Toggle sidebar

World Cup 2016: Best On Best?

  • 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
Best on best? lol
In no way is this a best on best. Could you imagine the SC playoffs with this same format?

-The best young North Americans prohibited from playing with their teams, forced to play on a u24 team.
-The bottom tier playoff seeds, with no chance to win, are prohibited from participating. The best players on those teams chosen to form a 'best of the rest' team.

I'm sure people would consider that a best on best and legitimate SC playoffs too.:sarcasm:
 
TLeafsFan said:
But they don't. So its moot. Non issue. So upping 18 to 23 for North American teams has no bearing on the whether the World Cup is a best on best tournament for the teams that are competing in it or not.

Slovenia could never play in this tournament. Their best aren't good enough to form a team. :yo:
Click to expand...

I am impressed that you have managed now for the third time to make a laughably bad point in this thread as if it does anything but remove whatever credibility you might have had. So because 18 year old players are rarely selected to play best on best... that means that the cut off at 23 doesn't impact things? We literally know that it impacted things, since the American team asked to select players under 24. We can guess that Canada would have done so as well, both based on common sense and also Babcock's comments.

I am amazed though that you concluded that the lack of 18 year olds meant that lacking players 23 and under was fine. There is literally no valid connection there. It's worse than your attempt to define a best on best earlier.

Hanji said:
Best on best? lol
In no way is this a best on best. Could you imagine the SC playoffs with this same format?

-The best young North Americans prohibited from playing with their teams, forced to play on a u24 team.
-The bottom tier playoff seeds, with no chance to win, are prohibited from participating. The best players on those teams chosen to form a 'best of the rest' team.

I'm sure people would consider that a best on best and legitimate SC playoffs too.:sarcasm:
Click to expand...

They will refuse to accept the obvious parallel in your example. There is a decent amount of cognitive dissonance, because they want to enjoy their all star exhibition and pretend it is best on best, but they don't want the Stanley Cup playoffs changed in the exact same way.

TLeafsFan said:
No more than Canada. Plenty of capable NHLer's to ice a competitive team for the US, aged 24-35 or so.

They passed on Shattenkirk, Kessel (before he decided to get surgery) Faulk, Yandle...

There's a best on best team, there. Blame the GM, not the criteria.
Click to expand...

You're right, no more than Canada. Both are not representative best on best teams for their nations. You seem confused about something else. The criteria for best on best is not that a team is "competitive" Canada could send four competitive teams. The criteria is "best" and we can't see what they would have sent as their best because the rules prevent that from happening.
 
Tournaments and playoffs have different formats, unique to each event.

Playoffs are not a best on best. There is a large watering down of talent between the 1st and 4th lines or the top and bottom pairing.

Not so in an international event where the best players of an entire nation are formed to represent the country or as of now, continents, competing vs nations. :)
 
TLeafsFan said:
Tournaments and playoffs have different formats, unique to each event.

Playoffs are not a best on best. There is a large watering down of talent between the 1st and 4th lines or the top and bottom pairing.

Not so in an international event where the best players of an entire nation are formed to represent the country or as of now, continents, competing vs nations. :)
Click to expand...

I am impressed by your ability to wait a few days and then repeat the same wrong statements you already tried. This tournament doesn't have the best players of all the countries playing for them, because USA and Canada are not free to select all of their best. North America and Europe, and this should be obvious even to you, do not have the ability to select all of their best players. Hence, because half of the teams are literally not their best, the tournament is not best on best.
 
JackSlater said:
You're right, no more than Canada. Both are not representative best on best teams for their nations. You seem confused about something else. The criteria for best on best is not that a team is "competitive" Canada could send four competitive teams. The criteria is "best" and we can't see what they would have sent as their best because the rules prevent that from happening.
Click to expand...

Yes they are. Not my fault if you can't see it. But if you still have more than a decades worth of active NHL'ers to form a best team with to represent a Nation, that's enough to still be representative of a best team.

Team NA is also a best team in their own right and they only had a half decade's worth of players to form their team with.

Team Europe is a best team because it could choose from multiple countries.

Laugh all you want. Its all semantics about how you interpret what "best" means.

Russia, Czech, Finland, Sweden, nobody has any issues with being best teams.

But perhaps people are unhappy with the fact that their best team isn't as good as they'd hoped it would be.

C'est la vie.
 
JackSlater said:
I am impressed by your ability to wait a few days and then repeat the same wrong statements you already tried. This tournament doesn't have the best players of all the countries playing for them, because USA and Canada are not free to select all of their best. North America and Europe, and this should be obvious even to you, do not have the ability to select all of their best players. Hence, because half of the teams are literally not their best, the tournament is not best on best.
Click to expand...

This.

It's not that complicated.
 
Or perhaps we can all just agree that if this isn't a best on best tournament, than it is better and more competitive than a best on best tournament.

If you are better than best, what do you become?

The new standard of best. :)
 
TLeafsFan said:
Yes they are. Not my fault if you can't see it. But if you still have more than a decades worth of active NHL'ers to form a best team with to represent a Nation, that's enough to still be representative of a best team.

Team NA is also a best team in their own right and they only had a half decade's worth of players to form their team with.

Team Europe is a best team because it could choose from multiple countries.

Laugh all you want. Its all semantics about how you interpret what "best" means.

Russia, Czech, Finland, Sweden, nobody has any issues with being best teams.

But perhaps people are unhappy with the fact that their best team isn't as good as they'd hoped it would be.

C'est la vie.
Click to expand...

It actually seems like you don't even understand what the word best means. You seem to confuse "best" with "competitive". The Young Gunz isn't a "best team" since they don't have the best North Americans. By definition they are not the best North America. Europe is not a "best team because it could choose from multiple countries". Choosing from multiple countries has nothing to do with the word best. Best means that it could not be better, and obviously Europe would be better with the choice of players from Russia, Sweden, Finland and Czech Republic. Perhaps there is an English issue. If English isn't your first language, then I apologize for not explaining this earlier.

TLeafsFan said:
Or perhaps we can all just agree that if this isn't a best on best tournament, than it is better and more competitive than a best on best tournament.

If you are better than best, what do you become?

The new standard of best. :)
Click to expand...

It may be more competitive than a best on best tournament. It may be subjectively better, who knows. You clearly are making an English mistake again, since first of "best on best" does not mean the tournament is the best. Second, you cannot be better than best. Having nothing better is literally what makes something best. Once again though, if there is a language barrier I apologize for not explaining this earlier.

NyQuil said:
This.

It's not that complicated.
Click to expand...

You would think it's not complicated, but some people, most of whom apparently never understood a term in the first place, seem intent on changing meanings. One poster is even trying to change what the word best means, it seems.
 
I understand the term just fine.

Is the best hockey player in the world at this tournament?

The best goal scorer in the world?

The best goalie?

The best defencman?

The best young future star?

All the best players in the world are here as selected by their teams, playing with or against each other while representing the team that selected them.

In the least watered down way you'll ever seen in modern hockey.

So yes, it is a best on best.
 
TLeafsFan said:
I understand the term just fine.

Is the best hockey player in the world at this tournament?

The best goal scorer in the world?

The best goalie?

The best defencman?

The best young future star?

All the best players in the world are here as selected by their teams, playing with or against each other while representing the team that selected them.

In the least watered down way you'll ever seen in modern hockey.

So yes, it is a best on best.
Click to expand...

Once again, you've described the NHL itself and the all star game. It's fine that you don't understand the term best on best, because your description is not what the term has ever meant, but it is better to learn and move on. Your criteria, which seemingly grows more arbitrary each time you post it, fails to describe best on best.
 
Yes, of course. It's the best players in the world. The players seem to agree or you'd have guys refusing invites for reasons other than health
 
JackSlater said:
Once again, you've described the NHL itself and the all star game. It's fine that you don't understand the term best on best, because your description is not what the term has ever meant, but it is better to learn and move on. Your criteria, which seemingly grows more arbitrary each time you post it, fails to describe best on best.
Click to expand...

It's fine that you don't understand the term best on best and are merely hung up on format.

The way this best on best is formatted is not traditional.

But that's where your argument begins and ends.

The best are all here. The best (as selected by a GM) are all representing a team.

What team they are representing is irrelevant. Welcome to 2016.
 
TLeafsFan said:
Team USA fans *****ing about not being able to select Eichel, Matthews... Gaudreau, etc.
Click to expand...

But all those guys are still there

It's best on best the USA has a great talent pool that's above 25 if they choose not to put the best team on the ice that's their fault.
 
TLeafsFan said:
It's fine that you don't understand the term best on best and are merely hung up on format.

The way this best on best is formatted is not traditional.

But that's where your argument begins and ends.

The best are all here. The best (as selected by a GM) are all representing a team.

What team they are representing is irrelevant. Welcome to 2016.
Click to expand...

First, the bolded isn't true. Second, you are once again, laughably, describing the NHL or the all star game. Of course the event would seem like best on best to a kid who doesn't know what the term means and thinks that the NHL or the all star game is best on best. Anyone who understands the term knows that is isn't best on best. You can give your incorrect definition of best on best and claim that the NHL or the all star games are best on best, but it will be wrong every single time.
 
JackSlater said:
First, the bolded isn't true. Second, you are once again, laughably, describing the NHL or the all star game. Of course the event would seem like best on best to a kid who doesn't know what the term means and thinks that the NHL or the all star game is best on best. Anyone who understands the term knows that is isn't best on best. You can give your incorrect definition of best on best and claim that the NHL or the all star games are best on best, but it will be wrong every single time.
Click to expand...

Except that not every player in this tournament plays in the NHL. So there's that too.

Enjoy living in blissful ignorance. It looks good on you as you dig your hole deeper and deeper.

And yes, outside of the fan vote, All Star is a best on best, too based on the performances of that particular season.

It's just a meaningless best on best.

Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
LEAFANFORLIFE23 said:
But all those guys are still there

It's best on best the USA has a great talent pool that's above 25 if they choose not to put the best team on the ice that's their fault.
Click to expand...

Well in truth, the only people that can be faulted are the people that put the team together.

After USA got embarrassed yesterday, I really felt bad for their fans.

Nobody who is a true fan of sport wants to see a rivalry look like that.
 
TLeafsFan said:
Except that not every player in this tournament plays in the NHL. So there's that too.

Enjoy living in blissful ignorance. It looks good on you as you dig your hole deeper and deeper.

And yes, outside of the fan vote, All Star is a best on best, too based on the performances of that particular season.

It's just a meaningless best on best.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...

See, while you are obviously wrong about what a best on best is, you are at least consistent. Since you consider the all star game best on best, which even those who try to claim this is a best on best generally won't claim, it at least makes sense that you would logically conclude that this is best on best. It's a conclusion based on a faulty premise, but the conclusion is consistent at least.
 
NHL could just make a USA vs CANADA best in seven tournament every year. Because that is what they really want with this concept, after all. Canada vs USA. This year they failed since they diluted USA talent. And arrogantly disrispected pride of some NHL veterans originating from European soil. So forget the World Championships and bring on North American Championships! Let sports organizations deal with sports related stuff. I was first person to present this and will want big provisions once Bettman implements the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom