WCH - Impressions of the Tournament

[snipes]

One guy says it's no big deal - you refuse to believe it.

Another guy, who's still just *one* guy, says it is a big deal - you immediately believe it.


Nice confirmation bias there.

I think many of us (I don't speak for all of course), just love hockey. It's a pure childlike love of the game. When we see other countries show love for hockey too, we engage with it. We want other countries to challenge us at our game, it brings out the best in us.

Our fervent passion for hockey and warlike frothing at the mouth love for sharing with the world our game through intense hockey is a peculiar characteristic of many Canadian hockey fans. You wouldn't know it from HFInternational, but most Canadians are kind and sweet people who will apologize if someone purposefully bumped into them. Accidentally getting in another persons way and both people saying "sorry" while bowing their heads simultaneously is like a Canadian greeting .

Maybe hockey is a cathartic release for many of us. They always used to talk about how kind and gentle Gordie Howe was off the ice, but on the ice he was a fierce and menacing person. Gordie was ****ing frightening to play against. He would smash opposition players facial bones without remorse when the game was on, afterwards he would be soft spoken and modest in a way uniquely Canadian way.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I think many of us (I don't speak for all of course), just love hockey. It's a pure childlike love of the game. When we see other countries show love for hockey too, we engage with it. We want other countries to challenge us at our game, it brings out the best in us.

Our fervent passion for hockey and warlike frothing at the mouth love for sharing with the world our game through intense hockey is a peculiar characteristic of many Canadian hockey fans. You wouldn't know it from HFInternational, but most Canadians are kind and sweet people who will apologize if someone purposefully bumped into them. Accidentally getting in another persons way and both people saying "sorry" while bowing their heads simultaneously is like a Canadian greeting .

Maybe hockey is a cathartic release for many of us. They always used to talk about how kind and gentle Gordie Howe was off the ice, but on the ice he was a fierce and menacing person. Gordie was ****ing frightening to play against. He would smash opposition players facial bones without remorse when the game was on, afterwards he would be soft spoken and modest in a way uniquely Canadian way.

I used to feel that way - the dead puck era we are in has all but killed that instinct. Since 1995 the game has been drab, hollow and sorely lacking entertainment value. There was a time a tournament like this would absolutely enthrall me (Canada Cup tournaments of the 80s) but, the game itself has become so sterile that I am enthralled no more.

Sad what has happened to our game.

 

[snipes]

I used to feel that way - the dead puck era we are in has all but killed that instinct. Since 1995 the game has been drab, hollow and sorely lacking entertainment value. There was a time a tournament like this would absolutely enthrall me (Canada Cup tournaments of the 80s) but, the game itself has become so sterile that I am enthralled no more.

Sad what has happened to our game.

Well, we're Oiler fans who have stared a decade of darkness straight in the eyes. Our pain would have broken many other fan bases, not us. We're the best fans in the NHL. I can't wait until we have our first home playoff game in the new arena and remind fans (ignorant American fans in particular) how tribal and berserk an Edmonton crowd can be.

Eras come and go. This was not the first dead puck era. The 1950s was the first dead puck era, eventually the skilled Montreal Canadien teams of the 1970s and the talented New York Islanders teams of the early 1980s preceded the glory of the free wheeling 1980s Oilers dynasty.

Re-watch the 1972 Summit Series. This helps me reconnect whenever I question the state of hockey:

 

[Ogopogo*]

Well, we're Oiler fans who have stared a decade of darkness straight in the eyes. Our pain would have broken many other fan bases, not us. We're the best fans in the NHL. I can't wait until we have our first home playoff game in the new arena and remind fans (ignorant American fans in particular) how tribal and berserk an Edmonton crowd can be.

Eras come and go. This was not the first dead puck era. The 1950s was the first dead puck era, eventually the skilled Montreal Canadien teams of the 1970s and the talented New York Islanders teams of the early 1980s preceded the glory of the free wheeling 1980s Oilers dynasty.

Re-watch the 1972 Summit Series. This helps me reconnect whenever I question the state of hockey:

The '72 series was fun as well - really any NHL-level hockey from the 70s and 80s was great to watch.

What people call good coaching and good technical goaltending is simply a weakness in the sport. When you can plug holes so tightly that the game becomes boring, you have ruined the game. Sport should be fun to play and fun to watch - a challenge to score but also a challenge to prevent the other team from scoring. The game has devolved to a place where it is easy to prevent goals and very difficult to score them - the balance is out of whack and that kills the entertainment value of hockey.

MLB lowered the mound in the late 60s because pitching became too dominant and it was too hard to score. The NBA introduced a shot clock in the 50s because it became too easy to control the ball, eat up time, not score and bore people. The NFL tweaked the rules in the late 70s to encourage more passing and liven up a boring game. It is hockey's turn to fix their game. How much longer can they continue to serve us hamburger and try to convince us it is prime rib?

 

[snipes]

The '72 series was fun as well - really any NHL-level hockey from the 70s and 80s was great to watch.

What people call good coaching and good technical goaltending is simply a weakness in the sport. When you can plug holes so tightly that the game becomes boring, you have ruined the game. Sport should be fun to play and fun to watch - a challenge to score but also a challenge to prevent the other team from scoring. The game has devolved to a place where it is easy to prevent goals and very difficult to score them - the balance is out of whack and that kills the entertainment value of hockey.

MLB lowered the mound in the late 60s because pitching became too dominant and it was too hard to score. The NBA introduced a shot clock in the 50s because it became too easy to control the ball, eat up time, not score and bore people. The NFL tweaked the rules in the late 70s to encourage more passing and liven up a boring game. It is hockey's turn to fix their game. How much longer can they continue to serve us hamburger and try to convince us it is prime rib?

It doesn't matter the era or style of play. We can rise to the occasion. Free wheeling 1980s? We settled the questions of whose best are the best. See: Canada Cup history (the one time we lost in 1981 -- Canadian people raised money out of pocket to give the Soviets a trophy to take back home). Current era? 3 of 4 Olympic Gold medals (7 of 8 if you include the Women). 2015 and 2016 WHC Gold Medal. We're in a Golden Era (not a Golden Age because this is not the first, and won't be the last era of hegemony).

For those who don't want to watch the full video I posted above, start at 55:58. That's the Canadian Way.

 

[Ogopogo*]

It doesn't matter the era or style of play. We can rise to the occasion. Free wheeling 1980s? We settled the questions of whose best are the best. See: Canada Cup history (the one time we lost in 1981 -- Canadian people raised money out of pocket to give the Soviets a trophy to take back home). Current era? 3 of 4 Olympic Gold medals (7 of 8 if you include the Women). 2015 and 2016 WHC Gold Medal. We're in a Golden Era (not a Golden Age because this is not the first, and won't be the last era of hegemony).

For those who don't want to watch the full video I posted above, start at 55:58. That's the Canadian Way.

It's not about Canada winning and losing for me - it is the entertainment value of the game. The 2014 Gold Medal game was one of the most boring hockey games I have ever seen in my life, I didn't care that Canada won. I was bored by the game itself.

I will take an entertaining loss over a boring win any day.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Canada is in golden age. In the future it will be USA, Finland taking olympic golds from Canada.

 

[snipes]

It's not about Canada winning and losing for me - it is the entertainment value of the game. The 2014 Gold Medal game was one of the most boring hockey games I have ever seen in my life, I didn't care that Canada won. I was bored by the game itself.

I will take an entertaining loss over a boring win any day.

Really?

2014 in the Sochi Olympics was a defensive clinic. I enjoyed it. That team was absolutely suffocating, the same way the 2015 & 2016 WHC teams were. In the 2014 Olympic games, we gave up 3 goals in 6 games. 3 Goals Against was the least amount given up by a Gold medal winner since the 1928 Canadian Olympic team. The best defensive performance in nearly 100 years!! Think about it. That was special.

They smothered the opposition, it wasn't defensive dominance through a collapsing D (i.e. Finland). We controlled the puck and the pace. Our cycle game gave European teams fits, they couldn't defend it. We controlled the puck and owned the offensive pressure. They literally had no answer for us.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Really?

2014 in the Sochi Olympics was a defensive clinic. I enjoyed it. That team was absolutely suffocating, the same way the 2015 & 2016 WHC teams were. In the 2014 Olympic games, we gave up 3 goals in 6 games. 3 Goals Against was the least amount given up by a Gold medal winner since the 1928 Canadian Olympic team. The best defensive performance in nearly 100 years!! Think about it. That was special.

They smothered the opposition, it wasn't defensive dominance through a collapsing D (i.e. Finland). We controlled the puck and the pace. Our cycle game gave European teams fits, they couldn't defend it. We controlled the puck and owned the offensive pressure. They literally had no answer for us.

It was special in that I literally dozed off three times during that game. The game of hockey is broken and until they fix it, I won't be in a hurry to watch a tournament like this. I hope Oiler players get through it without injury so they can be ready for the NHL season - which in itself is boring because of the way the game is played.

I am enough of a hockey fan that I still watch the Oilers when I have the time but I won't watch two random teams go at it. I used to watch 82 Oilers games and probably 40 or 50 others per season. Today I watch maybe 10 Oilers games and no games that don't involve the Oilers.

The game is broken and hard to watch most nights. The 2014 Gold Medal game was painfully boring - I saw nothing special that morning other than the inside of my eyelids when I dozed off. Give me talent over systems, show me some creativity over stifling defense. There is nothing special or entertaining about watching Joe Lunchbucket grind out a 2-1 win.

The other thing about international hockey tournaments is that, Canada has won so many times, it's nothing special when they win one more. It makes no difference to me who wins an international tournament, I just hope the Oilers playing do well and do not get injured.

 

[snipes]

Canada is in golden age. In the future it will be USA, Finland taking olympic golds from Canada.

Golden Era.

A Golden Age implicitly implies a singular period of greatness and apex performance/dominance, this isn't the first Canadian period of unquestioned dominance. A period of hockey performance that all reasonable hockey fans recognize as the best team of their age, as well subsequent Gold Medal/Cup victories are required to cement the legacy and historical record.

This isn't the first period of time and it won't be the last for Canadian hegemony. It is a Golden Era, not a Golden Age. The Soviets had a Golden Age playing against European teams and Canadian/American amateur teams from the late 1950-80s.

In my view, if we are putting an asterisk next to the 2016 World Cup, then the Soviet era needs the same critical observation that they couldn't beat Canadas very best consistently. Thus, the record needs to note that they didn't beat the best during their Gold medal runs. For posterity, the Soviets were Canadas best competition and regularly beat NHL teams in exhibition games and gave the 1970s Montreal Canadiens (best NHL team at the time) one of their best tests. The Montreal crowd gave Tretiak a standing ovation after his heroic performance on New Years Eve in 1975.

When our best played the Soviets best, we owned best-on-best competition. Summit Series in 1972, Canada Cup -- 1976, 1984, 1987, 1991. The Soviets took the 1981 Canada Cup.

The Soviets also took the 1979 Challenge Cup. Arguably the closest comparable to the 2016 World Cup of Hockey. They defeated a group of NHL all stars that contained Canadian and Swedish players. Thus, not a true Canadian national team and therefore not meeting the best-on-best definition.

Enough historical knowledge being shared, you're right in observing Canada is in the midst of a Golden time. And our era doesn't seem to be ending any time soon, it's not arrogance if you are observing what you believe to be true without demeaning your opponent. Our best are simply better than everyone else's best. We've shown this throughout the early history of hockey, and during the late 1970s-1980s and early 1990s. Now we are showing it from I guess 2005-onwards. It started with 5 straight WJCs and continues onwards in our current era as seen in the 2010 and 2014 Olympics. Canada is set to be absolutely dominant well into the late 2020s and 2030s analyzing the next generation slowly taking the torch from the current Golden generation who will pass on the knowledge and Canadian Way to the next generation (i.e. Ekblad, McDavid, Hall, Parayko, Rielly, et al).

 

[snipes]

It was special in that I literally dozed off three times during that game. The game of hockey is broken and until they fix it, I won't be in a hurry to watch a tournament like this. I hope Oiler players get through it without injury so they can be ready for the NHL season - which in itself is boring because of the way the game is played.

I am enough of a hockey fan that I still watch the Oilers when I have the time but I won't watch two random teams go at it. I used to watch 82 Oilers games and probably 40 or 50 others per season. Today I watch maybe 10 Oilers games and no games that don't involve the Oilers.

The game is broken and hard to watch most nights. The 2014 Gold Medal game was painfully boring - I saw nothing special that morning other than the inside of my eyelids when I dozed off. Give me talent over systems, show me some creativity over stifling defense. There is nothing special or entertaining about watching Joe Lunchbucket grind out a 2-1 win.

The other thing about international hockey tournaments is that, Canada has won so many times, it's nothing special when they win one more. It makes no difference to me who wins an international tournament, I just hope the Oilers playing do well and do not get injured.

Only 10 games??

Don't blame you, it's not rational to support our team. I've stood by out of love for the team and blind faith. With McDavid on our team now, I don't know how you could only watch 10 games. He's more talented than anyone else on the planet. He's mesmerizing and every time he steps on the ice, both Oiler fans and our opponents have their eyes glued to him. He has the same quality Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and Howe had before him. His talent is undeniable to everyone, you don't need to be a hockey historian or expert to see that he's in a class of his own and can do things no one else can do.

People want to link McDavid to Gretzky because they both wore the Oiler crest. I don't see it. McDavid is more like Orr and Kharlamov with his skating abilities and skills that are so obviously better than everyone else in his era. Hopefully the Hockey Gods allow McDavid to stay healthy and reward us for our suffering and remaining loyal to the Oilers in the face of pure hopelessness on the ice.

 

[Jablkon]

I don't think it's off base at all, the NHL is a business and expecting them not to behave like one is crazy. I will again say that the IOC is the main culprit here and it should be easy to understand why the NHL will forego the Olympics (if that's what happens). The World Cup will make money for the NHL, the Olympics would cost them money. It's not complicated.


Of course people can share their opinion, that's also what I'm doing. In my opinion, some people seem to think that the NHL owes them something, that the NHL has some kind of responsibility to do this or that and those people are off base - the NHL is a business and they are free to do what they feel is in their best interest, period. In my opinion, the NHL made a mistake with these gimmick teams but there's no reason for people to take it personally as some seem to be doing. As I've said before, I think they made a mistake, they will learn from it and next time around, there will be no gimmick teams. And if people really want to see NHL players at the Olympics, they should be boycotting the Olympics because the IOC is refusing to cover costs instead of boycotting the World Cup.

Also - the World Cup is not "the international stage" and as far as I can tell, the NHL is well within their rights to hold this tournament if they like, if other federations say they don't want to participate, that's fine too, of course they can do what they like.

"JMHO.


Well Jack Slater has earlier said the these tournaments have been largely ignored by Europeans, maybe he can give details as I haven't done any research on that. Perhaps that's not a lack of respect but it does make it seem odd if those same people are complaining about the format of something they have been ignoring in the past. And there was one poster who made a great many posts in another thread about how these tournaments are 100% meaningless and insisted the level of play was the same as the level of play in the All-Star games. This was all the more bizarre as he admitted he never watched the games, yes such people do exist. I'm sure he's in a very small minority, you know how it is, the people who don't have a clue are usually the loudest ...

We have some different opinions on some things, but nothing really controversial or crucial. As I perceive it, european fans are very sensitive to NHL behaviour on int. stage. When you know that your domestic league has two or three int breaks every year, you can hardly understand to argues about one break in four years. All the leagues are bussiness, and trust me its even harder to find money for it here. i dont know whether IOC or NHL made mistake, but what JackSlater said is true, it has been on the table for long long time since maybe 2004 and it cames from NHL which made people red because they simply cant get it.

Where we dont find conclusion is your interpretation of NHL moves in present WC. You call it mistake. Others, including me, call it clear intention to ommit other teams just for more income. If there was no such a big voice against it they would do it again imo...

Speaking about interest of european fans. I dont remember 91 or earlier ones but 96 and 04 had some interest here, definetely because it was partly held in Europe. I remember czech fans throwing everything on ice during our blow out against Germany in 96. This is a sign of interest. 04 was similar. True is that I was only one of few among my friends who watched semifinal against Canada, no one wanted to wake up so early. But everybody watched games in Nagano. So OGs are on top, then I would go for WHC and WC on third place - it does not have mass reputation here but people interested in hockey are talking about it....

 

[Canuckistani]

If the NHL wants out of the Olympics, it's probably because the IOC won't cover expenses.

The Bill Daly quote I presented is from January 2015. The IOC backed out of covering NHL insurance costs four months ago. If anything the insurance issue is an excuse for owners to do what they wanted to anyway.

So 90% of tickets have been sold hmm, not to shabby for a bust. Single game tickets haven't been available, it's the summer so people aren't paying attention, tickets are expensive, the Blue Jays are in a pennant race, the Olympics are going on plus I've been told nobody cares about this event ... how did this happen?

There's a reason the NHL is holding this thing in Toronto. The Leafs sell out despite a horrid team and no cup since the Vietnam war. So I'm not surprised the NHL can sell tickets here to a supposed "best-on-best".

 

[scotian1]

Okay, I was willing to put up with gimmicky teams and even some advertising on the sweaters but showing digital moving ads on the boards is the bridge too far for me. Can't believe King Bettman yesterday saying what great innovations these would be and how they could be instituted during regular NHL play. Oh for the clean white boards of the past. The game has become second fiddle.

 

[jj cale]

MLB lowered the mound in the late 60s because pitching became too dominant and it was too hard to score. The NBA introduced a shot clock in the 50s because it became too easy to control the ball, eat up time, not score and bore people. The NFL tweaked the rules in the late 70s to encourage more passing and liven up a boring game. It is hockey's turn to fix their game. How much longer can they continue to serve us hamburger and try to convince us it is prime rib?

Which begs the question, what idea/s do you have in mind that would fix the game?

I agree with you that it needs fixing.

Hockey has tried quite a few things, none of them have worked like the quick fixes in baseball,basketball and tennis unfortunately.

 

[Canuckistani]

Really?

2014 in the Sochi Olympics was a defensive clinic. I enjoyed it. That team was absolutely suffocating, the same way the 2015 & 2016 WHC teams were. In the 2014 Olympic games, we gave up 3 goals in 6 games. 3 Goals Against was the least amount given up by a Gold medal winner since the 1928 Canadian Olympic team. The best defensive performance in nearly 100 years!! Think about it. That was special.

They smothered the opposition, it wasn't defensive dominance through a collapsing D (i.e. Finland). We controlled the puck and the pace. Our cycle game gave European teams fits, they couldn't defend it. We controlled the puck and owned the offensive pressure. They literally had no answer for us.

Canada did put on a memorable defensive clinic but overall the Sochi olympics was probably the most boring best-on-best event ever played.

The 2015 WHC team was the polar opposite: a high-scoring machine that destroyed opponents with firepower.

Both were a joy to watch in their own way.

 

[snipes]

Canada did put on a memorable defensive clinic but overall the Sochi olympics was probably the most boring best-on-best event ever played.

The 2015 WHC team was the polar opposite: a high-scoring machine that destroyed opponents with firepower.

Both were a joy to watch in their own way.

Best Team Canada jerseys. Domination throughout. We crushed Russia, I enjoyed every second, apparently it was an awesome atmosphere on the streets in Prague.

 

[Canuckistani]

In my view, if we are putting an asterisk next to the 2016 World Cup, then the Soviet era needs the same critical observation that they couldn't beat Canadas very best consistently. Thus, the record needs to note that they didn't beat the best during their Gold medal runs.

I would argue that the Soviets proved more than enough at the top level, especially in the late 70s-early 80s.

They destroyed the NHL stars 6-0 at the 1979 Challenge Cup, crushed the opposition at the 1979 WHC (beating Czechs 11-1, 6-1 and Sweden 9-3, 11-3), lost a fluke at the 1980 Olympics, ruined Canada's best 8-1 at the Canada Cup, and then humiliated Sweden 13-1 on their home ice at the WHC. The 1982-83 WHC saw the usual dominance, same at the 1984 Olympics, and then a close OT loss in the 1984 Canada Cup semi.

That was an undisputed Soviet Gold Age.

Canada's most Golden Age would have to be 2002-2005 and now 2014-present.

 

[JackSlater]

But it is relevant to Olympic participation which is being discussed - you even discuss it later in the same paragraph - see bolded parts.

I don't know if you even read the posts in context or if you just reply to each as if it was the only post. The irrelevant part is the IOC, as is obvious given what I replied to. The IOC's decision is irrelevant when discussing the significance of this tournament. The role that this tournament plays in the NHL's removal from the Olympics is relevant to discussion of this tournament. Both things are related to the NHL's removal from the Olympics, but only the latter is relevant to discussion of this tournament. I hope you can follow that.

So you don't care about the NHL's issues, you only care about your own concerns and if the NHL does something you don't like, you'll complain even if the NHL is completely justified in their actions. Got it. And BTW, profits aren't the only issue, you should know this as you claim to have been following these issues closely and are supposedly well informed.

Of course I don't particularly care about the NHL's concerns unless the stability of the league is at stake. I am a fan, not an owner. The NHL doesn't want to go, but going doesn't really cost the league very much, so there is no reason for me to be against NHL participation unless I, as a fan, find that the negatives outweigh the positives.

Yes they are different things, thank you for stating the obvious. They are also both parts of the same entity and share a common interest.

You're welcome. I'm growing very tired of having to state the obvious for someone who apparently didn't follow the discussion he is trying to participate in and attempts to define the NHL (obviously the teams and owners) in a different way than pretty much anyone else who discusses the issue. The league is the entity, the payers are essentially the employees. No one talks about the employees as though they are the company itself.

For some people, there are also things to like though - the fact that there is a World Cup at all for example. It may not be a positive for you but it is for others. It seems like some people only want to harp on the negative as if that's all there is. Kind of sad IMO.

Once again, you should actually read the context of the post if you want to comment. The person I quoted said "what's not to like?" and thus I listed the answer to that exact question. Your comment is completely irrelevant, yet again, since it has literally nothing to do with my answer to a very specific question. If he had asked "gee, are there things that people like here?" then your reply would have at least a semblance of relevance.

Who are those? Because I was really surprised by the amount of whining about WCH when I was reading this and other WCH-bashing threads. On russian forums most of the hockey fans are really excited about this event and looking forward to it. They take it seriously and really want to win. And no one cares that some teams are 'gimmicks' because nobody wants to see easy wins over the weak teams, with NA and Europe mashed teams this tournament is much stronger.
I think you people are just too spoiled by high-end live hockey, if this World Cup was held in Russia it would've been a huuuge deal here.

P.S. Also, Russian roster won't be the best either. No Radulov and Kovalchuk. No Voynov (he didn't deserve a spot though, he was nothing special last season). Instead we have Kulemin, Nesterov, Telegin, Namestnikov (he could be useful though). So I wouldn't be surprised if we lose to Youngstars and fail to qualify to the semis.

That is interesting to hear, since European fans have been quite consistent in their claims that the tournament is not highly regarded in Europe. Interested to see if any other fans from Russia verify this.

That is great to hear I always knew that the incredibly ridiculous claims as "no one cares in Europe" were just that - ridiculous nonsense. I have always believed there's many fans who certainly like and will watch the tournament and I'm glad that your post is indicating something completely opposite than what some posters have been pushing here.

So you are going to ignore that the majority of European fans say one thing, but then accept as truth the one person who says what you want to hear? I'm not surprised, but it is pretty funny to see it written out. As someone who has defended Canada/World Cups before I am actually interested in evidence that Europeans actually have cared about these tournaments, but it is still funny to see such a blatant example of someone seeing what they want to see written out.

One guy says it's no big deal - you refuse to believe it.

Another guy, who's still just *one* guy, says it is a big deal - you immediately believe it.


Nice confirmation bias there.

Indeed, it's probably my favourite post in the thread thus far.

In my view, if we are putting an asterisk next to the 2016 World Cup, then the Soviet era needs the same critical observation that they couldn't beat Canadas very best consistently. Thus, the record needs to note that they didn't beat the best during their Gold medal runs. For posterity, the Soviets were Canadas best competition and regularly beat NHL teams in exhibition games and gave the 1970s Montreal Canadiens (best NHL team at the time) one of their best tests. The Montreal crowd gave Tretiak a standing ovation after his heroic performance on New Years Eve in 1975.

When our best played the Soviets best, we owned best-on-best competition. Summit Series in 1972, Canada Cup -- 1976, 1984, 1987, 1991. The Soviets took the 1981 Canada Cup.

The Soviets also took the 1979 Challenge Cup. Arguably the closest comparable to the 2016 World Cup of Hockey. They defeated a group of NHL all stars that contained Canadian and Swedish players. Thus, not a true Canadian national team and therefore not meeting the best-on-best definition.

The Soviets in the 70s/80s consistently played the top Canadians very close. No country can claim that it "owned" best on best competition in that time. Soviet teams were weakened in 1976 and 1991 (by their own choosing, to be fair) and there were structural advantages for Canada in other tournaments. Looking at the big picture, with the various Soviet challenges and the Canada Cup tournaments, the teams look pretty equal. Honestly I would give an edge to the Soviets given the context.

Well Jack Slater has earlier said the these tournaments have been largely ignored by Europeans, maybe he can give details as I haven't done any research on that. Perhaps that's not a lack of respect but it does make it seem odd if those same people are complaining about the format of something they have been ignoring in the past. And there was one poster who made a great many posts in another thread about how these tournaments are 100% meaningless and insisted the level of play was the same as the level of play in the All-Star games. This was all the more bizarre as he admitted he never watched the games, yes such people do exist. I'm sure he's in a very small minority, you know how it is, the people who don't have a clue are usually the loudest ...

My information is based on the majority of European posters who posted about Canada/World Cups of the past. Old threads detailing the Canada/World Cups featured most European fans saying that the tournaments were not well regarded in Europe, viewed as lower than the World Championships etc. I am interested to know if this is not true, because it means that many people trying to take shots at the World/Canada Cups of the past were liars.

 

[1Gold Standard]

I don't know if you even read the posts in context or if you just reply to each as if it was the only post. The irrelevant part is the IOC, as is obvious given what I replied to. The IOC's decision is irrelevant when discussing the significance of this tournament. The role that this tournament plays in the NHL's removal from the Olympics is relevant to discussion of this tournament. Both things are related to the NHL's removal from the Olympics, but only the latter is relevant to discussion of this tournament. I hope you can follow that.



Of course I don't particularly care about the NHL's concerns unless the stability of the league is at stake. I am a fan, not an owner. The NHL doesn't want to go, but going doesn't really cost the league very much, so there is no reason for me to be against NHL participation unless I, as a fan, find that the negatives outweigh the positives.




You're welcome. I'm growing very tired of having to state the obvious for someone who apparently didn't follow the discussion he is trying to participate in and attempts to define the NHL (obviously the teams and owners) in a different way than pretty much anyone else who discusses the issue. The league is the entity, the payers are essentially the employees. No one talks about the employees as though they are the company itself.



Once again, you should actually read the context of the post if you want to comment. The person I quoted said "what's not to like?" and thus I listed the answer to that exact question. Your comment is completely irrelevant, yet again, since it has literally nothing to do with my answer to a very specific question. If he had asked "gee, are there things that people like here?" then your reply would have at least a semblance of relevance.



That is interesting to hear, since European fans have been quite consistent in their claims that the tournament is not highly regarded in Europe. Interested to see if any other fans from Russia verify this.



So you are going to ignore that the majority of European fans say one thing, but then accept as truth the one person who says what you want to hear? I'm not surprised, but it is pretty funny to see it written out. As someone who has defended Canada/World Cups before I am actually interested in evidence that Europeans actually have cared about these tournaments, but it is still funny to see such a blatant example of someone seeing what they want to see written out.



Indeed, it's probably my favourite post in the thread thus far.



The Soviets in the 70s/80s consistently played the top Canadians very close. No country can claim that it "owned" best on best competition in that time. Soviet teams were weakened in 1976 and 1991 (by their own choosing, to be fair) and there were structural advantages for Canada in other tournaments. Looking at the big picture, with the various Soviet challenges and the Canada Cup tournaments, the teams look pretty equal. Honestly I would give an edge to the Soviets given the context.



My information is based on the majority of European posters who posted about Canada/World Cups of the past. Old threads detailing the Canada/World Cups featured most European fans saying that the tournaments were not well regarded in Europe, viewed as lower than the World Championships etc. I am interested to know if this is not true, because it means that many people trying to take shots at the World/Canada Cups of the past were liars.

The Russian hockey websites I peruse have little to zero coverage of the World Cup. So, difficult to say if the poster is correct there or not. Granted, this is my first week back from vaca, so I've been out of the loop.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Which begs the question, what idea/s do you have in mind that would fix the game?

I agree with you that it needs fixing.

Hockey has tried quite a few things, none of them have worked like the quick fixes in baseball,basketball and tennis unfortunately.

Two things:

1. Goaltending equipment back to the size of what 70s goaltenders wore. Dryden was 6'4" and did fine with it. Keep the light stuff but go back to that size to give shooters a chance at actually scoring a goal on a great shot.

2. 60 minutes of 4 on 4. There is not enough space for the creative players to be creative - defensive systems stifle everything. 60 minutes of 4 on 4 will open things up and bring back creativity. No, Olympic sized ice will not help - space farther away from the goal does nothing - as we witnessed in the 2014 Olympic gold medal game.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Finally. Canadas most worthy enemy, Russia has come alive. Come on Russian Bear, Suomi is about to pass you as Canadas hockey equal . A hockey tournament featuring the best players in the world and on Canadian soil? It has to be Canada v Russia. Let's battle.

In all seriousness, I think Russia finishes #1 in their group. Ovechkin will prove in group play why he deserves to force the historical record to reflect our current NHL era as the Crosby/Ovechkin era. I anticipate Russia going 3-0 in group play and facing Canada for the Cup.

I've got Russia over the NA Young Guns. Russian fans will come away saying McDavid is the best player in the world, but I don't think he has enough to lead us (NA) to victory over Russia. Sweden is better on paper, but I think Ovechkin and the boys will beat them and the Finns.

Russia cannot let the Finns overtake them as our equal right now. I'm deep down cheering for Russia in group play. I want to battle Russia for Gold/The Cup. No other nation I want to battle for hockey supremacy. I'm glad to see the Russian people are excited about this tournament. Your people treated the Canadian boys well in St. Petersburg (apparently Hall, Marchand, and the boys had a very good time enjoying the night life in your gorgeous city).

Bring your best Russia. You are our enemy, but also the hockey nation we respect the most. Your people treated Canada kindly during the 2016 WHC and Putin was graceful to our nation. Respect.

Let's celebrate hockey together and settle our differences on the ice. Good luck Russia. See you for the Cup . No matter who wins, we show respect to each other as equals.

Agree 100%. There's nothing Canada vs Russia hockey and I really hope that's what we see in the final.

I think many of us (I don't speak for all of course), just love hockey. It's a pure childlike love of the game. When we see other countries show love for hockey too, we engage with it. We want other countries to challenge us at our game, it brings out the best in us.

Our fervent passion for hockey and warlike frothing at the mouth love for sharing with the world our game through intense hockey is a peculiar characteristic of many Canadian hockey fans. You wouldn't know it from HFInternational, but most Canadians are kind and sweet people who will apologize if someone purposefully bumped into them. Accidentally getting in another persons way and both people saying "sorry" while bowing their heads simultaneously is like a Canadian greeting .

Maybe hockey is a cathartic release for many of us. They always used to talk about how kind and gentle Gordie Howe was off the ice, but on the ice he was a fierce and menacing person. Gordie was ****ing frightening to play against. He would smash opposition players facial bones without remorse when the game was on, afterwards he would be soft spoken and modest in a way uniquely Canadian way.

I'm enjoying your posts ITT, you're doing a good job of capturing well what it means to be a Canadian and a hockey fan.

I remember being with some Estonians visiting Canada for the first time and they were so baffled - "I bump into someone, and they say sorry, WTF is going on here?".

Canada is in golden age. In the future it will be USA, Finland taking olympic golds from Canada.

How far in the future are we talking here, 100 years? 200?

Seriously though, good luck to you. I would advise to not set your expectations too high though. I understand that you have some good young players coming up the pipe and I would be excited and hopeful for the future in your place as well but you should understand that Canada isn't exactly starving for promising prospects either and you have a very long way to go to knock us off the throne. That said, I have tremendous respect for your country and your hockey program has improved tremendously over the years (back in the 70s I remember Finland as an afterthought, now you can beat anyone on any given day) and when you do break through, I will be happy for you. I am also Estonian by birth so I also consider myself a friendly neighbour to you. If Canada doesn't win the World Cup, Finland would be my second choice. Good luck!

We have some different opinions on some things, but nothing really controversial or crucial. As I perceive it, european fans are very sensitive to NHL behaviour on int. stage. When you know that your domestic league has two or three int breaks every year, you can hardly understand to argues about one break in four years. All the leagues are bussiness, and trust me its even harder to find money for it here. i dont know whether IOC or NHL made mistake, but what JackSlater said is true, it has been on the table for long long time since maybe 2004 and it cames from NHL which made people red because they simply cant get it.

Where we dont find conclusion is your interpretation of NHL moves in present WC. You call it mistake. Others, including me, call it clear intention to ommit other teams just for more income. If there was no such a big voice against it they would do it again imo...

Speaking about interest of european fans. I dont remember 91 or earlier ones but 96 and 04 had some interest here, definetely because it was partly held in Europe. I remember czech fans throwing everything on ice during our blow out against Germany in 96. This is a sign of interest. 04 was similar. True is that I was only one of few among my friends who watched semifinal against Canada, no one wanted to wake up so early. But everybody watched games in Nagano. So OGs are on top, then I would go for WHC and WC on third place - it does not have mass reputation here but people interested in hockey are talking about it....

I'm not sure how omitting other teams leads to more income. Is it because including those teams would lead to unsold tickets because they're less competitive and therefore less attractive to ticket buyers?

The Bill Daly quote I presented is from January 2015. The IOC backed out of covering NHL insurance costs four months ago. If anything the insurance issue is an excuse for owners to do what they wanted to anyway.

There's a reason the NHL is holding this thing in Toronto. The Leafs sell out despite a horrid team and no cup since the Vietnam war. So I'm not surprised the NHL can sell tickets here to a supposed "best-on-best".

I've read this several times here, Jack Slater was another who recently said the same thing - you're completely ignoring sales in places like Ohio. Ignoring good sales in places that are not exactly hot hockey markets shows a lack of objectivity IMO.

Okay, I was willing to put up with gimmicky teams and even some advertising on the sweaters but showing digital moving ads on the boards is the bridge too far for me. Can't believe King Bettman yesterday saying what great innovations these would be and how they could be instituted during regular NHL play. Oh for the clean white boards of the past. The game has become second fiddle.

Agree 100%, the very idea of these ads makes me want to puke.

Canada did put on a memorable defensive clinic but overall the Sochi olympics was probably the most boring best-on-best event ever played.

The 2015 WHC team was the polar opposite: a high-scoring machine that destroyed opponents with firepower.

Both were a joy to watch in their own way.

Agreed. It's "easier" to enjoy firewagon hockey but that doesn't mean low scoring games can't also be a joy to watch.

I would argue that the Soviets proved more than enough at the top level, especially in the late 70s-early 80s.

They destroyed the NHL stars 6-0 at the 1979 Challenge Cup, crushed the opposition at the 1979 WHC (beating Czechs 11-1, 6-1 and Sweden 9-3, 11-3), lost a fluke at the 1980 Olympics, ruined Canada's best 8-1 at the Canada Cup, and then humiliated Sweden 13-1 on their home ice at the WHC. The 1982-83 WHC saw the usual dominance, same at the 1984 Olympics, and then a close OT loss in the 1984 Canada Cup semi.

That was an undisputed Soviet Gold Age.

Canada's most Golden Age would have to be 2002-2005 and now 2014-present.

I agree that the Soviets in the 70/80s were basically Canada's equals as some of Canada's victories could easily have gone the other way.

I don't know if you even read the posts in context or if you just reply to each as if it was the only post. The irrelevant part is the IOC, as is obvious given what I replied to. The IOC's decision is irrelevant when discussing the significance of this tournament. The role that this tournament plays in the NHL's removal from the Olympics is relevant to discussion of this tournament. Both things are related to the NHL's removal from the Olympics, but only the latter is relevant to discussion of this tournament. I hope you can follow that.

Of course I don't particularly care about the NHL's concerns unless the stability of the league is at stake. I am a fan, not an owner. The NHL doesn't want to go, but going doesn't really cost the league very much, so there is no reason for me to be against NHL participation unless I, as a fan, find that the negatives outweigh the positives.

You're welcome. I'm growing very tired of having to state the obvious for someone who apparently didn't follow the discussion he is trying to participate in and attempts to define the NHL (obviously the teams and owners) in a different way than pretty much anyone else who discusses the issue. The league is the entity, the payers are essentially the employees. No one talks about the employees as though they are the company itself.

Once again, you should actually read the context of the post if you want to comment. The person I quoted said "what's not to like?" and thus I listed the answer to that exact question. Your comment is completely irrelevant, yet again, since it has literally nothing to do with my answer to a very specific question. If he had asked "gee, are there things that people like here?" then your reply would have at least a semblance of relevance.

Jack, I see that polite discussion with you is impossible and your posts ITT are growing more and more obnoxious. When people do that, I get more and more tempted to respond in kind (which I don't like to do) so my only response to this post is to say goodbye - I won't be responding to you any more. Plonk.

Two things:

1. Goaltending equipment back to the size of what 70s goaltenders wore. Dryden was 6'4" and did fine with it. Keep the light stuff but go back to that size to give shooters a chance at actually scoring a goal on a great shot.

2. 60 minutes of 4 on 4. There is not enough space for the creative players to be creative - defensive systems stifle everything. 60 minutes of 4 on 4 will open things up and bring back creativity. No, Olympic sized ice will not help - space farther away from the goal does nothing - as we witnessed in the 2014 Olympic gold medal game.

I like #1 and have mixed feelings about #2. I agree it would probably be a better game in many ways but as a bit of a purist, I'd have a hard time getting used to it. I'm also not going to think about it too much more as it's only a theoretical exercise, the players association would never agree to this due to the number of jobs lost.

 

[Canuckistani]

I've read this several times here, Jack Slater was another who recently said the same thing - you're completely ignoring sales in places like Ohio. Ignoring good sales in places that are not exactly hot hockey markets shows a lack of objectivity IMO.

Strong ticket sales don't necessarily point to more widespread interest for an event in a given city or country.

In 1996 San Jose sold-out for a Canada-USA world cup exhibition, while Detroit drew 18,000 for a Russia-USA exhibition. The tournament itself saw sellouts (or near sellouts) in Philadelphia and NYC.

Same story in 2004: Columbus drew 14,000 for exhibitions while St Paul sold-out twice and fell about 800 short for another two games.

Yet despite that strong attendance, both world cups didn't exactly stir up a lot of general interest in the US or even in the hosting cities.

It's different in Canada, of course, but so far in Toronto there isn't exactly a buzz for this thing. Although I suspect things will pick up after the Olympics.

 

[JackSlater]

I've read this several times here, Jack Slater was another who recently said the same thing - you're completely ignoring sales in places like Ohio. Ignoring good sales in places that are not exactly hot hockey markets shows a lack of objectivity IMO.

I said no such thing. I said that the tournament will sell tickets here. I said that the tournament will largely be ignored in the United States. Both are fairly obvious points, the first is a certainty and the second is nearly certain. Just like the other editions of the tournament, Canadians will pay attention in large numbers, the other nations will not for the most part.

Jack, I see that polite discussion with you is impossible and your posts ITT are growing more and more obnoxious. When people do that, I get more and more tempted to respond in kind (which I don't like to do) so my only response to this post is to say goodbye - I won't be responding to you any more. Plonk.

Such is your right. I recommend actually following the context of the posts you attempt to reply to in the future in order to avoid making irrelevant comments.

Strong ticket sales don't necessarily point to more widespread interest for an event in a given city or country.

In 1996 San Jose sold-out for a Canada-USA world cup exhibition, while Detroit drew 18,000 for a Russia-USA exhibition. The tournament itself saw sellouts (or near sellouts) in Philadelphia and NYC.

Same story in 2004: Columbus drew 14,000 for exhibitions while St Paul sold-out twice and fell about 800 short for another two games.

Yet despite that strong attendance, both world cups didn't exactly stir up a lot of general interest in the US or even in the hosting cities.

It's different in Canada, of course, but so far in Toronto there isn't exactly a buzz for this thing. Although I suspect things will pick up after the Olympics.

Funny thing is that the success/failure of the tournament (which will ultimately be subjective) will be used to either validate or reject the tournament. The problems with this tournament have nothing to do with how many people do or do not watch it.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Strong ticket sales don't necessarily point to more widespread interest for an event in a given city or country.

In 1996 San Jose sold-out for a Canada-USA world cup exhibition, while Detroit drew 18,000 for a Russia-USA exhibition. The tournament itself saw sellouts (or near sellouts) in Philadelphia and NYC.

Same story in 2004: Columbus drew 14,000 for exhibitions while St Paul sold-out twice and fell about 800 short for another two games.

Yet despite that strong attendance, both world cups didn't exactly stir up a lot of general interest in the US or even in the hosting cities.

It's different in Canada, of course, but so far in Toronto there isn't exactly a buzz for this thing. Although I suspect things will pick up after the Olympics.

Fair enough. All I'm saying is that when people say stuff like - it's Toronto people will buy no matter what I can't help but think that that's somewhat misleading. There are other places where people are also buying tickets, as long as we acknowledge that I'm happy. There have also been a number of comments about how sales are poor, I can't help but think that these are people who are just looking for reasons to hate, 90% sold at this point isn't anywhere near poor IMO.

I also think the lack of buzz is hugely overblown. It's the summer and there's a ton going on so I doubt there would be much of a buzz even if there were no gimmick teams - the lack of buzz is in no way an indictment of the format. JMHO. The excitement will pick up in the coming weeks (though it will never be what it once was regardless of the format for reasons I've stated earlier). I've been waiting for this ever since it was announced and once we get going, I will be totally pumped and I know I'm not the only one. The people refusing to watch will be the losers here, they'll be missing out on some top-notch hockey.