World Cup 2016: Best On Best?

[Big Phil]

Wait, the same network that was laughing about the format on air during Trade Deadline last year (Duthie made several comments about and BobbyMac was laughing in the background with him)?

This would be before they sold out to the NHL. In other words, the NHL probably "suggested" to TSN and Rogers and ESPN and such that they would "like" them to promote this tournament hard and promote the gimmicky idea of the two gimmick teams. This is why no one, not in the Toronto Sun, Star or wherever is criticizing this tournament. You think the majority of fans don't like it but all of the media does? No, they just sold out and sold their soul to promote the idea.

You'd be surprised how the media can shape the public's opinion. They kept repeating "good" potential picks such as Zamuner in 1998 or Kunitz in 2014. Keep repeating it and eventually most of the public will fall for it.

 

[Canuckistani]

I agree, I mean, egg on the face of the NHL and NHLPA (sorry, Crosby, Price, Toews and co. are traitors in this charade as well) is what they deserve. It reeks of the crease rule from 1999 and the NHL deserving the Hull goal.

However, the nostalgic factor in me still wants to forget about these two gimmick teams and see an old fashioned rivalry go at it in the final.

For me this holds no nostalgic factor. The two gimmick teams have already won games and influenced the outcome just by being there and denying talent to team USA.

[MOD]

No one can feel proud or brag about the outcome if a joke team makes the final. It will just be remembered as that awkward thing the NHL put on in 2016.

 

[Back in Black]

Ideally, it should have been a 6 Team tournament, then it would be Best on Best.

But it just wouldn’t have been fair for players from them EU to not get the chance to play. Same with most of the kids from team NA.

Some teams would have benefitted from having players in the KHL.

 

[crowi]

Nah, gimmicky exhibition games that garner no audience even from Finland. A small country like Finland actually NEEDS KHL players - as such it's not best on best.

 

[hitmen19]

Nah, gimmicky exhibition games that garner no audience even from Finland. A small country like Finland actually NEEDS KHL players - as such it's not best on best.

Well Finland had a initial rating for a prequalification against Sweden of 1.7 million, almost 1/3 of the country, so a lot of people have at least watched. Obviousally they might not be watching at this same level because of the late time.

Anyways, Russia really needs to win this game coming up NA, or it will be another Best on Best tourney are haven't won since 81. It will 35 years since there last one. I hope they win though

 

[Canuck21t]

I am cheering hard for Russia tonight........................

Look, I have zero allegiance to Team North America. None. It isn't Canada. The reason I am cheering for Russia is because the only thing that can salvage this tournament is for the semi finalists to be Canada and/or Czech and USA as Russia/Sweden/Finland. If the other two make it to the semi-final it will de-legitimize this tournament even more. Perhaps we'll forget about that if we see another Canada/Russia final because it would be just downright awful if NA is in the final vs. Canada.

There's no trying to legitimize this tournament at this point. No matter what, this tournament will remain a gimmick. Might as well sabotage it completely and have the two gimmick teams be in the final and the ultimate result would be a win for Team Europe. Boy I would love to see Bettman's reaction if that would happens.

 

[canadaishockey4*]

Nah, gimmicky exhibition games that garner no audience even from Finland. A small country like Finland actually NEEDS KHL players - as such it's not best on best.

I don't get it... Doesn't Russia have KHL players?

 

[Jonas1235]

having U23 and Team Europe MAKES IT EVEN MORE OF A BEST ON BEST than if it was Denmark and Latvia.

People on here...

 

[Canuck21t]

Nah, I hope TNA wins the whole thing, after knocking off Canada in the SF. I want this thing to be a total joke so that no one will be fooled when they look at the results years from now.

Canada vs Sweden or Russia vs USA in the final makes it appear normal and legitimate.

Yet no one can look at "Canada vs North America" and see it for anything other than what it is.

This would be a good scenario too. People might be entertained by this matchup, but I'm sure no one will feel the passion and urgency to beat another country. I always rood for Canada, but will I be jumping up and down when Toewes scores on Murray, another Canadian? Of course not. Beating Russia is a lot more satisfying then beating a bunch of young Canadians or even a bunch of European rejects.

 

[Confucius]

I don't think they are gimmicky at all. I think if there were only two teams involved in a seven game series and the teams were called Team North America and Team Europe the ratings would be higher the world over than they are now.

Best final possible would be Europe V's North America.

 

[JackSlater]

Well Finland had a initial rating for a prequalification against Sweden of 1.7 million, almost 1/3 of the country, so a lot of people have at least watched. Obviousally they might not be watching at this same level because of the late time.

Anyways, Russia really needs to win this game coming up NA, or it will be another Best on Best tourney are haven't won since 81. It will 35 years since there last one. I hope they win though

I do get a laugh out of your feeble attempts. No one is winning a best on best this year.

having U23 and Team Europe MAKES IT EVEN MORE OF A BEST ON BEST than if it was Denmark and Latvia.

People on here...

Can team USA select the best Americans? Can Canada select the best Canadians? Can North America select the best North Americans? Can team Europe select the best Europeans?

The answer to those questions explains very obviously why it isn't a best on best.

 

[hitmen19]

I do get a laugh out of your feeble attempts. No one is winning a best on best this year.



Can team USA select the best Americans? Can Canada select the best Canadians? Can North America select the best North Americans? Can team Europe select the best Europeans?

The answer to those questions explains very obviously why it isn't a best on best.

Whoever wins the world cup is winning a best on best according to my classification. Your entitled to your opinion, and ill have mine. There is no official body that dictates a best on best, and even the ones you list in the past are no where close to consensus, so good try in trying to dictate what you think on the rest.

Its so funny how you try to make excuses for the CDN and USA national teams. I love the built in excuses if one of the European teams wins, you will always in the future say it wasn't a best on best. I love the defense mechanism. I don't agree, I will give credit if a European teams wins. If Canada wins, this will be forgotten the day after, so your not taking anything away from Canada anyways

 

[JackSlater]

Whoever wins the world cup is winning a best on best according to my classification. Your entitled to your opinion, and ill have mine. There is no official body that dictates a best on best, and even the ones you list in the past are no where close to consensus, so good try in trying to dictate what you think on the rest.

Its so funny how you try to make excuses for the CDN and USA national teams. I love the built in excuses if one of the European teams wins, you will always in the future say it wasn't a best on best. I love the defense mechanism. I don't agree, I will give credit if a European teams wins. If Canada wins, this will be forgotten the day after, so your not taking anything away from Canada anyways

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It's not a best on best, as has been explained. Some opinions are simply wrong. You can claim that Brian Boyle is the greatest hockey player in the world, and you would be clearly wrong despite there being no "official body" to determine the matter. When countries cannot even select their best, it isn't a best on best, regardless of your ignorance to the meaning of the term.

Your inference about Canada or USA losing is actually wrong to the point of being backwards. I am more displeased that the likely Canadian win is rendered meaningless by the nature of this tournament.

 

[hitmen19]

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It's not a best on best, as has been explained. Some opinions are simply wrong. You can claim that Brian Boyle is the greatest hockey player in the world, and you would be clearly wrong despite there being no "official body" to determine the matter. When countries cannot even select their best, it isn't a best on best, regardless of your ignorance to the meaning of the term.

Your inference about Canada or USA losing is actually wrong to the point of being backwards. I am more displeased that the likely Canadian win is rendered meaningless by the nature of this tournament.

and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to me. Just like your official best on best list can't even get consensus on these forums.

And again I know why your doing it. If Sweden or Russia wins, Canada and USA didn't have their best players so it doesn't count.

If Canada wins, it doesn't even need this in its trophy case to claim any superiority. The last 3 of 4 Olympics are enough for that. So I see right through your feeble attempt to take credit away from a European team if they win, I don't need to make excuses

 

[JackSlater]

and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to me. Just like your official best on best list can't even get consensus on these forums.

Why would any matter need the consensus of the scholars found here? It simply is best on best or it isn't. There is no referendum to determine it. Four of the teams cannot, by the rules of this tournament, bring their best. By definition of the word best it isn't best on best. That is why your opinion, my opinion and anyone else's opinion is irrelevant in this instance. It isn't a matter of opinion. This is not a best on best.

And again I know why your doing it. If Sweden or Russia wins, Canada and USA didn't have their best players so it doesn't count.

If Canada wins, it doesn't even need this in its trophy case to claim any superiority. The last 3 of 4 Olympics are enough for that. So I see right through your feeble attempt to take credit away from a European team if they win, I don't need to make excuses

So you claim the ability to read minds, and yet you cannot even understand a term that has existed for four decades? How impressive. I assume given the way you write that English is your second language and that you are European, so I don't quite know if it is genuine ignorance to what best on best is or if you are just happy about advantage that the roster limitations give to four teams. I still can't see the logic in disregarding this event strategically as a Canadian, when Canada is a big favourite to win the event. Then again if it is a struggle to understand what the word "best" means, then piecing together a logical sequence of thought might be a challenge.

The fact is that Canada, USA, North America and Europe cannot take their best due to the rules of the tournament. That is a fact. That tarnishes the result for every single team in the tournament. If that reality pains you so much, your displeasure should be directed at those who structured the tournament that way.

 

[hitmen19]

Why would any matter need the consensus of the scholars found here? It simply is best on best or it isn't. There is no referendum to determine it. Four of the teams cannot, by the rules of this tournament, bring their best. By definition of the word best it isn't best on best. That is why your opinion, my opinion and anyone else's opinion is irrelevant in this instance. It isn't a matter of opinion. This is not a best on best.



So you claim the ability to read minds, and yet you cannot even understand a term that has existed for four decades? How impressive. I assume given the way you write that English is your second language and that you are European, so I don't quite know if it is genuine ignorance to what best on best is or if you are just happy about advantage that the roster limitations give to four teams. I still can't see the logic in disregarding this event strategically as a Canadian, when Canada is a big favourite to win the event. Then again if it is a struggle to understand what the word "best" means, then piecing together a logical sequence of thought might be a challenge.

The fact is that Canada, USA, North America and Europe cannot take their best due to the rules of the tournament. That is a fact. That tarnishes the result for every single team in the tournament. If that reality pains you so much, your displeasure should be directed at those who structured the tournament that way.

sorry, but Im not the one having displeasure from watching this best on best tournament. Keep making excuses if Canada doesn't win, I don't need to

 

[JackSlater]

sorry, but Im not the one having displeasure from watching this best on best tournament. Keep making excuses if Canada doesn't win, I don't need to

You aren't watching a best on best tournament, as anyone familiar with the term knows. I applaud your willful ignorance though. Still interested in hearing the logic behind me negating the outcome even though Canada's win is clearly the most likely outcome by a fair amount.

 

[zeke]

this tourney is just so, so good.

the hockey is so much better than the slog we saw at the olympics.

 

[hitmen19]

Russia if they can hold on, has a real shot of winning their first best on best since 1981. No reason they can't beat Canada in a one game semi final show down if they meet

 

[DanZ]

this tourney is just so, so good.

the hockey is so much better than the slog we saw at the olympics.

Yet no one cares

 

[JackSlater]

Russia if they can hold on, has a real shot of winning their first best on best since 1981. No reason they can't beat Canada in a one game semi final show down if they meet

Have the rules suddenly been changed to turn this tournament into a best on best? Have you bothered to learn what best on best means? Can you even define it? Have you looked up the word "best" yet, and do you understand it finally? Are you using your patented psychic powers again? So many questions!

 

[TLeafsFan]

Have the rules suddenly been changed to turn this tournament into a best on best? Have you bothered to learn what best on best means? Can you even define it? Have you looked up the word "best" yet, and do you understand it finally? Are you using your patented psychic powers again? So many questions!

Looks like you're dying on this hill now.

Enjoy!

 

[major major]

Russia if they can hold on, has a real shot of winning their first best on best since 1981. No reason they can't beat Canada in a one game semi final show down if they meet

It would be just Bob standing on his head again. So, yeah, could happen, he's hot.

Have the rules suddenly been changed to turn this tournament into a best on best? Have you bothered to learn what best on best means? Can you even define it? Have you looked up the word "best" yet, and do you understand it finally? Are you using your patented psychic powers again? So many questions!

It's not Canada's best, or USA's best, but it is nonetheless the most talent ever assembled on eight teams. The best 8 team tournament, but not the best Canada could have iced. Pick your definition.

 

[albator71]

If you have an 8-team World Cup of hockey then the top 8 nations have to be there. And right now #7 and #8 are Slovakia and Switzerland. Since when North America and Europe has become countries??? I always thought they were Continent???

 

[TLeafsFan]

If you have an 8-team World Cup of hockey then the top 8 nations have to be there. And right now #7 and #8 are Slovakia and Switzerland. Since when North America and Europe has become countries??? I always thought they were Continent???

So "also rans" who don't have a hope of competing and have half their teams or more made up of secondary, non world class NHL players?

But hey, they participated.