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.
jj cale said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obviously you havent EVER played football and haven't watched it too much.

Of course everybody plays to win at every level especially when the stakes are high. BUT After 90 minutes most players are already so tired they don't have energy to constantly run the whole pitch.

That's why the game becomes superpassive at overtime as both teams usually are just preparing themself for penalty kicks and putting their biggest effort on defence.
 
JackSlater said:
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



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.
Click to expand...

Everything you say is technically correct. But the problem is that the word "best-on-best" is saying "best-on-best", not necessarily "international competition where all teams have the absolute best available to them (and I should add, "and the players want to participate at that event")". That's just the definition that perhaps is used, but don't you see that the word itself is pretty simple and isn't really dictating anything? Or when someone says "best-against-the-best", like Matthews did, what is untrue about it?
 
Cogsbreakaway said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now THIS would be awesome. A club world cup!

Winners of KHL, NHL, SHL, Liiga, DEL, and National League A in a tourney together mid-season would be incredibly interesting. Gives extra meaning to winning the stanley cup too because it would include a qualification spot in the tournament!
 
FuriousSenator said:
Now THIS would be awesome. A club world cup!

Winners of KHL, NHL, SHL, Liiga, DEL, and National League A in a tourney together mid-season would be incredibly interesting. Gives extra meaning to winning the stanley cup too because it would include a qualification spot in the tournament!
Click to expand...
If they had legitimate European Club Hockey Championship (like UEFA Champions League in soccer), the winner could play the Stanley Cup winner, 4 games in NA, 4 games in Europe (or 2+2)
 
Hertl and Gudas dropping out of the Czech team. Ay-ay-ay! :amazed: I'm sure they and their families will be devastated by this for decades to come. A lifelong regret. I mean, how many times in their lifetime can a player aspire to play in the Gimmick Cup? What an honor!
 
True Hockey Fan said:
If they had legitimate European Club Hockey Championship (like UEFA Champions League in soccer), the winner could play the Stanley Cup winner, 4 games in NA, 4 games in Europe (or 2+2)
Click to expand...

I would like this. Or even the winner of all the top leagues tournament like the chl and the memorial cup but I'm not sure it would be close enough that way in talent levels to make it like the memorial cup.

The other leagues would have the advantage of playing way less games than whoever won the stanley cup tho so maybe that would equalize things a bit

The nhl player's association would never agree to it if the players didn't make money from it tho. Less rest time between seasons plus playing for free for one single team. So the owners probably would hate it too because it would make the Stanley Cup hangover even worse. Me as a fan would like it tho.
 
Last edited:
if NHL dropped down to 78 games and all four games were the tuesday, wednesday games that have bad attendance for half the league, would the owners even miss anything?

Have the champions league thing.

32 teams in the group stage. 20 from NHL and 12 from Europe.

Top 16 regular season teams automatically get in. Play-in for the other 4 spots. And have some system to figure out the Europe teams. There's your pool of teams, then do a complete random draw. No seeding. It would be amazing.

Travel is alot better than is used to be. Going from New York to Zurich isn't crazy is it? They already have NY teams fly across country at least once a season to play in LA.
 
True Hockey Fan said:
Everything you say is technically correct. But the problem is that the word "best-on-best" is saying "best-on-best", not necessarily "international competition where all teams have the absolute best available to them (and I should add, "and the players want to participate at that event")". That's just the definition that perhaps is used, but don't you see that the word itself is pretty simple and isn't really dictating anything? Or when someone says "best-against-the-best", like Matthews did, what is untrue about it?
Click to expand...

In the end this is about semantics, and I don't want to drone on about it and I doubt that you do as well. It is pretty clear that what a best on best tournament is has been established through the term's usage in the last few decades. If you want to say that this event is similar to a best on best tournament, then that is difficult to argue with. I honestly don't know what it should be called. "Best against the best" is a new term that doesn't really have an established meaning... it may describe this event. My issue is when an established term is being used. "Best against the best" as you suggest could refer to this and who knows what else.
 
Would much rather have a "tourny" where North America can ice their best team and Europe theirs, then let them go at it in a 7 game series.

That would at least be interesting.


Team Europe could be something like..



Ovechkin-Bäckström-Kuznetsov

Panarin-Malkin-Tarasenko

Landeskog-Kopitar-Forsberg

Eriksson-Barkov-Kucherov


OEL-Karlsson

Hedman-Strålman

Lindholm-Josi


Lundquist
Rinne
 
Last edited:
this tournament really doesn't mean anything to me. only thing i care about is to see how Laine and Aho stack up vs NHL stars.
 
Karjala takaisin said:
Russian forwards, Swedish D men and Finnish goalies would beat North America.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the this roster. Sure doesn't look to me like just Russia's forwards are as good as Canada/USA's, just Sweden's defence is as good as Canada/USA's and Finland's best goaltender is better than Price. Hoping that you will show me this super team.
 
TheFeistyFinn said:
i donno about our goalies. they have been mediocre at best last few seasons. that goes for Lundqvist too. Mrazek or Andersen would be better choice o,o
Click to expand...

Have they released if andersen injured himself during qualifying for Denmark yet?

The two teams would be pretty close tho and the nhl is talking about doing this reider cup of hockey idea in 2 years anyways.
 
Tournament is stupid to begin with.. No much ppl cares about this. No one buying the merchandise :laugh:
 
Karjala takaisin said:
Still better than North America. Laine and Barkov would probably make that team in 5 years time.
Click to expand...

Are you going to post the Russian forwards, Swedish defencemen and Finnish goaltenders who are better than an actual team North America? Off the top of my head...

Parise Crosby Kane
Benn Tavares Seguin
Pacioretty Toews Bergeron
Stamkos McDavid Wheeler
Giroux

Keith Doughty
Suter Burns
Pietrangelo Subban
Faulk

Price
Schneider
Quick
 
kunekune said:
Obviously you havent EVER played football and haven't watched it too much.

Of course everybody plays to win at every level especially when the stakes are high. BUT After 90 minutes most players are already so tired they don't have energy to constantly run the whole pitch.

That's why the game becomes superpassive at overtime as both teams usually are just preparing themself for penalty kicks and putting their biggest effort on defence.
Click to expand...

They are tired are they?, man that's tough.

And you're right, I havent played it aside from a few backyard games as a kid pretending I was Pele.

Still think they should play it out.
 
jj cale said:
They are tired are they?, man that's tough.

And you're right, I havent played it aside from a few backyard games as a kid pretending I was Pele.

Still think they should play it out.
Click to expand...

It's always entertaining to watch someone spout off authoritatively about something on which they are profoundly ignorant.
 
True Hockey Fan said:
If they had legitimate European Club Hockey Championship (like UEFA Champions League in soccer), the winner could play the Stanley Cup winner, 4 games in NA, 4 games in Europe (or 2+2)
Click to expand...

But we do have an IIHF Ice hockey Champions League since 2-3 years back. It hasn´t been quite the success at tv ratings just yet but I think it is good and important for hockey developement here because so many countries can compete and grow etc.
The problem is that KHL had plans to rather include all teams under the KHL (since you can hear on its name) but this champions league was kind of created to hinder(protect from if you wish) KHL to grow even further into Europe. So of course KHL teams aren´t competing in it even though the are 'invited' since the other europan federations aren´t as cooperative with the KHL as they could have and try to run their own "KHL"-version through this champions league.
- This is kind of the same struggle at club level between european federations and KHL as we have on international level between NHL and IIHF. - Interesting.

So not having KHL teams playing in there kind of ruins the title "Best european club". One idea would be to first have a battle between winner of KHL and Champions League, but that would only legitimize Champions League further and the split idea of keeping KHL out, so I doubt KHL will agree to that (since they are the ones having the high ground here).
So there's a political battle among the european hockey federations and KHL and for now its a split, logically the best team in KHL is perhaps crowned the best european team even though some Swiss club like Zürich or swedish Skellefteå would have pretty good chances too. A shame really.
I remember a few years back when we had the old format where the winner of all the big leagues here, like 6 leagues (only winner, at it ran until 2009 or so) battled out and the winner played a NHL team, I remember Metallurg vs Rangers (the latter coming back from a 0-3 down) and then Zürich beating Red Hawks, though Chicago had a half b-team or so :)
 
Last edited:
Epsilon said:
Not sure what that has to do with you not understanding football/soccer, but okay.
Click to expand...

Hey, If I watch NHL playoff hockey going into it's 9th period I don't think I am out of line asking for football players to put deep time in.

That's why they get paid the big bucks IMO.

You are welcome to explain to me why football should be different, I know you understand the game better then me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom