World Cup 2016: Best On Best?

[JackSlater]

Looks like you're dying on this hill now.

Enjoy!

Dying on nothing. Simply understanding what a term means, as opposed to some like yourself, the poster who described the WJC and the Ivan Hlinka as a best on best. Clearly your opinion on matters like this is valid after that.

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.

I pick the meaning that has existed since the first best on best tournament. If the participants do not have the ability to select their best, it isn't best on best. "Best 8 team tournament" means what? It isn't even like the case could be made that this tournament has all of the best healthy players, due to the pesky Czechs, Finns, Russians and Euros found in the bottom lines and pairings of those teams. Seems that many cannot differentiate between "best on best" and "tournament with talented teams".

 

[TLeafsFan]

Dying on nothing. Simply understanding what a term means, as opposed to some like yourself, the poster who described the WJC and the Ivan Hlinka as a best on best. Clearly your opinion on matters like this is valid after that.



I pick the meaning that has existed since the first best on best tournament. If the participants do not have the ability to select their best, it isn't best on best. "Best 8 team tournament" means what? It isn't even like the case could be made that this tournament has all of the best healthy players, due to the pesky Czechs, Finns, Russians and Euros found in the bottom lines and pairings of those teams. Seems that many cannot differentiate between "best on best" and "tournament with talented teams".

I never even mentioned the Ivan Hlinka once. But okay.

Enjoy.

And you're just pigeon-holeing a term that is subject to interpretation.

 

[hitmen19]

This is the first best on best in awhile that I feel every game means so much. For instance, the Sweden Finland game has so much riding on it. Finland wins and they could still get first in their pool, and possibly play Europe to go to the finals. A win by Finland and basically you will have two quarter final games where the two winners of the Sweden NA and Finland Russia game will move on to Semi's. A lot riding on both games tonight.

 

[Xokkeu]

This is the first best on best in awhile that I feel every game means so much. For instance, the Sweden Finland game has so much riding on it. Finland wins and they could still get first in their pool, and possibly play Europe to go to the finals. A win by Finland and basically you will have two quarter final games where the two winners of the Sweden NA and Finland Russia game will move on to Semi's. A lot riding on both games tonight.

I like the tournament structure better of only two teams getting out of the group. The past tournaments the group stage always felt like warm ups

 

[Confucius]

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.

Will have to bring it to the attention of the naysayers for the next WJC championships when 3 or 4 of Canada's best 18 and 19 year olds are in the NHL and not made available [as is the case every year] for that Supposedly best on best WJC tournament. Not to mention if Canada is missing a player due to injury in the next Olympics, not having access to him negates it being our best obviously.

 

[Xokkeu]

Will have to bring it to the attention of the naysayers for the next WJC championships when 3 or 4 of Canada's best 18 and 19 year olds are in the NHL and not made available [as is the case every year] for that Supposedly best on best WJC tournament. Not to mention if Canada is missing a player due to injury in the next Olympics, not having access to him negates it being our best obviously.

I think most reasonable people agree the World Juniors aren't best on best even for the U20 level.

 

[JackSlater]

I never even mentioned the Ivan Hlinka once. But okay.

Enjoy.

And you're just pigeon-holeing a term that is subject to interpretation.

Your definition of best on best included the Hlinka tournament. I do know that it wasn't you intention, it's just that the definition was so bad.

Will have to bring it to the attention of the naysayers for the next WJC championships when 3 or 4 of Canada's best 18 and 19 year olds are in the NHL and not made available [as is the case every year] for that Supposedly best on best WJC tournament. Not to mention if Canada is missing a player due to injury in the next Olympics, not having access to him negates it being our best obviously.

Most people, other than the people in here who think that best on best means "good teams", realize that the WJC doesn't feature the best from every country with three exceptions. The WJC isn't even best on best for the junior level outside of the NHL lockout years.

 

[TLeafsFan]

So an unbest, age restricted, gimmick team just beat an unrestricted, powerhouse, national team.

Clearly not indicative of a best on best tournament.

 

[JackSlater]

So an unbest, age restricted, gimmick team just beat an unrestricted, powerhouse, national team.

Clearly not indicative of a best on best tournament.

Correct. What is your point? An NHL all star team would kill almost any team at an actual best on best tournament. To the best of my knowledge, very few people consider all star games best on best even though both teams are better than pretty much any national team.

 

[TLeafsFan]

Correct. What is your point? An NHL all star team would kill almost any team at an actual best on best tournament.

Except they would pluck the best from those countries to form that team so it wouldn't be a true best on best either right?

Lame.

The best in the world as selected by their teams under the criteria given to form a country or a "gimmick" were all adhered to and has been declared a best on best by the organisation that formed the event and all participating members of the event and all event media covering the event.

And the product QUALITY is most certainly indicative of a best on best, but you're on the other side of this debate, because you're hung up on what isn't available to certain teams, instead of accepting what was available.

I accept it as being a uniquely formed best on best, using a NEW standard and tossing a traditional standard.

The standard changed, yes. Diminished the quality? No. Improved the quality? Yes.

 

[xxxx]

I think most reasonable people agree the World Juniors aren't best on best even for the U20 level.

I'm pretty sure it's the exact opposite. Most people think of the World Juniors as of a tournament of the best of what is in that category.

 

[TLeafsFan]

I'm pretty sure it's the exact opposite. Most people think of the World Juniors as of a tournament of the best of what is in that category.

Some are hung up on the fact that the best of those juniors aren't available because they aren't released by the NHL to play, so its not a true best on best, either.

The All-Star game is a best on best, but its completely meaningless.

Can't satisfy everyone.

 

[JackSlater]

Except they would pluck the best from those countries to form that team so it wouldn't be a true best on best either right?

Lame.

The best in the world as selected by their teams under the criteria given to form a country or a "gimmick" were all adhered to and has been declared a best on best by the organisation that formed the event and all participating members of the event and all event media covering the event.

And the product QUALITY is most certainly indicative of a best on best, but you're on the other side of this debate, because you're hung up on what isn't available to certain teams, instead of accepting what was available.

I accept it as being a uniquely formed best on best, using a NEW standard and tossing a traditional standard.

The standard changed, yes. Diminished the quality? No. Improved the quality? Yes.

Once again, your strange definition of best on best simply being "The best in the world as selected by their teams under the criteria given to form a country or a gimmick" is nonsense. The NHL follows that criteria, and it isn't best on best. The all star game follows that criteria, and is not best on best. This was a term that already existed, and your failed attempt to define it, leaving you basically describing the all star game, indicates nothing more than your own lack of understanding of what the term means.

The quality of play is in no way an indication of best on best. The quality of play at the 2014 Olympics was low. It was a best on best. The quality of play at the 1996 World Cup was tremendous. It was a best on best. You seem quite confused about the difference between "best on best" and "good teams vs good teams".

I'm pretty sure it's the exact opposite. Most people think of the World Juniors as of a tournament of the best of what is in that category.

Even if that were true, which I'm not sure of, those people would be factually wrong outside of three (arguably only one) particular editions of that tournament. The WJC is a tournament where the literal best players tend to not be involved.

Some are hung up on the fact that the best of those juniors aren't available because they aren't released by the NHL to play, so its not a true best on best, either.

The All-Star game is a best on best, but its completely meaningless.

Can't satisfy everyone.

The bolded indicates how obviously wrong you are, but I can't say that you lack consistency.

 

[TLeafsFan]

Once again, your strange definition of best on best simply being "The best in the world as selected by their teams under the criteria given to form a country or a gimmick" is nonsense. The NHL follows that criteria, and it isn't best on best. The all star game follows that criteria, and is not best on best. This was a term that already existed, and your failed attempt to define it, leaving you basically describing the all star game, indicates nothing more than your own lack of understanding of what the term means.

The quality of play is in no way an indication of best on best. The quality of play at the 2014 Olympics was low. It was a best on best. The quality of play at the 1996 World Cup was tremendous. It was a best on best. You seem quite confused about the difference between "best on best" and "good teams vs good teams".



Even if that were true, which I'm not sure of, those people would be factually wrong outside of three (arguably only one) particular editions of that tournament. The WJC is a tournament where the literal best players tend to not be involved.



The bolded indicates how obviously wrong you are, but I can't say that you lack consistency.

Look at that. Spilt down the middle here on who's "obviously" right and wrong.

Tell me. Outside of injuries, what players aren't made available to be selected to the NHL All-Star game.

That is your criteria isn't it? Who's made available to select to represent a team?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[JackSlater]

Look at that. Spilt down the middle here on who's "obviously" right and wrong.

Tell me. Outside of injuries, what players aren't made available to be selected to the NHL All-Star game.

That is your criteria isn't it? Who's made available to select to represent a team?

You can't have it both ways.

Best on best has always meant the best from one country vs the best from another. It has been that way for decades. You are now trying to claim that the all star game is a best on best, which even the supporters of this tournament generally don't even attempt to do. You must not have followed hockey for very long or lived under a rock if you think that the term best on best ever referred to the all star game.

 

[TLeafsFan]

Best on best has always meant the best from one country vs the best from another. It has been that way for decades. You are now trying to claim that the all star game is a best on best, which even the supporters of this tournament generally don't even attempt to do. You must not have followed hockey for very long or lived under a rock if you think that the term best on best ever referred to the all star game.

Grew up playing hockey at a high level, thanks. Even got to talk to NHL scouts when I was being considered.

You're the one buried under one and don't know how to evolve.

It may always have meant that to you. And those that agree with you.

Obviously NOT everyone.

And now you've even gone and brought hockey knowledge in to the debate, making you look feebly desperate and of low character. And obviously clueless to what others know.

Best on best international contest is not the ONLY best on best there is.

Welcome to 2016.

 

[llwyd]

Best on best has always meant the best from one country vs the best from another. It has been that way for decades. You are now trying to claim that the all star game is a best on best, which even the supporters of this tournament generally don't even attempt to do. You must not have followed hockey for very long or lived under a rock if you think that the term best on best ever referred to the all star game.

Yeah, absolutely. And if you think about the individual players, then there certainly are several Finnish and Czech players among others that are nowhere near the best players in the world. This is weird hybrid tournament that will end up as being a curiosity, one of a kind, a cross between an all-stars tournament and a traditional national team tournament. A freak occurance.

 

[JackSlater]

Grew up playing hockey at a high level, thanks. Even got to talk to NHL scouts when I was being considered.

You're the one buried under one and don't know how to evolve.

It may always have meant that to you. And those that agree with you.

Obviously NOT everyone.

And now you've even gone and brought hockey knowledge in to the debate, making you look feebly desperate and of low character. And obviously clueless to what others know.

Best on best international contest is not the ONLY best on best there is.

Welcome to 2016.

You think that the all star game is best on best hockey. There is nothing else to say. You've proven that you don't even know what the term you are trying to debate means, somehow despite the "high level" that you played at. Funny that you imply that this is some kind of 2016 meaning, as if the all star game hasn't existed for over sixty years without being considered a best on best.

 

[TLeafsFan]

You think that the all star game is best on best hockey. There is nothing else to say. You've proven that you don't even know what the term you are trying to debate means, somehow despite the "high level" that you played at. Funny that you imply that this is some kind of 2016 meaning, as if the all star game hasn't existed for over sixty years without being considered a best on best.

Sure it has whether some on the HF Boards accept it as such or not is another matter and it has nothing to do with knowledge of the sport.

And best on best be it a World event or an All Star event isn't isolated to hockey, either.

Thought you might like to know that.

 

[hitmen19]

The Finland Russia game today is another example of how this is a best on best. Best players from Finland playing the Best players from Russia. Russia has a chance to somewhat get revenge from the last best on best in Sochi. Even though Finland has nothing to play for in the standings, I still think they will come out with a lot pride and want to continue there recent success against Russia.

 

[JackSlater]

Yeah, absolutely. And if you think about the individual players, then there certainly are several Finnish and Czech players among others that are nowhere near the best players in the world. This is weird hybrid tournament that will end up as being a curiosity, one of a kind, a cross between an all-stars tournament and a traditional national team tournament. A freak occurance.

Yes, it wouldn't be that difficult to name 50 players better than some of the worst players in this tournament. That is part of the reason why attempting to define best on best as simply the best players in one setting is inaccurate.

Sure it has whether some on the HF Boards accept it as such or not is another matter and it has nothing to do with knowledge of the sport.

And best on best be it a World event or an All Star event isn't isolated to hockey, either.

Thought you might like to know that.

I certainly question that the all star game has ever been considered best on best hockey, but as I said before, at least you are consistent. If the all star game is best on best, then this tournament is as well.

The Finland Russia game today is another example of how this is a best on best. Best players from Finland playing the Best players from Russia. Russia has a chance to somewhat get revenge from the last best on best in Sochi. Even though Finland has nothing to play for in the standings, I still think they will come out with a lot pride and want to continue there recent success against Russia.

Interesting criteria you've highlighted. Actually the correct criteria in fact.

 

[Xokkeu]

The Finland Russia game today is another example of how this is a best on best. Best players from Finland playing the Best players from Russia. Russia has a chance to somewhat get revenge from the last best on best in Sochi. Even though Finland has nothing to play for in the standings, I still think they will come out with a lot pride and want to continue there recent success against Russia.

Few are debating that Finland Russia and Sweden brought their best players.

 

[hitmen19]

Few are debating that Finland Russia and Sweden brought their best players.

Some are debating if Sweden or Russia win, that they shouldn't get credit for it a best on best win because Canada couldn't get McDavid. Their making excuses. If Russia runs the table here, you can't tell me it was a less of an acomplishmnt then say Canada winning 91 Canada cup. Russia should get credit for a best on best and in my books they will.

 

[JackSlater]

Some are debating if Sweden or Russia win, that they shouldn't get credit for it a best on best win because Canada couldn't get McDavid. Their making excuses. If Russia runs the table here, you can't tell me it was a less of an acomplishmnt then say Canada winning 91 Canada cup. Russia should get credit for a best on best and in my books they will.

Apparently some cannot read that four of the eight teams, not just Canada, cannot bring their best players.

 

[matsqq]

I think the only real country that suffered is USA.

All other countries brought their best.

And it looks like last Olympics so far .
Canada is no 1 and Sweden is no 2, and this time I would say Russia is number 3 ... USA might have come higher if they had access to the players in the U23 team.

So USA might be higher up ... maybe taking the number 2 or 3 spot ...

But their appearance hasn't been very goood with what they got.

And I would also like to add:

It is what it is ..

Sweden, Finland, Russia, Czechs brought their best

Canada brought very close to heir best and with their depth it doesn't matter much, they are and will remain no 1 ...

Sweden is better than Finland, Russia and Czechs.

On paper USA has better players than all but Canada, but they are far, far behind Canada tactically ... they just show up with a lot of star players ...