won the 2022 Olympics with NHLers would have been much bigger hockey accomplishments even if they would not have resonated as much due to political/underdog elements being absent. It's the same in that the 1972 Summit Series is the biggest win in Canada's sports consciousness, even though it isn't the biggest win in hockey terms and is not a best on best tournament victory.

 

[JackSlater]

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.

There is definitely a difference in terms of how national teams are viewed. Someone can correct me if they disagree, but I think that for most Canadians they would only view a best on best team Canada as a real national team. If someone talks about making team Canada, they do not mean a world championship roster for the most part. There is no sense of continuity in the team, just a series of editions of team Canada, some more serious than others.

There are some players who are associated with team Canada. Ryan Smyth for instance has his Captain Canada moniker for how often he played at the IIHF world championship. Those guys don't get enough respect honestly.

 

[Albatros]

The types of teams at the 1980 Olympic tournament did make it a lesser victory in hockey terms, just like the lesser quality of teams made the 1960 Olympic win something lesser.

That is true also for the Stanley Cup though, any of Gretzky's cups in the 1980s have lower value compared to the Dallas Stars winning in 1999 due to lesser competition.

 

[karhukissa]

Those teams didn't qualify for the world cup. Russia would not be there due to a failure to qualify, Russia wouldn't be there due to invading a neighbour and making wild threats, among other things. It isn't the same thing. I wouldn't rule Russia out of a 2024 World Cup either. I'd also hope that Slovenian fans have more wits about them than you paint, but who knows. Whether other sports talk about something being a best on best has nothing to do with whether something is a best on best.

The types of teams at the 1980 Olympic tournament did make it a lesser victory in hockey terms, just like the lesser quality of teams made the 1960 Olympic win something lesser. American fans like it because it was a massive upset, ie a "miracle". Winning the 1996 World Cup or if USA had won the 2022 Olympics with NHLers would have been much bigger hockey accomplishments even if they would not have resonated as much due to political/underdog elements being absent. It's the same in that the 1972 Summit Series is the biggest win in Canada's sports consciousness, even though it isn't the biggest win in hockey terms and is not a best on best tournament victory.

For me talking about some win being "lesser" is just cheap argumenting and coping with a loss. That's the beauty of professional sports, you need to win no matter the circumstances or available players.

Everyone would laugh if some Portuguese guy said that "we would've win if we had Ronaldo" or French people saying that "If only we had Benzema". It's pointless to even bring up these arguments.

In hockey it seems to be all about these ifs and whatifs. It's true that you can't have absolute best on best tournament without Russia, but does it make the win any lesser? In my eyes no.

Just like nobody is questioning why USA or Canada are playing at soccer world cup. If it was absolute best on best, neither of them would be even close to World Cup. In fact football Euros is higher level than World Cup and yet it's not even close to World Cup what comes to appreciation.

 

[JackSlater]

That is true also for the Stanley Cup though, any of Gretzky's cups in the 1980s have lower value compared to the Dallas Stars winning in 1999 due to lesser competition.

Mildly so, sure. Dallas had a better claim to having the best club team in the world in 1999 than Edmonton did in 1985 or whenever.

For me talking about some win being "lesser" is just cheap argumenting and coping with a loss. That's the beauty of professional sports, you need to win no matter the circumstances or available players.

Everyone would laugh if some Portuguese guy said that "we would've win if we had Ronaldo" or French people saying that "If only we had Benzema". It's pointless to even bring up these arguments.

In hockey it seems to be all about these ifs and whatifs. It's true that you can't have absolute best on best tournament without Russia, but does it make the win any lesser? In my eyes no.

Just like nobody is questioning why USA or Canada are playing at soccer world cup. If it was absolute best on best, neither of them would be even close to World Cup.

Yes, I've heard all of the "but in soccer people think of it ______________ way" arguments before. A best on best is when the best players are there competing for their national teams. Your claims about what soccer fans would say don't change that in the least, and in fact they do not match my own experiences, as I have seen and heard soccer fans lament missing players plenty of times.

 

[karhukissa]

Yes, I've heard all of the "but in soccer people think of it ______________ way" arguments before. A best on best is when the best players are there competing for their national teams. Your claims about what soccer fans would say don't change that in the least, and in fact they do not match my own experiences, as I have seen and heard soccer fans lament missing players plenty of times.

Okay so World Cup of Soccer isn't the best on best tournament and it's still the biggest sports trophy you can win. Hockey fans should treat NHL olympics or World Cup the same, with or without Russia or McDavid injured or whatever.

 

[JackSlater]

Okay so World Cup of Soccer isn't the best on best tournament and it's still the biggest sports trophy you can win. Hockey fans should treat NHL olympics or World Cup the same, with or without Russia or McDavid injured or whatever.

I don't think that a McDavid injury changes anything for 99.9% of people. Canada didn't have Lemieux or others at the 1996 World Cup or 1998 Olympics, but I've never heard anyone suggest that those were not best on best tournaments. Russia missing is a whole team however, and in a sport with few actual contenders. If Russia isn't there then it simply cannot be the same. Fans would still probably consider it a big deal, but it isn't as impressive as winning with Russia's best actually in the tournament.

 

[NyQuil]

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..."

Technically the qualification counts as part of the World Cup.

To say that Italy or Netherlands didn't participate in the World Cup is false - they just didn't qualify for the World Cup FINALS, which is what the final tournament in Qatar is often called.

A much better analogy for the World Championships is the men's Olympic tournament for football, in which there are structural restrictions that only allow a select number of players (3) who are over 23.

What is the general worldwide opinion of Olympic football? It's a fun tournament, you're happy for the winners, but no one takes it seriously because it isn't regarded as a "best on best" tournament.

So the "best on best" fixation certainly exists in football as well.

 

[NyQuil]

Okay so World Cup of Soccer isn't the best on best tournament and it's still the biggest sports trophy you can win. Hockey fans should treat NHL olympics or World Cup the same, with or without Russia or McDavid injured or whatever.

Again, as has been repeated over and over again, Canada has missed players frequently at best-on-best tournaments and we still count them as such.

Canada has also lost "best on best" tournaments (e.g. 1981, 1996, 1998, 2006) and they certainly count, regardless of who was there and who wasn't.

I'll always have a very high opinion of teams that defeat Canada in elimination games at best-on-best tournaments, because they faced the best we had to offer at the time with the stakes at their very highest and beat us. That includes the Soviets and Russia in 1981 and 2006, and the US and the Czechs in 1996 and 1998 respectively.

We can gripe about how things ended up in 2006, and who ended up playing at whose expense, and who chose what players, but that doesn't disqualify the tournament as a "best on best" tourney.

The only time Canadians roll their eyes is when someone announces their supremacy in hockey after a World Championships tournament.

Certainly no short tournament is a perfect proxy for hockey power, but at least you're not missing a sizeable portion of the world's top players because they are already competing for another trophy.

Personally, I don't count the 2016 World Cup as part of that group of tournaments because of reasons already cited multiple times in the thread. And this is a tournament that Canada won. They may have called it a World Cup but it was a glorified NHL all-star game.

Despite what some Europeans may believe, we are capable of appreciating good competition.

I'm sensing that a lot of the issues in this thread is simply semantics - what does "best" mean exactly? It certainly doesn't mean that every team has to have every single one of their top players.

 

[JackSlater]

Technically the qualification counts as part of the World Cup.

To say that Italy or Netherlands didn't participate in the World Cup is false - they just didn't qualify for the World Cup FINALS, which is what the final tournament in Qatar is often called.

A much better analogy for the World Championships is the men's Olympic tournament for soccer, in which there are structural restrictions that only allow a select number of players (3) who are over 23.

What is the general worldwide opinion of Olympic soccer? It's a fun tournament, you're happy for the winners, but no one takes it seriously because it isn't regarded as a "best on best" tournament.

So the "best on best" fixation certainly exists in football as well.

There's a very peculiar cognitive dissonance regarding what some posters will admit when it comes to the Olympic soccer tournament. The Olympics are always the pinnacle of sports is a frequent claim... except in that big, glaring example, which we will pretend to ignore. It isn't nearly as big of a deal as the World Cup, but it's sort of inconvenient to admit the reason why.

 

[jigglysquishy]

2016 wasn't best on best.

1996, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2014 all were.

I lean towards 1991 not being one, because politics functionally disqualified the Soviets sending their A team.

1981, 1984, and 1987 count.

 

[karhukissa]

There's a very peculiar cognitive dissonance regarding what some posters will admit when it comes to the Olympic soccer tournament. The Olympics are always the pinnacle of sports is a frequent claim... except in that big, glaring example, which we will pretend to ignore. It isn't nearly as big of a deal as the World Cup, but it's sort of inconvenient to admit the reason why.

Olympic soccer tournament qualification in Europe equals top-4 teams in U-21 European championships. So junior teams in junior tournament will decide which European countries are going to play Olympic soccer.

Also that tournament is U-23 tournament with 3 exceptions per squads so that tournament is a joke to begin with.

 

[FinPanda]

Best-on-best tournament is where you have like top 8-10 best hockey countries and everyones league season is ended/its paused. No matter if someone on teams are injured etc Just that they are able to go if healthy. Thats closest to best on best we will get.

 

[JackSlater]

Olympic soccer tournament qualification in Europe equals top-4 teams in U-21 European championships. So junior teams in junior tournament will decide which European countries are going to play Olympic soccer.

Also that tournament is U-23 tournament with 3 exceptions per squads so that tournament is a joke to begin with.

I agree. It's fine to watch as a novelty but it isn't a big deal by any stretch.

 

[edog37]

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

you don't like the truth do you? The Stanley Cup is the hardest trophy in sport to win. It features the best players in the world in the best league in the world. These artificial exhibitions like the Olympics guys like to pump up are just that...exhibitions....one collection of baseball cards playing against another collection. NHL teams stay together for years in some cases & have well developed systems that showcase their respective talents. The baseball card collection teams are thrown together & basically play pond hockey with some checking thrown in.

 

[Boonk]

you don't like the truth do you? The Stanley Cup is the hardest trophy in sport to win. It features the best players in the world in the best league in the world. These artificial exhibitions like the Olympics guys like to pump up are just that...exhibitions....one collection of baseball cards playing against another collection. NHL teams stay together for years in some cases & have well developed systems that showcase their respective talents. The baseball card collection teams are thrown together & basically play pond hockey with some checking thrown in.

The Stanley Cup is a club trophy competition whose clubs have SOME of the best players on their team, it indicates the best club in the NHL. It is not a best on best competition regardless of how much you cry over it and that's the truth. Not every hockey fan gives a shit about the Stanley Cup held in North America. Stay salty.

 

[Albatros]

I lean towards 1991 not being one, because politics functionally disqualified the Soviets sending their A team.

1981, 1984, and 1987 count.

Was similar with Czechoslovakia at the time though, they had a dozen or so top players in the NHL through the 80s and the only one to play at the Canada Cup played against them.

 

[NyQuil]

Was similar with Czechoslovakia at the time though, they had a dozen or so top players in the NHL through the 80s and the only one to play at the Canada Cup played against them.

If you want to ignore every hockey tournament in history before 1998, I don’t really care.

Circumstances didn’t really allow any kind of parity competition until the Olympics were finally opened to NHLers.

Canadians enjoyed the Canada Cup because we got to see our best players play on a single team for their country. The Soviets taught Canada a lesson in 1981 but I don’t mind wiping that result from the history books.

I’m sure Europeans feel the same about the World Championships.

In the end, they are/were both designed and delivered to cater to their primary audiences, which is North America and Europe respectively.

 

[Albatros]

If you want to ignore every hockey tournament in history before 1998, I don’t really care.

Circumstances didn’t really allow any kind of parity competition until the Olympics were finally opened to NHLers.

Canadians enjoyed the Canada Cup because we got to see our best players play on a single team for their country. The Soviets taught Canada a lesson in 1981 but I don’t mind wiping that result from the history books.

I’m sure Europeans feel the same about the World Championships.

In the end, they are/were both designed and delivered to cater to their primary audiences, which is North America and Europe respectively.

I think one thing worth noting is that while the World Championships have meanwhile acquired significant commercial value, they were never really created for wider audiences but rather with the amateur ideals of sport in mind. The NHL was always first and foremost professional show business, even a hundred years ago.

 

[NyQuil]

I think one thing worth noting is that while the World Championships have meanwhile acquired significant commercial value, they were never really created for wider audiences but rather with the amateur ideals of sport in mind. The NHL was always first and foremost professional show business, even a hundred years ago.

The Stanley Cup was competed for by amateur teams long before the NHL existed.

The trophy was commissioned in 1892 as the Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup and is named after Lord Stanley of Preston, the Governor General of Canada, who donated it as an award to Canada's top-ranking amateur ice hockey club.

As Canada’s premier championship for hockey, it was originally created with amateur ideals of sport in mind.

Meanwhile, what constitutes “amateur” became a running joke when it came to the World Championships and Olympics.

 

[jj cale]

I'm never been impressed with the amateur ideals angle for a lot of reasons but one in particular is in the modern world we as hockey fans would be the poorer for it, we would have a lot less talented players and thus a far inferior product if players didn't get handsomely rewarded for being the best at their craft.

 

[NyQuil]

I'm never been impressed with the amateur ideals angle for a lot of reasons but one in particular is in the modern world we as hockey fans would be the poorer for it, we would have a lot less talented players and thus a far inferior product if players didn't get handsomely rewarded for being the best at their craft.

The same happened with golf where only the elite in society could afford to golf at a high level without being compensated for it.

 

[jj cale]

The same happened with golf where only the elite in society could afford to golf at a high level without being compensated for it.

Look at the how the level in womens tennis immediately took off the second they started to get serious material compensation for concentrating and working on their game.

Night and day.

I'll add just for shits and giggles that every female player playing today should cut Billie Jean King a cheque, it's the least they can do.

 

[Albatros]

The Stanley Cup was competed for by amateur teams long before the NHL existed.

The trophy was commissioned in 1892 as the Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup and is named after Lord Stanley of Preston, the Governor General of Canada, who donated it as an award to Canada's top-ranking amateur ice hockey club.

As Canada’s premier championship for hockey, it was originally created with amateur ideals of sport in mind.

Meanwhile, what constitutes “amateur” became a running joke when it came to the World Championships and Olympics.

Which is irrelevant as the NHL never existed as an amateur competition and could never do so, unlike most European hockey leagues. Europeans tend to be by default quite uneasy about commercialization and professionalization in sports in a way that is not present in North America to any comparable extent. Even in college sports the dynamics are not the same. Perhaps in soccer a certain subculture has emerged very recently, but artificially imported from Europe. So when you look at the culture and appeal around national teams, it has a lot to do with this purity and ideals that may increasingly be lost elsewhere. I don't think it's nearly as common in North America to look at Team Canada as a cultural counterbalance to the overtly commercialized nature of the NHL corrupting the integrity of the sport. Indeed, many fans openly embrace their conscious role as consumers and celebrate the business aspects of hockey in a way that is not at all a thing in Europe.

 

[NyQuil]

Which is irrelevant as the NHL never existed as an amateur competition and could never do so, unlike most European hockey leagues. Europeans tend to be by default quite uneasy about commercialization and professionalization in sports in a way that is not present in North America to any comparable extent. Even in college sports the dynamics are not the same. Perhaps in soccer a certain subculture has emerged very recently, but artificially imported from Europe. So when you look at the culture and appeal around national teams, it has a lot to do with this purity and ideals that may increasingly be lost elsewhere. I don't think it's nearly as common in North America to look at Team Canada as a cultural counterbalance to the overtly commercialized nature of the NHL corrupting the integrity of the sport. Indeed, many fans openly embrace their conscious role as consumers and celebrate the business aspects of hockey in a way that is not at all a thing in Europe.

I see no discernible difference between an amateur European league becoming a professional one and amateur Canadian teams competing as professionals a few decades later. The Ottawa Senators were competing for the Stanley Cup as an amateur club for 19 years before they turned professional.

I just see a lot of cheap platitudes considering how much footballers command in salaries and transfer fees. Is Mbappe maligned for his greed? Is Messi?

The most commercial sports teams in the world are selected European football clubs with runaway spending routinely taking place.

I see a fundamental disconnect between wishful thinking and reality in your example. This magical world of the purity of sport doesn’t exist anymore, and to claim it as some kind of exclusive purview of Europe is asinine.

Speaking for the NHLPA, if they didn’t care about international play, they wouldn’t make it as part of their negotiating space with the owners in collective bargaining. Negotiating to play in the Olympics actually weakens their collective bargaining position, but they do it all the same.

The players care, and not because of money. The fans understand that.



Phil makes an excellent point about playing in the US for his employment but still proud to play for Canada when called upon. That's the cultural counterbalance to the monetization of hockey that you don't appear to recognize.

With respect to basketball, there have been a whole list of Canadian basketball players who snubbed the national team, including Jamaal Magloire, Rick Fox and Andrew Wiggins. Canada has never really had that problem in hockey, and it has nothing to do with monetary compensation.

There’s a reason why the 2016 World Cup failed even here in North America and it’s because it was rightly perceived as a commercial cash grab with no redeeming value as an international tournament.

This entire line of argument is a desperate grasp at some kind of ill-conceived superiority complex regarding European sporting culture.