WCH - Impressions of the Tournament

[jj cale]

That's what happens when your country sucks at soccer.

I just don't think your heart is into it, if it was you would be much better at it.

You're the same as Canada...................a hockey country.

Though there are signs that is changing, at least over here sadly.

 

[snipes]

That's what happens when your country sucks at soccer.

No you guys love hockey you are a major hockey power, it means a lot to you guys. I just wanted to say sorry if I was going off on you yesterday there I wasn't being entirely reasonable.

I'm interested in how your young lions will do. I wonder how Laine will adapt to NA ice. He won't have the same time and space he does, that kid has a deadly accurate shot. He's a sniper through and through.

I wish Pulju was at this tournament, I think with his speed, size, and hockey IQ he might adapt quicker to the NHL game than Laine. Barkov is unreal, he has a phenomenal two-way game. I remember at the 2016 WHC, he was my early pick for MVP before he got sick. He was so strong defensively and on the cycle game, great player.

How do you guys feel about your D?

 

[Lepardi]

I just don't think your heart is into it, if it was you would be much better at it.

I think Finland might also do OK in hockey if the population was 33 million

 

[snipes]

I think Finland might also do OK in hockey if the population was 33 million

Per capita, you guys are very impressive. You are climbing up on Russia and could replace them soon as our #1 rival and respected opponent. Canadians have taken notice, you have a very bright future. Big, elite forwards. Edmonton is excited for Pulju to come over, he will be royalty here.

I believe your viewership rates for the 2016 WHC were around 50% of the country?

 

[Lepardi]

No you guys love hockey you are a major hockey power, it means a lot to you guys.

It means a lot to us, cause there's not much else to get excited about when it comes to sports. Sweden is better than Finland at hockey, but Swedes don't care about it as much, cause they've got other sports to get excited about as well. They were in the Euros again this summer, while Finland wasn't even close to qualifying. They won eleven medals in Rio against Finland's one. Et cetera, et cetera.

 

[snipes]

It means a lot to us, cause there's not much else to get excited about when it comes to sports. Sweden is better at hockey than Finland, but Swedes don't care about it as much, cause they've got other sports to get excited about as well. They were in the Euros again this summer, while Finland wasn't even close to qualifying. They won eleven medals in Rio against Finland's one. Et cetera, et cetera.

You guys have what Canadians call "heart and soul". Or as you call it "sisu". We share the same concept, just different expressions for it. Finns and Canadians are so similar in our tough resolve to never stop fighting. You see it through hockey, our teams always will battle hard to the very end.

As Churchill said, "If I had Canadian soldiers, American technology, and British Officers I would rule the world".

We have that same toughness to battle on as you. Maybe it's our freezing cold winters? .

I don't know what it is, Finnish sisu is the same as Canadian heart and soul. We share that common character trait that I respect in Finns. I hope you guys beat Tre Kronor, that would be huge for your guys confidence. I will be cheering for Suomi against Tre Kronor, I'll even do your Suomi chant you guys do during the game. Go beat them.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

“I don’t like it at all. Not one thing about it,†Swiss defenceman Mark Streit, who was part of the team that upset Canada and the Czech Republic at the 2006 Olympics, recently told the Cherry Hill Courier-Post. “It’s a nations tournament. You love playing for your country.â€

"I'm sure those two countries will be disappointed not having their own teams," said Czech native Patrick Elias of the New Jersey Devils. "Switzerland is a big part of the IIHF, they've done great the last few years, their hockey has got better and better and more competitive at every age group."

"It would definitely be an exciting thing to happen," Drouin said Friday. "It would be a little different, I guess, playing against your own country. But it might be fun with all those young guys on the same team."

Ryan wondered how those 23-and-under players would feel playing Team USA.

"If you lost, inside you might say, 'Well, at least U.S.A. got a couple of points out of it,'" said Ryan. "It's going to be a weird thing for those kids. But that Young Guns thing will take on a life of its own."

Stamkos was asked how it would be for those young stars to take on Team Canada in that tournament.

"That would be pretty intimidating," Stamkos said. "I don't know how I'd feel about that game. Whether I'd be cheering for them to win or our team to win. If that's the case, those guys will be pretty pumped up."

"I don't think Canadians like to play with Americans too much," said Team Canada Olympic stud Drew Doughty of the Los Angeles Kings. "I don't know how that'd work."

Yeah.

All this says to me is the execution needs to be worked on.

The actual tournament itself -- it's a positive to the sport if done right for sure. More hockey is better.

 

[snipes]

You know what might be interesting. The NHL figures out a way to go to the Olympics. We do true nation vs. nation best-on-best at the Olympics undisturbed.

For the World Cup, we experiment every 4 years. The Big 6 and NHL will decide the format each year for the other 2 qualifiers, or have the freedom to switch up the format however we want. The goal is always to have the best possible talent at a single event. We would have every 2 years, the best players playing. Olympics would be our nation v nation best-on-best events. The World Cup has the freedom to experiment as it's own separate hockey competition.

We could just have qualifiers for the 7 & 8 spot. Or have a European U24 and North American U24 team. This would be interesting because the World Cup would give young guys experience before they move on to the Olympics level. There could be so many possibilities, always with the goal of having the best-of-the-best playing each other.

We battle through hockey and show respect afterwards. Hockey is our modern day "battle" against each other. We compete and battle hard against each other through sport. Getting together as the hockey world every 2 years to see the best takes place over and above all. It's a form of sharing our cultures together, it is a unique bond the hockey powers share.

I got an idea, what do you guys think? We can settle the labels now, does this make sense?
1. Olympics get the best-on-best international tournament label.

2. World Cup gets the best-of-the-best label and historical category.

Olympics (nation v nation) = Best-on-best
World Cup (hybrid teams created with the purpose of having all of the best hockey players across the entire world participate) = best-of-the-best

Subtle word change, but best-of-the-best actually captures what the World Cup is and leaves best-on-best nation v nation pure.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

It means a lot to us, cause there's not much else to get excited about when it comes to sports. Sweden is better than Finland at hockey, but Swedes don't care about it as much, cause they've got other sports to get excited about as well. They were in the Euros again this summer, while Finland wasn't even close to qualifying. They won eleven medals in Rio against Finland's one. Et cetera, et cetera.

Nobody is better than Finland in hockey in 2022, except maybe Canada. Even that is a maybe

 

[torero]

I think Finland might also do OK in hockey if the population was 33 million

Per capita, you guys are very impressive. You are climbing up on Russia and could replace them soon as our #1 rival and respected opponent. Canadians have taken notice, you have a very bright future. Big, elite forwards. Edmonton is excited for Pulju to come over, he will be royalty here.

I believe your viewership rates for the 2016 WHC were around 50% of the country?

I agree with that ... Finland is doing amazing for it's size. Respect.

You guys have the only language (+basque actually) where i don't understand a word in Europe.

 

[Jablkon]

I agree with that ... Finland is doing amazing for it's size. Respect.

You guys have the only language (+basque actually) where i don't understand a word in Europe.

I guess "perkele" is well known

 

[xxxx]

1. Olympics get the best-on-best international tournament label.

2. World Cup gets the best-of-the-best label and historical category.

Olympics (nation v nation) = Best-on-best
World Cup (hybrid teams created with the purpose of having all of the best hockey players across the entire world participate) = best-of-the-best

Subtle word change, but best-of-the-best actually captures what the World Cup is and leaves best-on-best nation v nation pure.

My opinion is that there is no official definition of what "best-on-best" or "best-of-best" means. I will quote my post from the other thread..

"It's the same discussion I and majority of people had in the thread about what #1D means in the NHL. Some were trying really hard to convince everyone that there actually is a literal definition for being an NHL #1 d-man, and that any other isn't correct and is simply false.

There is no "official and the only" definition for what "best-on-best" means. If there is, someone give me a link, but oviously there isn't. It's just a matter of opinion."

 

[86Habs]

My opinion is that there is no official definition of what "best-on-best" or "best-of-best" means. I will quote my post from the other thread..

"It's the same discussion I and majority of people had in the thread about what #1D means in the NHL. Some were trying really hard to convince everyone that there actually is a literal definition for being an NHL #1 d-man, and that any other isn't correct and is simply false.

There is no "official and the only" definition for what "best-on-best" means. If there is, someone give me a link, but oviously there isn't. It's just a matter of opinion."

Neither Team Canada nor Team USA have the capability to select all of the players they desire to participate in this tournament. There is a certain subset of Canadian and American players (those under 24 years of age) who are simply not available to those teams.

Therefore, this is not a best-on-best tournament. Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact.

You're free to watch and enjoy this tournament through your rose-coloured glasses and call it whatever you wish, but its not a best-on-best tournament and the vast majority of people realize that.

 

[jj cale]

I think Finland might also do OK in hockey if the population was 33 million

I was talking about why you are not good at soccer, you already are good at hockey.

I said I don't think Finland is good at soccer because I don't think the people have a true passion for it as they do for hockey or they would be better at it.

I don't see where the population of Canada has anything to do with that.

 

[Jablkon]

It makes more and more sense to me why this tourney is so positevely accepted by players who are mostly same or more excited as if they go OGs. (dont know about euro ones though and haven't read so many interviews with u23) and fans have so many concerns.

Its like best boxing tourney for players. You meet both KLitschkos brothers etc., all the best athletes.

Fans look at it from different way. These two teams and even the promotion of best of best hockey players incline that you basically built team wtih intention to have a best players together. That is not simply true. You built team to compete, make traditions, friendship and win. Thats how it worked in the past and it basically remains in all that beer leagues etc. It does not work like "Johny, Mony are best ones and they are free now, lets built a new team for them.

Its a bit different in big business like NHL but even that Clalifornia teams sucked in the beginning and had to built their identity. Thats why all that Red Bull teams are mostly subject to riots in Europe. They are obviously more tolerant to it in USA as they have Red BUll New York and no one really protest against it...(if I am correct).

Players didnt really care if they play against just artificial Red Bull a co. when the best players are there. But fans definetely care.

Most of the people had to get used to it in private sector, but this is int. stage with some granted things. Maybe I am too old fashioned but those are good natural things. I dont need any experiments here. No matter what you try it always come back to national teams, thats what people really want to see imo.

 

[JackSlater]

You know what might be interesting. The NHL figures out a way to go to the Olympics. We do true nation vs. nation best-on-best at the Olympics undisturbed.

For the World Cup, we experiment every 4 years. The Big 6 and NHL will decide the format each year for the other 2 qualifiers, or have the freedom to switch up the format however we want. The goal is always to have the best possible talent at a single event. We would have every 2 years, the best players playing. Olympics would be our nation v nation best-on-best events. The World Cup has the freedom to experiment as it's own separate hockey competition.

We could just have qualifiers for the 7 & 8 spot. Or have a European U24 and North American U24 team. This would be interesting because the World Cup would give young guys experience before they move on to the Olympics level. There could be so many possibilities, always with the goal of having the best-of-the-best playing each other.

We battle through hockey and show respect afterwards. Hockey is our modern day "battle" against each other. We compete and battle hard against each other through sport. Getting together as the hockey world every 2 years to see the best takes place over and above all. It's a form of sharing our cultures together, it is a unique bond the hockey powers share.

I got an idea, what do you guys think? We can settle the labels now, does this make sense?
1. Olympics get the best-on-best international tournament label.

2. World Cup gets the best-of-the-best label and historical category.

Olympics (nation v nation) = Best-on-best
World Cup (hybrid teams created with the purpose of having all of the best hockey players across the entire world participate) = best-of-the-best

Subtle word change, but best-of-the-best actually captures what the World Cup is and leaves best-on-best nation v nation pure.

Pretty horrible idea, and largely a waste of time. If they pursued that course of action, just drop the pretense of having some national teams involved and make it a large all star exhibition. Pick captains and let them pick teams.

Nobody is better than Finland in hockey in 2022, except maybe Canada. Even that is a maybe

Yeah, MAYBE Canada. Even that is a stretch though. Looking at Finland's stable of 8 all star defencemen and four lines of all star forwads, I can't see how anyone can compete.

Neither Team Canada nor Team USA have the capability to select all of the players they desire to participate in this tournament. There is a certain subset of Canadian and American players (those under 24 years of age) who are simply not available to those teams.

Therefore, this is not a best-on-best tournament. Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact.

You're free to watch and enjoy this tournament through your rose-coloured glasses and call it whatever you wish, but its not a best-on-best tournament and the vast majority of people realize that.

But, if your only criteria is "but but but I want it to be viewed as a best on best!" then of course you can try the mental gymnastics to make this a best on best tournament. The tournament will not go down as a best on best tournament, given that as you say factually it is not due to its very format. Hopefully it will go down as an anomaly though.

 

[Canuckistani]

I got an idea, what do you guys think? We can settle the labels now, does this make sense?
1. Olympics get the best-on-best international tournament label.

2. World Cup gets the best-of-the-best label and historical category.

Olympics (nation v nation) = Best-on-best
World Cup (hybrid teams created with the purpose of having all of the best hockey players across the entire world participate) = best-of-the-best

In other words the World Cup belongs in the same category as the NHL all-star game which is also best-of-the-best. Agreed.

 

[Canuckistani]

My opinion is that there is no official definition of what "best-on-best" or "best-of-best" means.

Exactly. What's why the Spengler Cup is a best-on-best event.

 

[jj cale]

While I am quite anxious to get this thing going I still don't see much buzz about it here, aside from the here and there t.v adds I am not getting the feel of a very big appetite for it here, but then again the last World cup in 2004 didn't go over gangbusters here either and there was no gimmick teams at that one so I don't think that is playing a big part in the lukewarm anticipation for this WC.

Seems that these events just are not what they used to be in Canada for whatever reason, probably because of olympic participation which we are now used to and have come to expect.

So I don't think people here who are concerned about how this tournament may affect the nhl continuing in the olympics have much to worry about on that front, it seems who is covering the player insurance costs and whether the owners want to continue in the olympics is where your ire should be directed.

 

[86Habs]

But, if your only criteria is "but but but I want it to be viewed as a best on best!" then of course you can try the mental gymnastics to make this a best on best tournament. The tournament will not go down as a best on best tournament, given that as you say factually it is not due to its very format. Hopefully it will go down as an anomaly though.

Hopefully, but I have serious reservations. I think gimmick teams of some sort - maybe not exactly the NA U24 or the European Leftovers as we're seeing this year - have a high probability of also being part of future World Cups. With six strong, competitive teams the NHL will always be reluctant to give the final two spots (assuming an eight-team field) to any combination of Denmark, Latvia, Slovakia, Germany, Switzerland, etc. They (the NHL) will also be highly motivated to shoe-horn as many NHL stars into the tournament as possible.

I've always maintained that the most logical way to format the tournament in that scenario (six teams) is to have a round robin where each team plays each other, plus semi-final, plus 2/3 final. In the absence of that, I'd also be happy with Canada vs. USA, best 5/9. Yes, please and thank you.

 

[Canuckistani]

Seems that these events just are not what they used to be in Canada for whatever reason, probably because of olympic participation which we are now used to and have come to expect.

I think people have rightly come to see the Olympics as the top level event and the world cup as a cheap imitation.

I recall a lot of buzz before and during the World Cup in 1996 but a lot less in 2004.

 

[jj cale]

I think people have rightly come to see the Olympics as the top level event and the world cup as a cheap imitation.

I recall a lot of buzz before and during the World Cup in 1996 but a lot less in 2004.

Yeah, it started in 2004 where there was a very noticeable drop off in fan passion.

The old Canada/world cups were seen by us as the only legitimate best on best tournament there was before 1998 nagano, the olympic hockey tournament before that was seen by us as a farce and rightly so because it was.

N.H.L participation starting in 1998 changed all that and it looks to have affected our passion for NHL run international events.

While I don't think any time you get the best players of the best nations playing together it is ever a cheap imitation this 2016 event could legitimately been seen as such due to the gimmick teams.

Still, I am interested to watch it, I just don't think all that many Canadian fans are and I think the olympics are a pretty big part of that.

Not sure if that is a good thing because the best hockey I have ever watched was in those old Canada Cups.

 

[xxxx]

Exactly. What's why the Spengler Cup is a best-on-best event.

Because it has so many of the best players in the world....

 

[86Habs]

I think people have rightly come to see the Olympics as the top level event and the world cup as a cheap imitation.

I recall a lot of buzz before and during the World Cup in 1996 but a lot less in 2004.

The Canada - Finland World Cup final was on September 14, 2004. NHL players were locked out on September 16, 2004. The impending lockout probably had a lot to do with enthusiasm around that particular tournament, not to mention the fact that Canada was heavily favoured to win. The most memorable game was the Canada-Czech Republic semifinal.

1996, however, was different. I was in high school and remember a ton of buzz and excitement around that World Cup. I imagine that had a lot to do with the strength of the American team and the possibility that Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Lindros et al would finally be knocked off their pedestal.

 

[JackSlater]

While I am quite anxious to get this thing going I still don't see much buzz about it here, aside from the here and there t.v adds I am not getting the feel of a very big appetite for it here, but then again the last World cup in 2004 didn't go over gangbusters here either and there was no gimmick teams at that one so I don't think that is playing a big part in the lukewarm anticipation for this WC.

Seems that these events just are not what they used to be in Canada for whatever reason, probably because of olympic participation which we are now used to and have come to expect.

So I don't think people here who are concerned about how this tournament may affect the nhl continuing in the olympics have much to worry about on that front, it seems who is covering the player insurance costs and whether the owners want to continue in the olympics is where your ire should be directed.

As terrible as the gimmicks are, I don't think that they are the cause of the lack of general interest and discussion. The biggest problem, in my eyes, is Sportsnet. That network doesn't promote hockey nearly as well as TSN and CBC do.

Hopefully, but I have serious reservations. I think gimmick teams of some sort - maybe not exactly the NA U24 or the European Leftovers as we're seeing this year - have a high probability of also being part of future World Cups. With six strong, competitive teams the NHL will always be reluctant to give the final two spots (assuming an eight-team field) to any combination of Denmark, Latvia, Slovakia, Germany, Switzerland, etc. They (the NHL) will also be highly motivated to shoe-horn as many NHL stars into the tournament as possible.

I've always maintained that the most logical way to format the tournament in that scenario (six teams) is to have a round robin where each team plays each other, plus semi-final, plus 2/3 final. In the absence of that, I'd also be happy with Canada vs. USA, best 5/9. Yes, please and thank you.

Well, the NHL already said that there are talks about having players play for "heritage" teams, where Canadian/Americans can play for nations from which their ancestors came. Should it happen, Jason Spezza can finally get his taste of the big time playing for Italy, just as he always imagined it I'm sure.