Toggle sidebar

WCH - Impressions of the Tournament

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
Cogsbreakaway said:
It's a ploy tourny with made up teams.

If Canada does not win, they can only say that they weren't allowed to use several of their brst players.

I don't put much stock into who wins, I'm just craving hockey at this point, haha...
Click to expand...

Maybe the states would use that excuse. The only player from team north America canada would maybe of taken would be mcdavid.

If anything this gives canada 2 chances to win if the team drops like the 2006 team we can cheer for team north America to win.
 
jj cale said:
I think it's bogus they use the shootout at the world cup of football too, really believe it sullies that huge show
Click to expand...

How often do you watch football? Cause I don't think you'll find many people who actually follow the sport that want to see them play until someone scores. They could easily play 200 minutes of overtime. Not a sensible idea in my books.
 
Gary Nylund said:
I guess I'll just say that we all know that Canada is the strongest hockey nation in the world, who wins this tournament isn't going to change that. :D

I'm only kidding. Or am I?
Click to expand...

There's no need to say "I'm kidding". What you said is a fact. In a short tournament like this even Finland may eliminate Canada, but that wouldn't make Finland a stronger hockey nation. Canada will go into the next best-on-best event (if we ever see such a thing) as clear favorites no matter who wins this one.
 
I'm curious as to how many players missed the 2014 Olympics with injuries compared to how many are missing this tournament with injuries even with the summer months to prepare. How many have pulled out of this tournament? Looks like three Canadians at the moment.
 
JackSlater said:
I'm curious as to how many players missed the 2014 Olympics with injuries compared to how many are missing this tournament with injuries even with the summer months to prepare. How many have pulled out of this tournament? Looks like three Canadians at the moment.
Click to expand...

In 2014 the casualties were...

Canada: Steven Stamkos
Sweden: Henrik Sedin, Johan Franzen (+ Henrik Zetterberg, injured in first game)
Finland: Mikko Koivu, Valtteri Filppula, Saku Koivu
Russia: Sergei Soin
Czech: Vladimir Sobotka, Tomas Vokoun, Tomas Hertl
Slovakia: Dominik Granak, Michal Sersen, Marian Gaborik, Lubomir Visnovsky

So far in 2016...

Canada: Duncan Keith, Jamie Benn, Jeff Carter
Sweden: Alexander Steen, Niklas Kronwall, Robin Lehner, Henrik Zetterberg
USA: Ryan Callahan
Czech: David Krejci
 
Nice to see Krejčí ditch the Gimmick Cup along with Jágr. I would feel gratified if Hossa, Chára, Kopitar et al. pulled out as well, citing injuries or whatever. The worse this travesty ends, the better, in the long term, for international hockey. :nod:
 
Canuckistani said:
In 2014 the casualties were...

Canada: Steven Stamkos
Sweden: Henrik Sedin, Johan Franzen (+ Henrik Zetterberg, injured in first game)
Finland: Mikko Koivu, Valtteri Filppula, Saku Koivu
Russia: Sergei Soin
Czech: Vladimir Sobotka, Tomas Vokoun, Tomas Hertl
Slovakia: Dominik Granak, Michal Sersen, Marian Gaborik, Lubomir Visnovsky

So far in 2016...

Canada: Duncan Keith, Jamie Benn, Jeff Carter
Sweden: Alexander Steen, Niklas Kronwall, Robin Lehner, Henrik Zetterberg
USA: Ryan Callahan
Czech: David Krejci
Click to expand...

Wouldn't count Zetterberg in 2014. One positive, all of this does put even further holes in the false claims that get brought up every year that players were forced due to undocumented threats to play in Canada/World Cups.
 
Lepardi said:
How often do you watch football? Cause I don't think you'll find many people who actually follow the sport that want to see them play until someone scores. They could easily play 200 minutes of overtime. Not a sensible idea in my books.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to me what the fans want, i am only concerned about what is right.


The champion of the world in soccer decided by a skills competition?

How sad is that?
 
Faterson said:
Nice to see Krejčí ditch the Gimmick Cup along with Jágr. I would feel gratified if Hossa, Chára, Kopitar et al. pulled out as well, citing injuries or whatever. The worse this travesty ends, the better, in the long term, for international hockey. :nod:
Click to expand...

Except that Krejci really wanted to go but he simply can't. It was known immediately after his surgery that it would be questionable. I heard that the Czech manager was waiting for him till the last seconds, but the time is against him. It's pretty same as with Jamie Benn. Different injuries perhaps, but never the less, you simply can't beat time. No matter whether the injury is really serious or not, you can't speed the process up and somehow get better in better time than what your body is telling you.
 
True Hockey Fan said:
Except that Krejci really wanted to go but he simply can't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what else would you expect to hear? Gimmick Cup doesn't mean anything, so missing it is no big deal. You can simply shrug it off as a missed series of exhibition games. But missing the Olympics – whoa, that would be a big deal, and every player would (Stamkos-style) likely do the utmost in order not to miss it. And so, for those players who currently are or will be injured in September, at least there is this silver lining to their injury: that they won't need to participate in the Gimmick Cup, and they can focus on what really matters (start of the regular season).
 
JackSlater said:
I understand where you are coming from here, but generally it isn't feasible for each person to construct their own definition and use it when nearly everyone else uses a different definition. If you want to call it something else, then provided the reason makes sense then there is no issue. If you claim that this tournament has more talent per team than the Olympics or something, for instance, then I would have to agree. The definition of best on best is largely established though. If I decide that this tournament is a league instead of a tournament, by some definition I make up, it doesn't make it so.

I agree that you have a right to say it. I can even respect that you at least directly attempt to defend the ideas. I would like to hear your definition of what a best on best is though.
Click to expand...


I would answer this by what Auston Matthews said in todays interview...

"It's the best-against-best tournament so it's pretty exciting just to be able to compete at this level," Matthews told NHL.com.
Click to expand...

"It's a whole other level from the IIHF World Championship to this, since it's the best-on-best in the whole world. So it will definitely be an adjustment because these are the best NHL players in the world all assembled on their respective teams.
Click to expand...

When I say best-on-best (or whatever similar term really) I mean just the amount of elite talent at one place. So, when you say "this tournament has more talent per team than the Olympics", yes, that's quite what I have in mind. The other thing is that the U24 players that are "missing" from Canada and US, are having their own team, it's not like they just cut the age for them, you know what I mean. I'm not saying I have one super-strict perfect definition. It's just what I feel about it. Are the best playing against the best, as Matthews himself said? Well, yes they are. I believe that players are pretty honest about this and don't really feel anything being so much "off" that wouldn't allow this tournament to be called best-on-best...I'm pretty sure that they are not so absolutely strict about the definition, and I definitely believe that many of them would agree with you actually, if you wanted to present the logical view on this, but they would likely added that it's still best-against-the-best, you know...

and when you say, everyone is using "this" definition...well it seems that players don't care much about the strictness of the word :dunno: I don't mean to sound anything like offensive to you...that's just my thoughts...
 
Canuckistani said:
In 2014 the casualties were...

Canada: Steven Stamkos
Sweden: Henrik Sedin, Johan Franzen (+ Henrik Zetterberg, injured in first game)
Finland: Mikko Koivu, Valtteri Filppula, Saku Koivu
Russia: Sergei Soin
Czech: Vladimir Sobotka, Tomas Vokoun, Tomas Hertl
Slovakia: Dominik Granak, Michal Sersen, Marian Gaborik, Lubomir Visnovsky

So far in 2016...

Canada: Duncan Keith, Jamie Benn, Jeff Carter
Sweden: Alexander Steen, Niklas Kronwall, Robin Lehner, Henrik Zetterberg
USA: Ryan Callahan
Czech: David Krejci
Click to expand...

Add Monahan to the list. Dropping like flies...
 
True Hockey Fan said:
I would answer this by what Auston Matthews said in todays interview...

When I say best-on-best (or whatever similar term really) I mean just the amount of elite talent at one place. So, when you say "this tournament has more talent per team than the Olympics", yes, that's quite what I have in mind. The other thing is that the U24 players that are "missing" from Canada and US, are having their own team, it's not like they just cut the age for them, you know what I mean. I'm not saying I have one super-strict perfect definition. It's just what I feel about it. Are the best playing against the best, as Matthews himself said? Well, yes they are. I believe that players are pretty honest about this and don't really feel anything being so much "off" that wouldn't allow this tournament to be called best-on-best...I'm pretty sure that they are not so absolutely strict about the definition, and I definitely believe that many of them would agree with you actually, if you wanted to present the logical view on this, but they would likely added that it's still best-against-the-best, you know...

and when you say, everyone is using "this" definition...well it seems that players don't care much about the strictness of the word :dunno: I don't mean to sound anything like offensive to you...that's just my thoughts...
Click to expand...

Hmm, the word of Matthews against some random internet poster. Are you sure you're not on thin ice here? :sarcasm: :laugh:
 
I would have no problem what so ever, with Sweden sending their U-24 team, or even the junior team.

The format is a joke.

Might aswell use club teams next time.
 
and of course let's ignore the players who could've passed on the tournament due to some injury problems as well, but they wanted to play and get healthy (Price, Giroux, among certainly many others)
 
True Hockey Fan said:
I would answer this by what Auston Matthews said in todays interview...

When I say best-on-best (or whatever similar term really) I mean just the amount of elite talent at one place. So, when you say "this tournament has more talent per team than the Olympics", yes, that's quite what I have in mind. The other thing is that the U24 players that are "missing" from Canada and US, are having their own team, it's not like they just cut the age for them, you know what I mean. I'm not saying I have one super-strict perfect definition. It's just what I feel about it. Are the best playing against the best, as Matthews himself said? Well, yes they are. I believe that players are pretty honest about this and don't really feel anything being so much "off" that wouldn't allow this tournament to be called best-on-best...I'm pretty sure that they are not so absolutely strict about the definition, and I definitely believe that many of them would agree with you actually, if you wanted to present the logical view on this, but they would likely added that it's still best-against-the-best, you know...

and when you say, everyone is using "this" definition...well it seems that players don't care much about the strictness of the word :dunno: I don't mean to sound anything like offensive to you...that's just my thoughts...
Click to expand...

So your definition boils down to your feelings? That's not feasible. The only thing I can see is that you claim that a best on best tournament means best players against best players, regardless of the teams. That leaves the all star game as a best on best for sure, and even the NHL itself as a best on best by your definition. That is why the definition doesn't work. You might want this to be a best on best tournament, but want and feelings have nothing to do with it.

Everyone knows that best on best hockey refers to the best from one country against the best from other countries. That is the usage that the world uses. You cannot alter the meaning just to suit what you want. Auston Matthews erroneously dubbing this a best on best tournament because it looks similar doesn't change that the tournament doesn't match the definition accepted by basically everyone other than you.

Factually, this is not a best on best tournament by any commonly accepted meaning of the term. That isn't a debate. If you are so displeased about this reality, blame the NHL for taking a formerly best on best tournament and losing that title due to the inclusion of the gimmick teams.

To emphasize: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=121754395&postcount=493

True Hockey Fan said:
If there was no team NAU24, and Canada and the US could still only select 24+, it would probably not be a best-on-best tournament, but since there is the NAU24 consisting of those very players, I think it its a best-on-best. Why? Imagine a 5 team "national" tournament between Team Canada U21, Team Canada 22-25, Team Canada 26-29, Team Canada 30-33, and Team Canada 34+. Would the tournament be best-on-best? Of course it would, because it would be the best of the best in each category. The very best players in Canada would be playing. I would be a best-on-best within Canada.
Click to expand...

This clearly conveys that you simply do not understand what best on best means. You may be the only person on earth who would consider that tournament, that features only Canadians, a best on best tournament. I have been using the commonly accepted (or as close as is possible) definition of a best on best tournament all this time. You are using a definition that only you could possibly use. People do not get to create their own definition, which varies from the generally accepted definition, and argue that their definition is accurate just because it is their personal definition. That is not how language works. If you want to make up a new term and define it, it may fit this tournament. Best on best it is not however.
 
Last edited:
jj cale said:
It doesn't matter to me what the fans want, i am only concerned about what is right.


The champion of the world in soccer decided by a skills competition?

How sad is that?
Click to expand...

Penalty kicks are more of a mental competition rather than skill competition.

Anyways 120 mins is already too much for one game. Teams don't even try too much in overtime because most players are too tired already.

In my opinion penalty kicks should be played after 90 mins.
 
jj cale said:
It doesn't matter to me what the fans want, i am only concerned about what is right.


The champion of the world in soccer decided by a skills competition?

How sad is that?
Click to expand...

Well people who actually follow, play, coach or manage the sport and know something about it, don't think it's sad. But it's nice of you to tell them how the World Cup of soccer should be organized, even though you're not even interested enough in soccer to watch it or to learn about it. Maybe next time you're in Brazil you should tell the Brazilians how this sport you don't even follow should be played. And then the Brazilians who maybe once catched a glimpse of a hockey game on TV can tell you how playoff games should be decided in hockey. Their opionion will be about as relevant as your opinion about soccer shootouts is.
 
Last edited:
kunekune said:
Penalty kicks are more of a mental competition rather than skill competition.

Anyways 120 mins is already too much for one game. Teams don't even try too much in overtime because most players are too tired already.

In my opinion penalty kicks should be played after 90 mins.
Click to expand...

I can't believe what I have just heard here.



You play the game and you play it to win it.

Can't believe anyone is so haphazard about hockey enough to back your viewpoint up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom