The recurrent eternal question of the ice sheet

[Loffer]

Okay guys, is it only me or is it something else than the rink size but anyway: using the most recent examples as a - admittedly subjective - measure stick - the last night game Pens at Sens (game 4?) compared to the semifinal Can Rus in Cologne - well, the latter took the cake.

Is it the area of the ice sheet which makes the game more entertaining, more interesting (for a neutral watcher) and more flowing and unpredictable? I had no vested nor invested (no bets) interest in any of these games, but the general impression was as described above. Well, one could argue also that it is at least partially due to the fact that international games are simply more genuine, fascinating and authentic battles than those between 'made'up' brands and franchises of hockey but that could only explain the difference partially indeed.

So, what's your take? Has the NHL arrived the bleak dead end of the road with their unconditional adherence to the small rink size? Is it finally time to unleash the long waited new degrees of freedom in NA pro hockey by adopting the hybrid size rink which should serve well as a compromise of the two extremes of the ice sheet size going forward?

We need more flow and flair in the game. The current NHL has too little room for the true flow and creativity in the game thanks to the ever faster and stronger players hustling around in that little pot chip and chase and hit crack pot.

Actions!

Click to read more...

 

[NyQuil]

The ice sheet has little impact on the entertainment value of the game relative to the talent and styles of the teams involved.

That being said, I like a bigger ice surface.

I just don't think it will automatically lead to more entertaining hockey.

 

[X66]

Bigger ice is terrible for excitement compared to smaller rinks.

One of the biggest myths is that big ice leads to more scoring etc, it's all bs.

 

[masa2009]

It might be a myth in terms of scoring, yes, as Sochi was pretty drab and boring too. I remember Kovalchuk, of all people, crediting Russia's comeback in the 2008 Worlds final in part to the smaller ice.

However there does seem to be more room in the slot and more varied passing plays on IIHF ice.
In the NHL there is no room whatsoever in front of the net nowdays, and the number of random pinball goals is appalling.
On the big ice, while pacing can suffer a bit, there is less of that endless cycling you see in the NHL.

I've gone back and forth on this topic. I used to be a doubter of the big ice, but the way the NHL's playing style has unraveled in recent years, with all the shot blocking and cycling and random blue line wristers through a maze of players, has made me realize that even if big ice hockey is not all around better, the little bit extra space and creativity it does allow matters more to me in this day and age of robotic NHL hockey.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't buy that the larger ice makes for a more entertaining product. It just adds ice to the periphery. The Canada-Russia game was certainly more entertaining than the Pittsburgh-Ottawa rock fight going on in the Eastern conference finals, but there are many factors (fatigue, style, injuries, talent, familiarity, tactics) other than ice surface to consider.

 

[Jesenice22*]

Small rink sucks, it feels like flying a chopper in your living room.

 

[Michael Brand Eggs]

It used to be that players were slow, and the NHL surface felt right, and the international surface felt too big. Now, everyone is so fast that the NHL surface feels too small, and the international surface feels just right.

 

[bDtKarlsson]

Small rink hockey is mostly just a mess. On the other hand it's certainly faster and there is always something going on which makes it more entertaining for people who just wants action.

Personally I like the larger rink size because it results in more creative hockey and it gives an advantage to smart and skilled players instead of large and physical ones.

 

[admire]

I persinally thikk that most hockey fans are too black and white on this...hockey is not slways better on either european or north american rink sizes.

i think that thr increase in speed does make eu size rinks more appealing than it used to be.

 

[Phil McKraken]

I have never been able to decide what I like better actually. Sometimes when I watch big ice games I miss the speed and general intensity of small ice, but other times when I watch small ice I feel like it sucks the creativity out of the game, since even McDavid is forced to dump, chase and grind like a robot most of the time.

Imagine the higlight plays McDavid could create on a Finnish sized rink (in between NA and International width).

 

[JaegerDice]

Large ice is trash.

The more ice players have further away from the goal, the less action there is.

 

[Havre]

I have never been able to decide what I like better actually. Sometimes when I watch big ice games I miss the speed and general intensity of small ice, but other times when I watch small ice I feel like it sucks the creativity out of the game, since even McDavid is forced to dump, chase and grind like a robot most of the time.

Imagine the higlight plays McDavid could create on a Finnish sized rink (in between NA and International width).

This.

I´m 99% certain that if it wasn´t for the financial burden of changing NHL rinks (and potentially every single other rink in NA - if you want to have one standard size for all) we would have had at least Finnish sized rinks in the NHL.

When the best players play big is just better (not every single game of course, but on average). Paradoxically for some of the national leagues in Europe I´m not so sure. The players just aren´t good enough to make hockey much of a contact sport on the big surface.

 

[Loffer]

Large ice is trash.

The more ice players have further away from the goal, the less action there is.

This is a very symptomatic comment in its categrorical nature and as such informative of the wide spectrum of different opinions on the issue. It is a value laden question, and a cultural thing also.

I mean, "less action". Is this action just a sum gross measure without any need for qualifications. It sounds like "all B movies are good and most of them are much better than A movies, not to mention Art Movies which are just utter boring trash."

There is action also in Shakespeare, yet not as "much" or as "direct" as in real action movies featuring actors like Van Damme, Stallone, Schwarzenegger, or all of them together in an "ideal" super-action movie.

Well, if I had to choose: Shakespeare any day and twice on Sunday, thank thee.

 

[bDtKarlsson]

I think you're on to something. Small ice hockey is like a Michael Bay movie. A lot of action and explosions but stupid. Big ice hockey is like a movie with a well thought out plot but with less adrenaline pumping scenes. The problem is that all the great actors are payed much more to do the former in this case.

I still dream of the day when we get a competetive league in Europe with large ice and real supporter culture. NHL is killing both the beauty of the game and international hockey for the sake of money.

 

[fouba]

i read the title and got a picture of russian man taking a slavic position poop on ice in my head

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

Large ice is trash.

Looks like someone didn't watch the russia canada game yesterday

 

[kabidjan18]

I prefer small ice for the added physicality.

Personally I like the larger rink size because it results in more creative hockey and it gives an advantage to smart and skilled players instead of large and physical ones.

I think this view really underestimates human evolution. I think we've seen in every sport. Fans and media hype this concept of "skill vs. strength" or "speed vs. size" but what we always end up getting eventually as training techniques and natural selection progress is speed AND size, skill AND strength. Freaks of nature. The dilemma that is presented is false.

If there's to be an argument made about the type of hockey dictated it would be tactical or stylistic, not personnel based. To which, it's very hard to tell. I watch a lot of European hockey because of my specialty. It does tend to be a snooze fest and the puck is away from the net far too much. This isn't to say however that with World class players the same would hold true. Problem is it's very hard to test this. The disparity in skill levels in international hockey make for a lot of games that are only interesting to those whose nations are participating. Only a few games each tournament are good enough for quality evaluation. If played instead over an entire season would there be variables we haven't considered or natural tactical responses that might dull the game that are currently unbeknownst to us? Probably, it's hard to tell.

 

[Scotty B]

I prefer small ice for the added physicality.


I think this view really underestimates human evolution. I think we've seen in every sport. Fans and media hype this concept of "skill vs. strength" or "speed vs. size" but what we always end up getting eventually as training techniques and natural selection progress is speed AND size, skill AND strength. Freaks of nature. The dilemma that is presented is false.

If there's to be an argument made about the type of hockey dictated it would be tactical or stylistic, not personnel based. To which, it's very hard to tell. I watch a lot of European hockey because of my specialty. It does tend to be a snooze fest and the puck is away from the net far too much. This isn't to say however that with World class players the same would hold true. Problem is it's very hard to test this. The disparity in skill levels in international hockey make for a lot of games that are only interesting to those whose nations are participating. Only a few games each tournament are good enough for quality evaluation. If played instead over an entire season would there be variables we haven't considered or natural tactical responses that might dull the game that are currently unbeknownst to us? Probably, it's hard to tell.

Whatabout a hybrid sized ice? SLC's OG venue ,for example; Finland has some too, so I've been told...

 

[Past Considerations]

Overall I prefer small rink, but the endless pinball board grinding is sometimes so tiresome, which always me imagine how NHL would look like on a "hybrid" size.

I think it is a good question whether players have "outgrown" the small rink. And even if there wasn't much difference in the actual average player size (especially in recent years with more smaller players being successful), with modern equipment on players still take more space from the ice and they move faster due simply being better athletes.

If you look at some Youtube video from 90s NHL or before, the rink simply appears to be bigger even when the size is exactly the same than now (minus the few old NHL arenas that were actually even smaller), because the players take less space and the pace of the game is slower.

 

[Past Considerations]

Whatabout a hybrid sized ice? SLC's OG venue ,for example; Finland has some too, so I've been told...

Yes, but it is not some kind of a mandated Finnish size per se, the rinks simply vary in size, from the smallest 28x58m to the full 30x60m.

About Salt Lake:

Those who ridicule the emphasis on bigger ice at the Sochi Olympics point out that, in 2002, when Canada won in Salt Lake City, it was an international-sized surface. Or was it? "No," said Ken Hitchcock, one of Canada's coaches. "It was 200-by-94-by-95, I can't remember which ... We measured it. The corners were much like an NHL rink." IIHF regulations are 200x100.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/ho...nhl-clarifies-illegal-check-to-head-rule.html

 

[Orange Dragon]

Large ice benefits skill, small ice grinders.

I think that NHL should experiment with big ice in few arenes for a season or two. Lot of people complains about Sochi being anticlimatic but it was IMHO more about teams being less competetive and Canada dominating too much than about big ice.

USA - RUS game was quite okay, wasn't it?

 

[JackSlater]

I do agree with the sentiment that something like Finnish ice size would be worth trying in the NHL. It will probably never happen, but that ice size allows a bit more room for the players to operate without making too much of the ice a peripheral dead zone.

 

[LiveeviL]

I am pro big ice for the reason of safety. Athletes are bigger, faster and stronger these days so the game is not what it once where. Skilled players should get the room to exhibit skill and make low-skilled grinders obsolete (more than they are today that is). Some sports have done changes due to the athletes being better (1). Going for the slightly wider ice as in the hybrid ice might be a viable solution. I guess it suffice to elevate the ice in NHL-sized rinks and remove one row of seats to have it done. That's the easiest way to do it, compared with building new arenas.



(1) Javelin for example, where the javelin is sub-optimised in order to not reach that far

 

[kabidjan18]

Whatabout a hybrid sized ice? SLC's OG venue ,for example; Finland has some too, so I've been told...

Maybe. Thing is if we started from scratch why not lengthen the offensive zone and go 210X100? What is considered international ice today may not be the optimized large surface in the future or even now. Going through all the effort for a half-measure, I'm not sure.

I am pro big ice for the reason of safety. Athletes are bigger, faster and stronger these days so the game is not what it once where. Skilled players should get the room to exhibit skill and make low-skilled grinders obsolete (more than they are today that is). Some sports have done changes due to the athletes being better (1). Going for the slightly wider ice as in the hybrid ice might be a viable solution. I guess it suffice to elevate the ice in NHL-sized rinks and remove one row of seats to have it done. That's the easiest way to do it, compared with building new arenas.



(1) Javelin for example, where the javelin is sub-optimised in order to not reach that far

I would argue as above that this presents a false choice, but even so the example is hardly applicable because there aren't varying styles of javelin, just throwing it farther or shorter. Perhaps you could say adding the 3pt line, but even when that came out it wasn't really to accommodate existing styles and didn't affect the athlete scheme until a brief period about two decades later, which goes back to the false choice presented.

As far as injury concerns, new unanticipated injuries aren't uncommon. We could see less of the Malgin-Zacha injury only to see more injuries of the Harald Ofner nature. Players are bigger, faster, stronger as you said, changing the size of the surface won't necessarily make them safer.

 

[missinthejets]

No matter the size of the ice teams will defend the same areas, what happens on the small ice is that with less room between the middle area that is being defended and the wall you either take the puck to the net or you lose it and there's a turn over.

On the big ice the middle is still being defended but there is more room between that and the wall so a player can maintain possession in that harmless area. Possession doesn't always make for a better game, look at Canada in the Sochi Olympics, they just took the puck to the wall and waited for the game to end when they had a lead. That's not exciting hockey that's just a different way to kill the flow of a game and run out the clock.

Now if you get a bad team that doesn't stay disciplined on the big ice sure you can get some speed and offensive plays going, but you get that against a bad team no matter what size you're playing on.

Small ice leads to more offense because it forces more chances to be taken. Big ice leads to more ******* around in harmless areas of the ice.