Toggle sidebar

Time to go back to the amateurs...or the juniors

Status
Not open for further replies.
deandebean

deandebean

Registered User
Jan 14, 2003
15,486
2
Gatineau
I'M shocked that I'm not more interested in this tournament. To tell you the truth, I'm curious about the results, but I'm not as passionnate as I was in 98 and 2002. This time around, all I see is the NHL on bigger ice surface. Same players, not as much intensity as I would have liked. I saw one solid game so far (Russia-Slovakia), and a bunch of mish-mashed games with about 10 minutes of excitement.

Some less-talented teams are reverting to the trap, which makes for boring hockey on big-ice surface. Plus, I sense that a lot of NHLers are either tired or blazé with this Olympic concept.

After Vancouver, the IOC and the IHF should go back to the amateurs or, even better, the juniors. The pros care less than they did 4-8 years ago, because the novelty has run off.
Click to read more...
 
deandebean said:
I'M shocked that I'm not more interested in this tournament. To tell you the truth, I'm curious about the results, but I'm not as passionnate as I was in 98 and 2002. This time around, all I see is the NHL on bigger ice surface. Same players, not as much intensity as I would have liked. I saw one solid game so far (Russia-Slovakia), and a bunch of mish-mashed games with about 10 minutes of excitement.

Some less-talented teams are reverting to the trap, which makes for boring hockey on big-ice surface. Plus, I sense that a lot of NHLers are either tired or blazé with this Olympic concept.

After Vancouver, the IOC and the IHF should go back to the amateurs or, even better, the juniors. The pros care less than they did 4-8 years ago, because the novelty has run off.
Click to expand...

We've already got th WJCs, no need for a second one unless you want to replace the current one with a 'special' Olympic edition every four years or so. But I do agree that the Men's hockey tournament has gotten quite stale, the World Cup is enough I say, I'd rather leave it at that.
 
Leachmeister2000 said:
We've already got th WJCs, no need for a second one unless you want to replace the current one with a 'special' Olympic edition every four years or so. But I do agree that the Men's hockey tournament has gotten quite stale, the World Cup is enough I say, I'd rather leave it at that.
Click to expand...

No more World Cup of Hockey?

TURIN, Italy (CP) - The world's best hockey players may not compete again until the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver after it was revealed Friday that there are no current plans to hold a World Cup of Hockey in 2008.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=155254&hubname=nhl
 
Hedberg said:
It's because this long round robin is meaningless.
Click to expand...


At least with this round robin, teams actually get eliminated. In Salt Lake, it was all for positioning in the elimination tournament. Teams actually have to win to advance to the quarterfinals. I like this format better but they should stagger the games over 8 or 9 days...have a few games every day. It would be better for TV.

I'd like to see the amateurs produce the excitement we had today. If we had the junior teams, we'd still have the same powers but there would be some ugly blowouts (10-0, 9-2, etc.) and no upsets. I don't think the Swiss juniors would beat the Canadian juniors. I love the NHL in the Olympics...I don't care what anyone says. Call me ignorant about the Canadian and European junior scene but I couldn't get into the Olympics as much if I didn't know who half of the guys competing even were. These are the guys we watch religiously and they're the best in the world...let 'em play.
 
It would be an absolute tragedy if the NHL decides not to go past 2010 and the watered down Worlds becomes the only best on best international tournament out there. It's really a shame that a lot of players aren't doing their all to be at these games, how you could turn down the prestige and honour of the Olympics really is beyond me, just further proof that a lot of these guys live in their own little CBA related worlds.
 
i think it's fine the way it is. it just needs to be more balanced... we all know canada is going to win the gold, it's just a matter of who's going to be second or third.

this is why i cheer for a team other than canada.
 
1998 and 2002 were more intense because they were shorter 8 team tournaments. Thus, each game exhibited a higher skill coefficient when it came to players and was more meaningful. Now you have Kazahstan vs Latvia... although, the Swiss certainly made some headlines by beating the Czechs and Canadians.

In any case, I would go back to an 8-team tournament.

Group A:
Finland
Switzerland
Canada
Czech Republic


Group B:
Slovakia
Russia
USA
Sweden
 
Zaddik said:
i think it's fine the way it is. it just needs to be more balanced... we all know canada is going to win the gold, it's just a matter of who's going to be second or third.

this is why i cheer for a team other than canada.
Click to expand...
Canada is not guaranted gold. At this Olympics I think five teams have a good shot at winning this tournament.
 
Slitty said:
1998 and 2002 were more intense because they were shorter 8 team tournaments. Thus, each game exhibited a higher skill coefficient when it came to players and was more meaningful. Now you have Kazahstan vs Latvia... although, the Swiss certainly made some headlines by beating the Czechs and Canadians.

