WCH - Impressions of the Tournament
- Thread starter Spartachat
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
snipes
How cold? I’m ice cold.
- Dec 28, 2015
- 56,205
- 65,502
Even if the record reflects an asterisk or separate label, you guys still should be proud.
Suomi would have tested themselves against the best hockey players the world could offer (no matter the label it gets) and succeeded. Canada will give you a standing ovation and we will pay our respects. No matter who wins, I have no doubt the people in Toronto will applaud them and the crowds will be amazing.
It would be a reason to celebrate and party. To me, it means more than the WHC, but less than the Olympics because of the gimmick teams. It is still your team testing themselves against the best players in the world. That matters.
Hope you enjoy Canada during your visit
.This subject made me think about the World Juniors quarter-final I attended in Helsinki in January. One of the most entertaining hockey games I've ever seen, even though I had to stay sober that night (that's very unlike me when travelling hours away from home to watch sports). I was absolutely delighted Finland won, but I also understand that you can't really take that as a sign of Finland having better junior hockey players than Canada. Canada was missing McDavid, Ekblad, McCann, Fabbri and Bennett. Finland didn't have anyone under the age of 20 in the NHL. I think McDavid and Ekblad just might have been able to compete even against the likes of Pulju, Laine and Juolevi.
jj cale
Registered User
It's not a legitimate best on best but a world cup win for Finland this time around would certainly be a bigger accomplishment then winning the WHC.
Far greater competition at this thing then they face at any WHC.
There are no Norways or Hungarys to beat up on at this thing, even the under 23 team and team Europe will be good teams.
Far greater competition at this thing then they face at any WHC.
There are no Norways or Hungarys to beat up on at this thing, even the under 23 team and team Europe will be good teams.
garnetpalmetto
Jerkministrator
Let's please move on from the soccer talk, people. That particular deceased equine has been flagellated rather thoroughly. Keep discussion to the WCH specifically as well, not international tournaments writ large.
Pietrangelbro
Registered User
My friend and I are cheering for NA and will be at the NA vs Russia game in center upper bowl. Tickets were about $90 after fees.
My jaw almost dropped when he asked me to go and told me the prices - I thought there was no way I was getting anywhere close to the ACC.
My jaw almost dropped when he asked me to go and told me the prices - I thought there was no way I was getting anywhere close to the ACC.
snipes
How cold? I’m ice cold.
- Dec 28, 2015
- 56,205
- 65,502
It's good to reflect on. It shows you are thoughtful and reflective, however, I say it does not matter enjoy it. Suomi deserved to win. They were the best team at the 2016 WJC. You earned the right to celebrate and feel pride, I bow my head and show respect. You deserved victory. Hockey is honourable and just, I always hope Canadians remain classy in victory and in defeat. Suomi are the rightful 2016 WJC Gold medalists.
Hopefully you understand why our best Canadian players dream of being NHLers and for McDavid and Ekblad, the Stanley Cup is what they grow up as kids imagining playing for. Can you at least see and understand how embedded the NHL is into the Canadian conscience? The NHL has always been there for Canada throughout our history. Even though we hate Bettman and lots of what they do, we will always stand with the NHL at the end of the day.
Maybe with Laine, Barkov, Pulju, and Aho set to become NHL superstars you will appreciate the NHL more. The players fought hard to have the right to a good Players Union. They are well compensated and our money actually goes to them.
I think the NHL needs to be better understood by the Big 4 in Europe more. Your best players are in our league. 50% of all revenues go to the NHLPA for the World Cup. This is money directly to the players, it funds their life after hockey, medical, and goes towards serving them.
Would you not prefer our money go to the players who actually play? If you agree to that, then there is no better league to support than the NHL.
Conspiracy Theorist
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2016
- 5,863
- 2,098
If Finland doesn't win in 2017 it will be because Laine, Aho and Puljujärvi aren't there
Not going to like if this replaces the Olympics. I would't mind having best-on-best tournaments every 2 years.
snipes
How cold? I’m ice cold.
- Dec 28, 2015
- 56,205
- 65,502
If Finland doesn't win in 2017 it will be because Laine, Aho and Puljujärvi aren't there
Not going to like if this replaces the Olympics. I would't mind having best-on-best tournaments every 2 years.
Exactly. One of the Olympics and World Cup played every 2 years.
Jussi
Registered User
I think people are ignoring the most glaring FACT. They just didn't call stuff that strictly in the 80's and even 90's, anywhere. I watched bits of Finland's old games from the 1990 Worlds versus the Soviets and Canada and it would be easy to make a compilation of all the non calls for hooking and obstruction in those games (for every team) and ask whether the ref (notice one ref, since that was the system back then) was paid.
Plus of course re: the 1987 CC, Don Koharski was a crappy ref, period. There's a reason Wayne's World movie had a character called Officer Koharski.
Last edited:
I know this full well. I saw most of those 1990s Finland games live. I don't know about you, but in my books a full-forced two-handed slash into an opponent's head right in front of the referee who's watching you is not a "hook" or an "obstruction". When that goes uncalled, my reaction isn't "well, that was the 1980s". Slashing an opponent's head was an infraction even back then. But not in the Canada Cup, when a Canadian was slashing a Soviet player. Because it was the Cold War. Had the games been held in the Soviet Union with the Soviets deciding how it's done, I'm pretty sure the home reffing would have been even more blatant. They knew a thing or two about homerism as well, as shown by the organizing in Moscow 1980 for instance.
Plus of course re: the 1987 CC, Don Koharski was a crappy ref, period. There's a reason Wayne's World movie had a character called Officer Koharski.
So if Don Koharski was one of the crappier refs in the NHL, why was he chosen to officiate the finals in Canada Cup? Weren't any of the others interested? One would think that for such a massive event it would make more sense to get the best in business. Would you give a list of all the refs who were better than Koharski back in 1987? How actively did you follow NHL refereeing back then?
There probably is a reason why there was a character called Koharski in Wayne's World. Maybe it was because he was one of the best-know hockey refs back then.
Last edited:
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,704
- 25,547
Another point of view is that Olympic hockey is a joke. Deciding elimination games via shootout is an abomination and every Olympic title has an asterix next to it. I wonder what people would think if Olympic Basketball games were decided by a free throw shooting contest.
Another point of view is that Olympic hockey is a joke. Deciding elimination games via shootout is an abomination and every Olympic title has an asterix next to it. I wonder what people would think if Olympic Basketball games were decided by a free throw shooting contest.
it does not matter. You should be good enough to score in regulation or OT. If not you know what to expect. The worst thing ever is missing the train back home because somebody is not able to score a goal. I am not that dramatic here....Jsut imagine how long would it take in 98 semifinal against us. You wouldn't beat Hasek and if we had bad time they would play forever. Difference between 4th overtime and shootouts is that while everybody sleep in first case, ale the people are super anxious during shootouts....and you are back for the dinner..
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,801
- 15,456
Another point of view is that Olympic hockey is a joke. Deciding elimination games via shootout is an abomination and every Olympic title has an asterix next to it. I wonder what people would think if Olympic Basketball games were decided by a free throw shooting contest.
That would be a poorly thought out point of view. Shootouts are certainly terrible, and it is a plus that this World Cup tournament does not have them, but at least every team plays under the same circumstances.
Where did you get the idea that my post had anything to do with not appreciating the NHL? I watch NHL games a whole lot more than I watch the Finnish league and I have no problem with NHL games taking precedence before World Juniors. I think it's only fair. When Finland won in 2014, they were missing Barkov and Määttä. What I don't like is people who diss the WHC and then glorify the World Juniors, because they say the latter is "best-on-best". It's not. The best U20 players in the world are never there, unless there's an NHL lockout.
Another point of view is that Olympic hockey is a joke. Deciding elimination games via shootout is an abomination and every Olympic title has an asterix next to it. I wonder what people would think if Olympic Basketball games were decided by a free throw shooting contest.
That's my biggest gripe with the IIHF/Olympics. Having playoff games (I can live with round robin) being decided with shootouts is absurd. Thankfully the best-on-best Olympics have only had one such game, the 1998 semifinal, but it still sucked and not because of who won and lost.
If the IIHF made OT to be 20 mins, instead of 10, it would do away with 90% of shootouts.
Jussi
Registered User
jj cale
Registered User
It's a gimmick though, nylund is right about that.
I don't agree with it in the nhl either but thankfully they refuse to use it in the playoffs.
Not so at the olympics, the biggest game there can potentially be a shootout so if we are going to be talking about gimmicks let's be honest with ourselves and admit olympic hockey uses gimmicks.
Last edited:
jj cale
Registered User
A best on best deciding championship game should never be limited to arena usage and t.v contract or anything else for that matter.
If that is why shootouts must be used at the olympics then hockey has to get out of the olympics as it does not do the sport justice.
Clearly an argument for having a proper world cup and ditching the olympics.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,704
- 25,547
I'll never agree with you here. And if people are asleep in the 4th overtime ... I don't even know what to say to that other than maybe they're not really hockey fans. And as far as missing the train back home, c'mon man, if you're dumb enough to book your ticket without accounting for the possibility of OT then you deserve what you get.
Hell anything's better than a shootout. I'd even be fine with something non-traditional just to be practical - I understand that unlimited OT is a scheduling headache but that's no excuse for butchering the game entirely. Just thinking off the top of my head, 20 minute OT would decide most games, then 4-4 hockey for the 2nd OT period should take care of the rest. Anything but a shootout. Just imagine the Basketball gold medal being decided by a free throw contest. I suppose I'm a bit of a purist but I've never liked shootouts. As far as I'm concerned they're cheap entertainment for the masses and while I've learned to live with them in the 82 game NHL grind, having them in playoff games (or the Olympic equivalent of elimination games) will never be acceptable to me.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,704
- 25,547
Yup. It sounds a bit harsh maybe and I stopped short of saying it but I was absolutely thinking this. If the Olympics can't do hockey the way it is meant to be done than perhaps they shouldn't do it at all. Leave organizing best-on-best tournaments to the NHL who has shown in the past that they are perfectly capable of doing it the way it should be done. There are other flaws in Olympic hockey as well but the shootouts are by far the biggest.
jj cale
Registered User
That's a terrible and not well thought out argument.
What does winning a shootout really mean? it certainly does not prove you were the better team,not in the slightest.
No, elimination games in team sports like hockey should never be decided by a freaking skills competition.
It's a disservice and disgrace to the game, it cheapens the whole sport and the value of what comes from proving you are a champion.
It really is pathetic they use this at the olympics in elimination games.
jj cale
Registered User
I can live with shootouts at the olympics in round robin games but in elimination games? no way, it's an abomination and disgrace to the sport, I really cannot understand anyone who is o.k with using a skills competition to decide a must win game in a team sport.
As far as the organizing of future best on best, while I think the NHL could do a good job of it,to have it become fully legitimized in the minds of our European cohorts it will probably have to be organized under the umbrella of the IIHF. The various domestic leagues will be rightly involved but the main organizing body will likely have to be the IIHF, for better or worse.
jj cale
Registered User
This may surprise you but I saw scores of gratuitous head shots in the NHL back in those days that went uncalled. The game was VERY violent back then in the NHL.
Something tells me you probably were not getting and thus watching a lot of NHL games in Finland in the 1970s and 80s.
So no................it wasn't just the Canada Cup.
- Status
