If they are so thrilled, why is it that they go when it suits them because they need the experience early in their careers, and then decline once they are established players?
Iginla, Giroux, Amonte, Modano, Kessel, Kane, Umberger...
"[USA/Canada] has NHL'ers, we don't have none" WHC excuse?
- Thread starter Ilyeu
- Start date
If they are so thrilled, why is it that they go when it suits them because they need the experience early in their careers, and then decline once they are established players?
Iginla, Giroux, Amonte, Modano, Kessel, Kane, Umberger...
NHL Dude 120
Registered User
Honestly if i were an NHL player, it doesn't matter i always accept the call to play for my nation. to me its the highest honor and reward to play for your nation.(i understand Olympic players saying no they paid their dues.) it makes me think less of players, to put on the same shirt that legends like Howe, Lemieux,Gretzky, Orr, Phill esposito, Roy and many more legends. Honestly what excuse do they have oh im tired, what about Geno going huh. a chance of winning a trophy is a great way to help heal the Stanley cup blues. When your nation calls you, its not a matter if its a matter of when. Unless your injured or a family emergency you play!!! ( European fans would back me hopefully)
To be honest the way HC and USA Hockey organize their teams is pretty bad, they are hastily organized, if i were in charge i`d have a GM hired specifically for the national team, a coaching staff devoted only to Team Canada.
To be honest the way HC and USA Hockey organize their teams is pretty bad, they are hastily organized, if i were in charge i`d have a GM hired specifically for the national team, a coaching staff devoted only to Team Canada.
Many people in HFBoards just don't see the big picture. These are the usual assumptions/complaints:
- WHC are worthless because all players are not available or don't want to participate
- WHC doesn't prove anything
- WHC is a consolation prize
Is it really so difficult for many to understand that WHC (or any other tournament) isn't about proving. Canadians especially try to use the tournaments to prove their superiority. Maybe that's feeling of insecurity? Everyone knows that Canada is the most powerful hockey nation regardless of some tournament of few games held every four years.
It's plain stupid to use any tournament to prove that your country is the best. It does not prove it. It proves that the team in that tournament was able the win the right 3-4 games in row. That's the only thing it proves - nothing else.
Once one is able to accept that fact, he can look the tournaments from different angle and understand that the tournaments aren't about the players who don't participate. They're completely irrelevant for that tournament. The tournament is about players who are in and want to play there.
It's also stupid to compare WHC to SC playoffs. NHL players are employed by NHL clubs and they're paid a lot to play there. I don't remember any Finnish youngster leaving to NHL saying that he wants to win SC. They want to develop to good players and play in NHL. Team prizes are secondary, at least first. Not making playoffs just means that you have longer vacation to spend with your family, and you still get your yearly salary. NHL is work.
National team is a different thing. You don't get paid, you're invited there and you play for your country. You can enjoy winning international tournament even though you didn't win SC. Playing in NHL is a job especially for Europeans. It'd be interesting to know how many Europeans would go to NHL if they paid only like some Swiss league.
Finland was missing four best centers in Sochi, so does it mean that Sochi tournament didn't prove anything either? The best players aren't available at the same time ever. That's why it's stupid to talk about "best-on-best tournaments". WHC tournament provides a possibility to see players from different leagues and see how they can play together. There are a lot of NHLers too, and we can see, for example, how a team made up of NHLers (like Canada) can play with teams with lesser countries with basically no NHLers.
If Canada doesn't win and loses to "weaker" teams, it doesn't mean that Canada sucks in ice hockey. As it happens quite regularly from year to year, it indicates that NHL players in general are not something that can overpower the pro players in European leagues. Yeah, the NA teams haven't trained much together and are not used to big ice, but if a NHL player is supposed to be superior to those playing in other leagues, a team consisting of NHL players should beat up weaker teams with pure individual talent, even in hangover.
Lesser countries suffer more from having not the best players along, as their depth is not good. On the other hand some lesser countries have their best players along and basically don't have NHLers at all, so they gain some advantage, but why complain? It's just better that there are more interesting games without blowouts. From hockey point-of-view it's just good that teams like Norway, Latvia, Belarus and France are really competing for a place in QFs. As hockey fan I'm happy about it.
- WHC are worthless because all players are not available or don't want to participate
- WHC doesn't prove anything
- WHC is a consolation prize
Is it really so difficult for many to understand that WHC (or any other tournament) isn't about proving. Canadians especially try to use the tournaments to prove their superiority. Maybe that's feeling of insecurity? Everyone knows that Canada is the most powerful hockey nation regardless of some tournament of few games held every four years.
It's plain stupid to use any tournament to prove that your country is the best. It does not prove it. It proves that the team in that tournament was able the win the right 3-4 games in row. That's the only thing it proves - nothing else.
Once one is able to accept that fact, he can look the tournaments from different angle and understand that the tournaments aren't about the players who don't participate. They're completely irrelevant for that tournament. The tournament is about players who are in and want to play there.
It's also stupid to compare WHC to SC playoffs. NHL players are employed by NHL clubs and they're paid a lot to play there. I don't remember any Finnish youngster leaving to NHL saying that he wants to win SC. They want to develop to good players and play in NHL. Team prizes are secondary, at least first. Not making playoffs just means that you have longer vacation to spend with your family, and you still get your yearly salary. NHL is work.
National team is a different thing. You don't get paid, you're invited there and you play for your country. You can enjoy winning international tournament even though you didn't win SC. Playing in NHL is a job especially for Europeans. It'd be interesting to know how many Europeans would go to NHL if they paid only like some Swiss league.
Finland was missing four best centers in Sochi, so does it mean that Sochi tournament didn't prove anything either? The best players aren't available at the same time ever. That's why it's stupid to talk about "best-on-best tournaments". WHC tournament provides a possibility to see players from different leagues and see how they can play together. There are a lot of NHLers too, and we can see, for example, how a team made up of NHLers (like Canada) can play with teams with lesser countries with basically no NHLers.
If Canada doesn't win and loses to "weaker" teams, it doesn't mean that Canada sucks in ice hockey. As it happens quite regularly from year to year, it indicates that NHL players in general are not something that can overpower the pro players in European leagues. Yeah, the NA teams haven't trained much together and are not used to big ice, but if a NHL player is supposed to be superior to those playing in other leagues, a team consisting of NHL players should beat up weaker teams with pure individual talent, even in hangover.
Lesser countries suffer more from having not the best players along, as their depth is not good. On the other hand some lesser countries have their best players along and basically don't have NHLers at all, so they gain some advantage, but why complain? It's just better that there are more interesting games without blowouts. From hockey point-of-view it's just good that teams like Norway, Latvia, Belarus and France are really competing for a place in QFs. As hockey fan I'm happy about it.
Ironically, these legends (with some at least having the excuse of playing the bulk of their careers in the Amateur era of the Worlds) declined the call more often than not.
Justinov
Registered User
It's interesting that no regard for WC was also shared in football (soccer).
England felt so superior, that they had no regard for the World Championship and didn't attend it before 1950. [they still played olympics, but that was all amateur back then].
If you feel superior, you will underestimate your opponents and it's very likely you will run into surprise losses.
So in Wc 1950 the English team met a hastily assembled part-time USA team, that had only been able to train together once - the day before the match against the “best team in the world“.
USA won 1-0, legend tells that English newspapers got it wrong and thought that the result must have been 1-10 since England off course would win heavily.
This is from wikipedia:
“At the time, the English had a reputation as the "Kings of Football",[5] with a post-war record of 23 wins, 4 losses, and 3 draws. They had beaten the Italians 4–0 and the Portuguese 10–0 in Lisbon two weeks before that. Conversely, the Americans, despite having reached the last four of the inaugural 1930 World Cup, had lost their last seven international matches (including the 1934 World Cup and 1948 Summer Olympics) by the combined score of 45–2, including heavy losses to Italy (7–1), Norway (11–0) and Northern Ireland (5–0). The odds were 3–1 the English would win the Cup, and 500–1 for the U.S“
This “miracle match“ even beats the miracle on ice in my opinion.
PS: North Korea - Italy 3-2 from 1966 (also a huge shocker) meant a storm of rotten tomatoes for the Italian squad when they returned home.
(The English players avoided tomatoes).
Best on best is an illusion. Almost everyone can beat everyone. On paper, is what it is “on paper“.
England felt so superior, that they had no regard for the World Championship and didn't attend it before 1950. [they still played olympics, but that was all amateur back then].
If you feel superior, you will underestimate your opponents and it's very likely you will run into surprise losses.
So in Wc 1950 the English team met a hastily assembled part-time USA team, that had only been able to train together once - the day before the match against the “best team in the world“.
USA won 1-0, legend tells that English newspapers got it wrong and thought that the result must have been 1-10 since England off course would win heavily.
This is from wikipedia:
“At the time, the English had a reputation as the "Kings of Football",[5] with a post-war record of 23 wins, 4 losses, and 3 draws. They had beaten the Italians 4–0 and the Portuguese 10–0 in Lisbon two weeks before that. Conversely, the Americans, despite having reached the last four of the inaugural 1930 World Cup, had lost their last seven international matches (including the 1934 World Cup and 1948 Summer Olympics) by the combined score of 45–2, including heavy losses to Italy (7–1), Norway (11–0) and Northern Ireland (5–0). The odds were 3–1 the English would win the Cup, and 500–1 for the U.S“
This “miracle match“ even beats the miracle on ice in my opinion.
PS: North Korea - Italy 3-2 from 1966 (also a huge shocker) meant a storm of rotten tomatoes for the Italian squad when they returned home.
(The English players avoided tomatoes).
Best on best is an illusion. Almost everyone can beat everyone. On paper, is what it is “on paper“.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Rumor: Trade Rumors & Proposals Thread | No More Pacifism For the Oilers?- Latest: ManofSteel55
-
Waived: Lightning put Cam Atkinson & Logan Brown on waivers- Latest: TheDaysOf 04
