Toggle sidebar

U17: 2014 World Under-17 Hockey Challenge — Nov. 2-8

Get North

Get North

Registered User
Aug 25, 2013
8,472
1,364
B.C.
Garyboy said:
And you know this how?




Wouldn't you want to see a best on best at the U-17 level then? We don't get to see it at U-18 because, as you pointed out, the CHL playoffs, so why not make the U-17 event a true best-on-best while you can? You're going to give the core group a chance to better familiarize themselves, while not watering it down with the 3 teams.



If's and but's. Bottom line is all 3 lost. They need to get their egos in check and make one makeshift U-17 National team. As I mentioned earlier, if they're so worried about getting the players familiar with each other, one team is the best bet. Sure, you'll have the odd player that won't be there at the U-18 or U-20, but 80-90% of the players will be the same.



They'd be all the better equipped for U-18's and U-20 if they picked one team for the reason I previously stated.



"Think". I bet you thought there'd be at least one Canadian team in the semi-final. The multiple teams per country is silly. By this age, for the most part you know who's who, and while there will be some movement with players, the bulk of the team will stay the same. Here's hoping Hockey Canada sees this and goes to one team sooner rather than later at this event. At the very least it will give as a chance to see a best-on-best Canada vs USA at the U-17 level, because as it stands now the multiple Canadian teams are no longer competitive with the USA. Outscoring the 3 by the tune 17-4 proves this.
Click to expand...
Well the talent isn't there for the other teams. I don't know alot about them but if their "A" team is getting a good fight from 1/3 of Canada then it's pretty obvious that a 2nd team would not be good.

It's a development stage for Canada, they aren't winning but they are exposing 66 talented players to international hockey and are evaluating them for future teams in the U18s or the WJC. Also, they're many really good players under 17 for Canada, it only starts to become clearer who are the top players after the tournament and a season in their leagues.

You sure got a hate on HC it seems. Again, if they can get 3 teams who can compete against Sweden's best, Russia's best, Finland's best (this year they were missing some of their top guys though), USA's best then I would say they belong in this tournament. It's a development step for the kids, talent level is close at 16 for Canada so they're trying to find the best out of the group while trying to stay competitive.

No they wouldn't, USA has a U-17 team and it works well but really they don't have alot of depth in their country for hockey right now. Canada has depth, they have a league, 3 regional ones all watched by HC and is quite successful. I see no need to switch to a U-17 team, who would they compete against? Other CHL teams? The U-17 all-star team would win quite a bit.

I wouldn't mind a U-17 team of Canada vs USA in a 5 or 7 game series where the best play the best, that will be alot of fun to watch. I thought a Canadian team would be in the semi-final, Canada has beat Russia, Sweden, Finland once before with the 3 teams.

The national U-17 team in Canada won't work. Canada is fine as it is, until they lose the #1 crown for producing alot of the top NHL players and lose at the Olympics regularly then I'll start questioning the way HC develops their players.
 

Garyboy

Registered User
Oct 31, 2010
2,193
227
Toronto
Ray Ferraro said:
Well the talent isn't there for the other teams. I don't know alot about them but if their "A" team is getting a good fight from 1/3 of Canada then it's pretty obvious that a 2nd team would not be good.

It's a development stage for Canada, they aren't winning but they are exposing 66 talented players to international hockey and are evaluating them for future teams in the U18s or the WJC. Also, they're many really good players under 17 for Canada, it only starts to become clearer who are the top players after the tournament and a season in their leagues.

You sure got a hate on HC it seems. Again, if they can get 3 teams who can compete against Sweden's best, Russia's best, Finland's best (this year they were missing some of their top guys though), USA's best then I would say they belong in this tournament. It's a development step for the kids, talent level is close at 16 for Canada so they're trying to find the best out of the group while trying to stay competitive.

No they wouldn't, USA has a U-17 team and it works well but really they don't have alot of depth in their country for hockey right now. Canada has depth, they have a league, 3 regional ones all watched by HC and is quite successful. I see no need to switch to a U-17 team, who would they compete against? Other CHL teams? The U-17 all-star team would win quite a bit.

I wouldn't mind a U-17 team of Canada vs USA in a 5 or 7 game series where the best play the best, that will be alot of fun to watch. I thought a Canadian team would be in the semi-final, Canada has beat Russia, Sweden, Finland once before with the 3 teams.

The national U-17 team in Canada won't work. Canada is fine as it is, until they lose the #1 crown for producing alot of the top NHL players and lose at the Olympics regularly then I'll start questioning the way HC develops their players.
Click to expand...

We're clearly on completely different pages. Agree to disagree on Canada's U-17 development model. You're not understanding me in regards to a U-17 Canadian team. I'm not proposing one that is together year-round. I am proposing a "makeshift" one for the U-17 tournament. How do you know the USA doesn't have depth at the U-17 level? The USA has a tier 1 Junior league as well. They just have a different development model.
 
Tomas W

Tomas W

Registered User
Oct 23, 2007
7,097
489
Sweden
Of course Canadas teams get a little "watered down" by sending three teams to an international tourney, but this is a tournament about player development more than winning, and I think it's better for Canadas player development to let more players play at high level, you got so many youngsters playing hockey and should take advantage of that.
 
Last edited:
VictorLustig

VictorLustig

Registered User
Feb 8, 2012
8,872
2,927
Ray Ferraro said:
Well the talent isn't there for the other teams. I don't know alot about them but if their "A" team is getting a good fight from 1/3 of Canada then it's pretty obvious that a 2nd team would not be good.

It's a development stage for Canada, they aren't winning but they are exposing 66 talented players to international hockey and are evaluating them for future teams in the U18s or the WJC. Also, they're many really good players under 17 for Canada, it only starts to become clearer who are the top players after the tournament and a season in their leagues.

You sure got a hate on HC it seems. Again, if they can get 3 teams who can compete against Sweden's best, Russia's best, Finland's best (this year they were missing some of their top guys though), USA's best then I would say they belong in this tournament. It's a development step for the kids, talent level is close at 16 for Canada so they're trying to find the best out of the group while trying to stay competitive.

No they wouldn't, USA has a U-17 team and it works well but really they don't have alot of depth in their country for hockey right now. Canada has depth, they have a league, 3 regional ones all watched by HC and is quite successful. I see no need to switch to a U-17 team, who would they compete against? Other CHL teams? The U-17 all-star team would win quite a bit.

I wouldn't mind a U-17 team of Canada vs USA in a 5 or 7 game series where the best play the best, that will be alot of fun to watch. I thought a Canadian team would be in the semi-final, Canada has beat Russia, Sweden, Finland once before with the 3 teams.

The national U-17 team in Canada won't work. Canada is fine as it is, until they lose the #1 crown for producing alot of the top NHL players and lose at the Olympics regularly then I'll start questioning the way HC develops their players.
Click to expand...

In a way you can call this Swedish team for example an A-team. In reality there are many players who didn't make the team that are better than guys who did. It's extremely hard to pick the best team from Sweden (And I think this applies to all european countries) at this age, there are just too many guys & levels to cover at this point.
 
Get North

Get North

Registered User
Aug 25, 2013
8,472
1,364
B.C.
Garyboy said:
We're clearly on completely different pages. Agree to disagree on Canada's U-17 development model. You're not understanding me in regards to a U-17 Canadian team. I'm not proposing one that is together year-round. I am proposing a "makeshift" one for the U-17 tournament. How do you know the USA doesn't have depth at the U-17 level? The USA has a tier 1 Junior league as well. They just have a different development model.
Click to expand...
Well I've heard many call the USHL on a slightly lower level than QMJHL or on par. I don't really see the depth USA has which is a reason for the national U-17 and U-18 teams.

The reason for Hockey Canada to have 66 players on 3 teams is to gat all the top U-17 Canadians playing, they might not win but these are 66 pretty equally talented players, if you cut that to 22 and 1 team it doesn't expose enough players. The depth of players is there for Canada and they can't just cut it down to one team.
 
1Gold Standard

1Gold Standard

Registered User
Jun 13, 2012
7,925
240
Ray Ferraro said:
Well I've heard many call the USHL on a slightly lower level than QMJHL or on par. I don't really see the depth USA has which is a reason for the national U-17 and U-18 teams.

The reason for Hockey Canada to have 66 players on 3 teams is to gat all the top U-17 Canadians playing, they might not win but these are 66 pretty equally talented players, if you cut that to 22 and 1 team it doesn't expose enough players. The depth of players is there for Canada and they can't just cut it down to one team.
Click to expand...

You should really give up on this great depth argument. I told you before the tournament began, it doesn't exist....and even if it does, it doesn't make a lick of difference in these tournaments. Who's surprised all 3 teams are out? Not me. Hockey Canada and the people working there don't know their arse from their elbow. Is it any surprise that the only tournament HC can win is 100% an NHL operation?

but hey, Hockey Canada is terrific at selling 100 year anniversary sweaters and coffee table books...but winning tournaments, that's not their thing.
 
Last edited:
joe89

joe89

#5
Apr 30, 2009
20,316
179
When you only have one team you have checkers and defensive players complement your scoring players, meaning that some (really good) creative players get left out. It's more obvious at the U20 level where the players are better known, but Sweden definitely never stacks their junior teams with only creative players. There are guys left out who could form a competitive second team.

The main reason for Canada to go with more than one team is likely that they want to get more skill guys into action because there's only so many spots for them on one team. Even if you wanna win this is kind of an unofficial competition so it's not a big deal.
 
Rabid Ranger

Rabid Ranger

2 is better than one
Feb 27, 2002
31,546
11,792
Murica
Ray Ferraro said:
Well I've heard many call the USHL on a slightly lower level than QMJHL or on par. I don't really see the depth USA has which is a reason for the national U-17 and U-18 teams.

The reason for Hockey Canada to have 66 players on 3 teams is to gat all the top U-17 Canadians playing, they might not win but these are 66 pretty equally talented players, if you cut that to 22 and 1 team it doesn't expose enough players. The depth of players is there for Canada and they can't just cut it down to one team.
Click to expand...

The USNTDP exists to improve U.S. results in international competition (junior-senior). It doesn't necessarily reflect the depth of junior-aged talent in this country. We might not have the high-end depth Canada enjoys, but there is depth.
 

cagney

cdojdmccjajgejncjaba
Jun 17, 2002
3,819
39
Will there be any streams for the semis and finals? It's frustrating that there may be no way to watch the games outside of Canada with TSN taking over coverage.
 

JJTT

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
7,776
1,359
Oulu
cagney said:
Will there be any streams for the semis and finals? It's frustrating that there may be no way to watch the games outside of Canada with TSN taking over coverage.
Click to expand...

:shakehead why can't fasthokcey show it to people outside Canada?
 

BaseHockey

Registered User
Jan 8, 2013
26
0
Garyboy said:
We're clearly on completely different pages. Agree to disagree on Canada's U-17 development model. You're not understanding me in regards to a U-17 Canadian team. I'm not proposing one that is together year-round. I am proposing a "makeshift" one for the U-17 tournament. How do you know the USA doesn't have depth at the U-17 level? The USA has a tier 1 Junior league as well. They just have a different development model.
Click to expand...

Gary you get it. Many from Canada think with their hearts. USA Russia and Finland could easy add another team to this and make it all very competitive. Finland is missing 6 more top players whom did not attend. And to be realistic Canada could add 2 more teams, but to say the other countries could not outfit a team is pure ignorance. Canada could have 1 top team and 3 more with great players, they all could. USA is putting much more into this program financially because they can. To say the USHL is not equal to the WHL is silly. 5 teams in the WHL and very weak. USA does have the depth in fact many play in Canada right now, and would not make the USA team since they are not seen. They would not make the Canada team since they are not Canadian.

Finland completely destroyed teams in the MAC tournament. Sorry Canada, but even with the time change it was men against boys.

HC will do what they can to put a spin on this mess they have caused, saying , " Well we wanted to give many kids the start and opportunity to get comfortable for next year"
BS ! You play the game to win, You want to practice then call it that Not U 17. I do like some of the players, but many are still to much as individuals. Goaltending for Canada was horrible. No goalie stood on his head for more then 1 period a game.
 
Last edited:

Garyboy

Registered User
Oct 31, 2010
2,193
227
Toronto
BaseHockey said:
Gary you get it. Many from Canada think with their hearts. USA Russia and Finland could easy add another team to this and make it all very competitive. Finland is missing 6 more top players whom did not attend. And to be realistic Canada could add 2 more teams, but to say the other countries could not outfit a team is pure ignorance. Canada could have 1 top team and 3 more with great players, they all could. USA is putting much more into this program financially because they can. To say the USHL is not equal to the WHL is silly. 5 teams in the WHL and very weak. USA does have the depth in fact many play in Canada right now, and would not make the USA team since they are not seen. They would not make the Canada team since they are not Canadian.

Finland completely destroyed teams in the MAC tournament. Sorry Canada, but even with the time change it was men against boys.

HC will do what they can to put a spin on this mess they have caused, saying , " Well we wanted to give many kids the start and opportunity to get comfortable for next year"
BS ! You play the game to win, You want to practice then call it that Not U 17. I do like some of the players, but many are still to much as individuals. Goaltending for Canada was horrible. No goalie stood on his head for more then 1 period a game.
Click to expand...

Thank you and well said.

Giving kids a chance? Are they running a house league? Why not give everyone the exact same playing time while they're at it. This is a flawed model that should be changed sooner rather than later. Make one team for the U-17's, have those kids play together and get as familiar with themselves as they can for future international play. Spare me the they have so much depth they want to evaluate as many as they can. Evaluate during the regular season. There will be slight movement as far as roster shifting goes, but HC knows who the contenders and who the pretenders. The sooner they get down to one team the better off their development model will be, and the better off the U-17 will be.
 
NTDP

NTDP

Registered User
Dec 20, 2010
1,165
337
Cleveland, OH
all of the streams i'm finding seem to be down. Looks like they are all using the same feed. To bad it's not on TSN 2, because that stream is working fine
 
Get North

Get North

Registered User
Aug 25, 2013
8,472
1,364
B.C.
Mr Writer said:
You should really give up on this great depth argument. I told you before the tournament began, it doesn't exist....and even if it does, it doesn't make a lick of difference in these tournaments. Who's surprised all 3 teams are out? Not me. Hockey Canada and the people working there don't know their arse from their elbow. Is it any surprise that the only tournament HC can win is 100% an NHL operation?

but hey, Hockey Canada is terrific at selling 100 year anniversary sweaters and coffee table books...but winning tournaments, that's not their thing.
Click to expand...
Well that's your opinion if you think they're complete idiots but you're overreacting to the last 4-5 years of not alot of success in the younger tournaments, once we start winning again, you'll shut up. I can't really take you seriously when no credit is given, majority of your posts is something about Hockey Canada being ******. Canada continues to produce great NHL players, that has never changed.

Any other country who made up 3 teams would not be as good as Canada's 3 teams. Great depth doesn't exist? My ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X