Whats wrong with Russia !!!

[Jussi]

How ridiculous is this conversation? Why wouldn't "Russian officials" judge World Championships performance to get a measure of the status of the program? Why wouldn't they, if there is a good reason? Jim Nill, Team Canada GM for the 2015 WHC, was quoted in dallasnews.com as saying that Team Canada used performance in the WHC as the measure of where Canada stood for the World Cup in 2016, which, as he pointed out, was the reason so many NHL stars showed up to play for Team Canada. They want to throw their hats in the ring to get on the roster for the World Cup. So if Team Canada's GM says that the WHC was the most important measuring tool for Canada, why shouldn't Russia look at the results for the basis to make similar decisions.

Also, please stop the phony "WC results are not really indicative of much" crap! Just look at the boards - Canadians are bouncing their heads off the walls and ceilings because they are so jazzed over beating the Russians last week. The WHC ratings in Canada were double that of the Stanley Cup playoffs on the same day, so please spare us the "we're not really peeing all over ourselves" routine. Jim Nill himself put in perspective what the WHC meant to every Canadian from coast to coast this year.

From 1994-2008, Russia won 0 Gold Medals in the WHC. From 2008-15, Russia has won 4 Golds and 2 Silvers in 8 years. Why wouldn't they draw from that performance that Russian hockey has improved greatly in the last 8 years? Why would they want to ignore or discount that improvement?

I think the general point most people are saying is that Russia shouldn't put too much weight on the 2012 and 2014 titles since they had the most stacked squads compared to the competition on both times.

 

[Macman]

Facts are not debatable!

Remember that the next time somebody mentions Canada winning five of seven Canada Cup/World Cups.

 

[JackSlater]

IMHO participation is part of the equation. A country can improve its talent development but still be held back b/c of lack of participation.

To illustrate this point it may be helpful to look at other sports. Canada has made great strides in basketball lately - as measured by recruiting rankings, top NCAA players, and players making the NBA. It has not yet translated to success in international tournaments b/c participation has not been good.

E.g., at the 2013 qualifiers for the 2014 worlds, Wiggins, Olynyk, Stauskas, English, and Kris Joseph, among others, took a pass, and we finished 6th, failing to qualify for the Worlds. With a full team, or even a couple of those 5 notable absences, our chances would have been much better.

Similarly, we may have done better in FIFA during the 90s if Hargreaves had played for us, or in Davis Cup play if Rusedski had played for us.

You are making my point. Participation is largely deciding the results, not the strength of the sport in that country. Canadian basketball is far stronger than ever, though the results hardly indicate that yet.

Russia should be lauded, not mocked, for its high participation at the worlds.

Further, I feel many on this board are downplaying the importance of the worlds. This is not the 1980s, when 16/21 of NHL players were not available for the tournament. With 14 teams missing the playoffs, and the worlds not starting until after the first round, 22/30 of NHL players are available, and depending on how second round goes, it is 26/30 for joining worlds in progress.

Not the full availability of Olympics, but pretty close. Further, with NHL participation in future Olympics in doubt, worlds might be closest we get to best-on-best for quite some time.

So, yes, I think Olympic performance is a better indicator of a country's true ranking than worlds performance. But I would not discount worlds performance completely. It is part of the equation (and given the small sample of Olympic results, we need to look beyond Olympics to have a meaningful basis for assessing true ranking), and although participation is a key factor in how well a country does, that is a reason to value participation rather than dismiss it.

Why are you talking about availability? Yes, many players are available. Unfortunately, in many years most of those players don't play, despite being available. Availability and participation are very different things. USA and Russia have a similar number of their best players available from year to year, but for USA those players won't participate in this tournament. Thus, there is no reasonable basis for comparison. If Canada started sending basically every available player (this year plus Doughty, Tavares, etc.) and played an American team with Matt Hendricks as captain, would that indicate anything about the level of Canadian hockey vs the level of American hockey?

The point is not to criticize Russia for having the best participation in the World Championships - anyone who can read would notice that I did not do that. It would be ideal if every country got every available player to actually participate. I criticized using the results as a measurement of one nation against another given that the participation level varies from nation to nation. It's a basic concept.

 

[Davebo*]

I give up!! If you can't even acknowledge that winning 4 Gold Medals in the last 8 years is an improvement over winning none the previous 15 years, then there is nothing left to talk about. Facts are not debatable!

The bolded is a fact. The rest - supposition.

Canada faltering in that time period can't be ruled out as why that could look like an improvement.

 

[decma]

You are making my point. Participation is largely deciding the results, not the strength of the sport in that country. Canadian basketball is far stronger than ever, though the results hardly indicate that yet.

We both agree that participation is big factor in the results. We seem to disagree on the implications of that.

Why are you talking about availability? Yes, many players are available. Unfortunately, in many years most of those players don't play, despite being available. Availability and participation are very different things. USA and Russia have a similar number of their best players available from year to year, but for USA those players won't participate in this tournament. Thus, there is no reasonable basis for comparison. If Canada started sending basically every available player (this year plus Doughty, Tavares, etc.) and played an American team with Matt Hendricks as captain, would that indicate anything about the level of Canadian hockey vs the level of American hockey?

How do you compare countries? Solely on Olympic results? Given the small sample, and the fact that NHL participation may be ending, I think it is necessary to put some weight on worlds results as well.

If the US has participation problems making its team far less strong than it could be, that is tough luck for the US. Just like it was tough luck for Canada that Wiggins and Olynyk didn't play in 2013.

Results matter, even though they are influenced by participation. A theoretical discussion that the US would have done better if more guys had showed up is irrelevant - those guys didn't show up. We can speculate all we want about how the US would have done, and maybe on paper they appear to be the second strongest country in terms of hockey talent, but the talent is useless if it doesn't show up.

The point is not to criticize Russia for having the best participation in the World Championships - anyone who can read would notice that I did not do that. It would be ideal if every country got every available player to actually participate. I criticized using the results as a measurement of one nation against another given that the participation level varies from nation to nation. It's a basic concept.

We seem to agree that participation and talent development are both important factors in determining a country's success in international hockey. So then why dismiss the results of a tournament on the grounds that participation varied from nation to nation?

Yes, it would be ideal if every country got every available player to actually participate. Given that that never happens, we have no choice but to use the data from the tournaments that actually do take place.

 

[JackSlater]

We both agree that participation is big factor in the results. We seem to disagree on the implications of that.

How do you compare countries? Solely on Olympic results? Given the small sample, and the fact that NHL participation may be ending, I think it is necessary to put some weight on worlds results as well.

I compare them based on the players they produce primarily. I agree that the sample size is too small, but unfortunately the World Championship isn't a useful addition to that sample.

If the US has participation problems making its team far less strong than it could be, that is tough luck for the US. Just like it was tough luck for Canada that Wiggins and Olynyk didn't play in 2013.

Results matter, even though they are influenced by participation. A theoretical discussion that the US would have done better if more guys had showed up is irrelevant - those guys didn't show up. We can speculate all we want about how the US would have done, and maybe on paper they appear to be the second strongest country in terms of hockey talent, but the talent is useless if it doesn't show up.

Results don't intrinsically matter. Just because a tournament is held, does not mean that it has value. If I hold the JackSlater invitational tomorrow and the best Canadians show up, but the rest of the world only sends some random amateur players, do those results matter too? All you're measuring with World Championship results is how well a country performs at that tournament from year to year. If we're going to talk about the level of hockey in some country, participation absolutely matters. If Russia with 50% of its best players consistently beats USA with 5% of its best players, what does that tell us about Russia at 100% against USA at 100%? Basically nothing, which I assumed was obvious.

We seem to agree that participation and talent development are both important factors in determining a country's success in international hockey. So then why dismiss the results of a tournament on the grounds that participation varied from nation to nation?

Yes, it would be ideal if every country got every available player to actually participate. Given that that never happens, we have no choice but to use the data from the tournaments that actually do take place.

The reason is obvious. If we are trying to judge the level of USA in hockey, but their players essentially won't participate, then it becomes basically impossible to assess them. All you have demonstrated is that the World Championship generates data. The problem is that the data has little value, for reasons already laid out very clearly.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

How do you compare countries?

Analysis of league individual player statistics will tell you way more about the each countries players than WHC or OG results.

 

[r0bert8841]

Russia doesn't play well as a team. Its as simple as that. With all the talent they have they should medaling every Olympics and at least put up a fight against Canada.

I am not going to speculate why they don't play well as a team because I don't think any of us can truly know. Something needs to change though. Maybe change the playing style of the team. Have the bottom 2 lines as defensive forwards/grinders instead of a redundancy of skilled forwards.

 

[RedLeaf099*]

IMO there's nothing wrong with Russia. They embody what hockey should be about - speed, skill, scoring, excitement. It's the North Americans that are ruining the game. People actually think hockey should be about grit, defense, and shot blocking. The NHL overvalues 3rd/4th line grinders for some reason. And it ruins the product. NHL hockey is boring for the most part, especially in the playoffs.

Grit, defense and shot blocking wins championships. I don't see many Russians left in the playoffs right now...

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

Grit, defense and shot blocking wins championships. I don't see many Russians left in the playoffs right now...

Kucherov, Namestnikov, Nesterov and Vasilevskiy. Granted, they're all on the same team, but that's a hilarious cliche that Russians can't be gritty.

The reigning champions, the LA Kings, missed the playoffs because they were missing a guy on defense named Slava Voynov.

This post will be funny when the Lightning finishes off the Rangers tonight.

 

[RedLeaf099*]

Kucherov, Namestnikov, Nesterov and Vasilevskiy. Granted, they're all on the same team, but that's a hilarious cliche that Russians can't be gritty.

The reigning champions, the LA Kings, missed the playoffs because they were missing a guy on defense named Slava Voynov.

This post will be funny when the Lightning finishes off the Rangers tonight.

So losing Voynov turned them from winning the Stanley Cup to missing the playoffs. Yeah..ok then. The team has won 2 cups in 3 years along with being conference finalists the third year. 64 extra games to be exact. That's almost another season's worth of games. They missed the playoffs because of fatigue. They'll be dominant again next year. With or without Voynov.

 

[Fantomas]

The above is exactly what I'm talking about. "They lose a final and we get this thread?" Well if you're satisfied at just winning the World Championships, then sure, everything is dandy but is that all you want? You used to be THE best, expecting to beat team A of every country. Now all Russia has accoulished the last 15 years is having your team B beat team C of other countries. Just A final? What about the quarter-finals at the two latest Olympics? Do Russians not care at all for the Olympics anymore?

You completely missed the point.

 

[Fantomas]

Seems to me the Russians play more for themselves than the team.

They also seem to be poor winners as well as poor losers.

Maybe I'm wrong but that's how it appears to me.....

This old gold nugget.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

So losing Voynov turned them from winning the Stanley Cup to missing the playoffs. Yeah..ok then. The team has won 2 cups in 3 years along with being conference finalists the third year. 64 extra games to be exact. That's almost another season's worth of games. They missed the playoffs because of fatigue. They'll be dominant again next year. With or without Voynov.

They missed the playoffs because of multiple things.
1- Richards becoming trash
2- No replacement for Voynov (Sekera was late to the party)
3- Mailing it in like they always do in the regular season

But yeah, you should avoid Russians in the playoffs. Tell that to the Russian 5 who were the last to win back-to-back Cups

 

[Canuck21t]

You completely missed the point.

I'm not missing the point at all. You find it ridiculous that we're saying Russia is having some sort of crisis because in your eyes winning so often the World Championships proves that Russia is successful. To most Canadians, success is when you win the most prestigious tournament, the Olympics. Improving your results compared to the '90s isn't much indication either because back then you had many refusal, the opposite of today. What got better is the Russian participation, but it doesn't show that talent has improved.

 

[Fantomas]

I'm not missing the point at all. You find it ridiculous that we're saying Russia is having some sort of crisis because in your eyes winning so often the World Championships proves that Russia is successful.

This is not what I am saying, thus you are clearly missing the point.

What I am saying was articulated clearly in my post.

 

[Fantomas]

I know that the Russian hockey federation has been aware of this defensive dearth for a while now, however there is a time period of enacting these changes that require a number of years to show effect. You start at the early levels and hopefully reap rewards after about a decade or so.

I think we will see in the next few years whether there is a transformation in development. I know that the 1998 age group has some very talented defensemen with size and skill. We will see if any of them might be future stars.

One does not wave the magic wand and transform a system overnight. There are two factors that somewhat excuse Russia's systemic problems in the noughties: a) the breakdown of infrastructure after the fall of the Soviet Union, which bled the hockey system dry, b) the poverty of the Yeltsin years, which made the sport of hockey expensive and exclusive. Doesn't hurt that the country's demographics plummeted in the 1990s (only to rise again in the 00s).

People are expecting a lot of things from a country that is recovering from severe trauma. Even most of Russia's younger, better pros (Kucherov, Tarasenko for example) grew up in that time. Most of them come from the more affluent families for obvious reasons.

We'll be seeing the Putin-era kids go through the ranks in the coming years and this is where we will know whether there is a shift. Makes no sense to blame the present mindset for older systemic problems.

 

[NyQuil]

How ridiculous is this conversation? Why wouldn't "Russian officials" judge World Championships performance to get a measure of the status of the program? Why wouldn't they, if there is a good reason? Jim Nill, Team Canada GM for the 2015 WHC, was quoted in dallasnews.com as saying that Team Canada used performance in the WHC as the measure of where Canada stood for the World Cup in 2016, which, as he pointed out, was the reason so many NHL stars showed up to play for Team Canada. They want to throw their hats in the ring to get on the roster for the World Cup. So if Team Canada's GM says that the WHC was the most important measuring tool for Canada, why shouldn't Russia look at the results for the basis to make similar decisions.

You're missing the salient point here - the WHC is only really seen by Hockey Canada as a testing platform for the more important "best-on-best" tournaments.

The results are irrelevant if the team doesn't succeed at the major tourneys.

Also, please stop the phony "WC results are not really indicative of much" crap! Just look at the boards - Canadians are bouncing their heads off the walls and ceilings because they are so jazzed over beating the Russians last week. The WHC ratings in Canada were double that of the Stanley Cup playoffs on the same day, so please spare us the "we're not really peeing all over ourselves" routine.

That's what happens when Crosby goes.

It was the highest watched WHC game of all-time, at 1.5M people.

To put that in perspective, 1.5M watched the Ottawa Senators vs. Winnipeg Jets season opener back in 2013, two of the smallest NHL markets in Canada.

Montreal vs. Toronto drew 3.3M viewers that same day.

And this is the regular season.

From 1994-2008, Russia won 0 Gold Medals in the WHC. From 2008-15, Russia has won 4 Golds and 2 Silvers in 8 years. Why wouldn't they draw from that performance that Russian hockey has improved greatly in the last 8 years? Why would they want to ignore or discount that improvement?

The only thing you can draw from this is that Russia's performances at the WHC have improved greatly in the last 8 years.

 

[Yakushev72]

I'm not missing the point at all. You find it ridiculous that we're saying Russia is having some sort of crisis because in your eyes winning so often the World Championships proves that Russia is successful. To most Canadians, success is when you win the most prestigious tournament, the Olympics. Improving your results compared to the '90s isn't much indication either because back then you had many refusal, the opposite of today. What got better is the Russian participation, but it doesn't show that talent has improved.

You are completely missing the point! Between 1994-2007, Canada, using the same type of team that they normally send to the World Championships every year, won 5 Gold Medals, while Russia won 0 Gold. Then from 2008-2015, Russia won 4 Gold and 2 Silver, while Canada didn't win Gold again until this year, with a roster consisting of World Cup locks and strong candidates. So the troll question that is the subject of this thread, "What's wrong with Russia?." is based on performance in one game, far too small a sample size to diagnose a disease. In fact, the record in the WC shows that Russia is doing far better than ever. So stop changing the subject to the Olympics - we will recapture Olympic Gold in due course!

 

[NyQuil]

In fact, the record in the WC shows that Russia is doing far better than ever. So stop changing the subject to the Olympics - we will recapture Olympic Gold in due course!

Well that should be a relief to Russians everywhere.

 

[Juppy61]

I can't comment too much on what is wrong with Russian hockey other the glaring which is the lack of top flight defensemen which we all appear to agree on.

My observation of the gold medal game:
- The Russian Teams strategy appeared to be to score on the counter attack. Canada totally neutralized that with great team defense while generating quality scoring chances of their own using team speed and creative play. Team defense means owning the puck as much as possible regardless of what zone you are in, offensive or defensive. Canada did that very well.
- Canada took advantage of the Russian defense.

I don't think there is much to fix in Russian hockey other then the glaring lack of top flight defenseman.

 

[JackSlater]

So the troll question that is the subject of this thread, "What's wrong with Russia?." is based on performance in one game, far too small a sample size to diagnose a disease.

Now this part is definitely true. No single loss, regardless of the score or stage, can be seen as indicating very much.

Well that should be a relief to Russians everywhere.

I hope that someone informs Hockey Canada about this as well. It probably means that the NHL is out of the Olympics.

 

[Milos Krasic]

It's OK people. I just saw a photo from the KHL website and Daniil (Danny for North Americans) Markov has started teaching children how to be defensemen. Russia's problems are over.

 

[NyQuil]

It's OK people. I just saw a photo from the KHL website and Daniil (Danny for North Americans) Markov has started teaching children how to be defensemen. Russia's problems are over.

There have been a fair number of talented and tough Russian and former Soviet d-men over the years.

E.g. Fetisov, Kasatonov, Zubov, Markov, Volchenkov, Gonchar, Mironovs, Zhitnik, Tverdovsky, Yushkevich, Konstantinov, Tyutin etc.

Hopefully this is a step in the right direction.

 

[Milos Krasic]

There have been a fair number of talented and tough Russian and former Soviet d-men over the years.

E.g. Fetisov, Kasatonov, Zubov, Markov, Volchenkov, Gonchar, Mironovs, Zhitnik, Tverdovsky, Yushkevich, Konstantinov, Tyutin etc.

Hopefully this is a step in the right direction.

It actually is good news. Markov was a quality defenseman. The children looked around 5 years old though, so it will take some time.