In any case, I would go back to an 8-team tournament.

Group A:
Finland
Switzerland
Canada
Czech Republic


Group B:
Slovakia
Russia
USA
Sweden
Click to expand...

You could do this, and have the top 4 teams go straight to the semi finals, then the round robin would mean something.
 
canucksfan said:
Canada is not guaranted gold. At this Olympics I think five teams have a good shot at winning this tournament.
Click to expand...

I agree. Just from today, all it takes is if you run into a hot goalie in the elimination rounds and you could be out on your ***. In these one game situations, anything can happen. In an NHL style playoff with best of 7 series, I don't think anyone can beat Canada 4 out of 7 games.
 
deandebean said:
After Vancouver, the IOC and the IHF should go back to the amateurs or, even better, the juniors. The pros care less than they did 4-8 years ago, because the novelty has run off.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear, back to the amateurs it shall be.
 
By amateurs who do you propose gets sent? Do players playing in the European pro leagues qualify? On the other hand, does this mean that players who the NCAA considers amateurs only qualify? Personally, I'd prefer to see the AHL and Europe shut down for a few weeks and have those players go. It would give those players a chance to play for the national teams that they don't get now. But only if the NHL does pull out.

If the NHL does pull out of the Olympics after 2010, will hockey see the same fate as baseball though? The IOC's reasoning for dropping baseball was largely that MLB doesn't allow the best players in the world to participate. I'd much prefer to see the NHLers go than no hockey at all. Besides, I'll probably be shot down for saying this, but I like Olympic hockey a 1,000 times better than the NHL playoffs.

I just hope these Olympics aren't remembered as the Olympics that Canada lost to Switzerland, like 2002 are remembered for Belarus beating the Swedes.
 
The Golden Age of International hockey was in 1972 with the Canada USSR summit series. Nothing will ever top that so I am happy with what ew got now.
 
it's the best ice hockey tournament I've ever seen. much better than 1998 and 2002
 
funny. canada looses and someone calls for amateurs;

I'm an amateut player. I would gladly play for Canada!

U punks don't even kknow what PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY means. Do you think Cameron Mann, who is Canadian and plays PROFESSIONAL in the german DEL is paid with bananas or what?

Pick better players! Who said you have to bring a silly big names only allstar-selection? There are some damn good Canadian Players in the DEL who didn't even have a remote chance of making the national team.

Why exactly is that?
 
Why would it be more interesting to see a tournament with amateurs? And where to find amateurs, most players gets a salary, the ones that can live on it are professionals and shouldn't be allowed. Do you even think about anyone besides yourself, not everyone has a chance to see NHL-games live but during the olympics the whole world has a chance to see the best players play against eachother.
 
What's the definition for "amateur" anyhow? Anyone who doesn't get paid?
I know in the US there's college hockey but there's nothing like it in Europe, so who sould play then?

I really really enjoy this tournament so far and that's even though my beloved German team is sucking pretty bad.
 
deandebean said:
I'M shocked that I'm not more interested in this tournament. To tell you the truth, I'm curious about the results, but I'm not as passionnate as I was in 98 and 2002. This time around, all I see is the NHL on bigger ice surface. Same players, not as much intensity as I would have liked. I saw one solid game so far (Russia-Slovakia), and a bunch of mish-mashed games with about 10 minutes of excitement.

Some less-talented teams are reverting to the trap, which makes for boring hockey on big-ice surface. Plus, I sense that a lot of NHLers are either tired or blazé with this Olympic concept.

After Vancouver, the IOC and the IHF should go back to the amateurs or, even better, the juniors. The pros care less than they did 4-8 years ago, because the novelty has run off.
Click to expand...
We've got Pro basketball players, Pro tennis players, Pro soccer players, ie, EVERYONE are pros now....etc etc....Why should hockey be the only Olympic sport that does not use Pros? Are you trying to make hockey the joke of the Olympics?

Please tell me who is considered non-pro anyways, virtually every hockey player in Europe are payed something....

I do wish people stop it with the 'amateur' stuff - the Olypmics are about the best in the world - they only reason amateur was in there in the first place was because the modern Olympic founder Pierre de Coubertain was an elitist. It took them until the 1980s before 'the best' were allowed. Let's not go back to the stone age....

Thus the 'amatuer' arguement is about 20 years too late.
 
Hedberg said:
It's because this long round robin is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Give it 1 or 2 more tournaments - the rest of the world is catching up. We'll soon reach a time when the Top-7 will not be guaranteed to make the QF round with this type of format
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom