Ok so what happens now for USA? They play one of the 3 other teams and loser is out?
So win and in the top division? or did we already clinch that
France is the only team that has shown a little bit of life, and they have several decent players playing in the Swiss and Swedish leagues. Plus, Da Costa is a good prospect.
But the Americans really shouldn't have any trouble with any of the teams. It wasn't expected to be that way, but in hindsight the Americans were in the most difficult group.
Denmark has clearly over-achieved, and Germany can be a better team than they have been over the last few years, so it isn't too disastrous that the Americans struggled. And Finland was always going to be troublesome.
But if the US can't deal with Italy, France, and Kazakhstan, then there really is a huge problem.
I think France has a good chance of avoiding relegation, the Italians and the Kazakhs are going to have to focus on good goal differentials against the Americans in case there is a three-way tie between the Italians, the French, and the Kazakhs.
Dubinsky leads the tournament in scoring. I just thought I had to point that out. Come on guys, you have to think that's funny.
Yea Kyle played great last year.. i remember he scored against Russia. Well atleast American fans know that there will be a next year!
I think the biggest problem for the USA and Canada was not knowing how to play on the bigger ice. It is such a different game on the bigger ice.
Most of the US players played on big ice in college. They should know the differences.
So dissapointed with this tournament. I've been a big believer in the depth of US hockey as evidenced by the comparitively large number of NHL players and draft picks we produce but results like this really make me question that belief. There are always questions of chemistry in an event like this but, to me, it simply can't be an excuse for such a bad showing. If the Finns, Swedes and Czechs can have the showings they're having with rosters that appear to be so weak on paper, why the hell can't we?
For our success at the junior level to mean anything we have to become a force at all adult level tournaments. If the Finns, with a talent pool the size of Minnesota, can have as many medals at the adult level as they do, there's NO reason we can't.
I think the biggest problem for the USA and Canada was not knowing how to play on the bigger ice. It is such a different game on the bigger ice.
While I'm disappointed by the showing, I can't say it's all that surprising given the youth, inexperience, and lack of consistency on the roster. There's some good talent on this roster, but they're not prime-time players yet-and it showed. There's also a ton of parity in this tournament, as demonstrated by the struggles of several quality teams. Look at Canada, they're doing slighly better than the U.S., but also (more thank likely) won't leave with a medal.
Looking at the USA's roster, I'm not surprised they didn't medal, but I am shocked and disappointed they ended up in the relegation round. Even a team of 20 Taylor Chorney's and Jack Hillen's should be able to advance from a group containing Finland, Germany, and Denmark.
I thought most of the colleges don't play on big ice, just a couple
Only a handful of colleges play on olympic ice that I can think of off the top of my head: UNH, CC, Minny.