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 will still always be subjective. Is Canada really the "best" without Subban? The U.S. without Kessel or Faulk? Russia without Kovalchuk and Radulov?

If it wasn't team NA or Europe, people would find something else to complain about.
 
TeamRenzo said:
********! Those guys would love
Tell me which of the NHL's best players arent playing in this tournament?
Click to expand...

That is not the point.
You cannot pretend that only the players count while the teams do not.
Or better, you can, but then it is clear that international tournaments are not exactly your thing, nothing bad with it.

If you take the NHL, you divide the players in 8 teams using an arbitrary system you get a best-on-best tournament, provided the players are motivated. All the best players would be there.

It would just not be an international best-on-best tournament.

It is as simple as that, you have team europe and team NA young players. These are not nations. This is not an international tournament.
Best-on-best? Maybe*. International? Sure not.

*Maybe, because 4 out of 8 teams cannot select and choose the players the want due to some rules that apply to them but not to other teams. Which kinda invalidates the claim of being best-on-best, but that is just my definition of it.
 
TeamRenzo said:
********! Those guys would love nothing more than to beat a team full of the older peers. These guys are all competitors and guess what competitors do...they compete.

Tell me which of the NHL's best players arent playing in this tournament?
Click to expand...

While I don't think that the Young Gunz would actively try to lose to their national team, I doubt that they would try exactly a hard as they would against Russia, for instance. Even in a story ESPN published to show how committed these players are, the only interviewed players mentioned how they still cheered for their national team and found it tough not to get excited for them. The motivation of the gimmick teams is not the biggest obstacle to this being a best on best tournament though. What happens on the ice, either good or bad, doesn't affect the nature of the tournament.

As for best players that aren't in this tournament, there are plenty of players outside of this tournament who are better than many players participating. Letang, Faulk, Subban, Hall and so on. It wouldn't be difficult to name 30+ players clearly better than lots of players in this tournament, so it isn't like we can pretend that this tournament actually has all of the 184 best players involved.
 
If an "International best-on-best" tournament means that each country actually has access to all of its best players (which is what I thought it meant), then this is not one. Canada/USA are limited by age, and 2 teams are not nations...god I hope Best-on-best Olympic Hockey continues in 2018 somehow...
 
JETZZZ said:
If an "International best-on-best" tournament means that each country actually has access to all of its best players (which is what I thought it meant), then this is not one. Canada/USA are limited by age, and 2 teams are not nations...god I hope Best-on-best Olympic Hockey continues in 2018 somehow...
Click to expand...

That's the crux of it right there - "if". There is no official definition so people will have their own ideas of what best on best means, kind of like the terms #1 centre and #1 defenceman. There are some people who are quite adamant that their definition is the only acceptable one but I've yet to see any justification for their arrogance.
 
JETZZZ said:
If an "International best-on-best" tournament means that each country actually has access to all of its best players (which is what I thought it meant), then this is not one. Canada/USA are limited by age, and 2 teams are not nations...god I hope Best-on-best Olympic Hockey continues in 2018 somehow...
Click to expand...

That is indeed what the term has always meant. No one who wrongly claims that this is a best on best tournament has been able to provide a definition for best on best hockey that doesn't just describe the all star game or the NHL.
 
JETZZZ said:
If an "International best-on-best" tournament means that each country actually has access to all of its best players (which is what I thought it meant), then this is not one. Canada/USA are limited by age, and 2 teams are not nations...god I hope Best-on-best Olympic Hockey continues in 2018 somehow...
Click to expand...

No, best on best means best on best.

It's not complicated.
 
It is best on best because the best are playing. How about that. And even the players that can't play for Can/Us are playing at the tournament, in their own North American team. There are the best from all countries. Simple. Even from Slovenia, Norway, Austria, Slovakia, Switzerland, or other countries.
 
The Ryder Cup used to be USA v ENG. That was not best on best.

Now the Ryder Cup is USA v EUR. That is best on best.
 
True Hockey Fan said:
It is best on best because the best are playing. How about that. And even the players that can't play for Can/Us are playing at the tournament, in their own North American team. There are the best from all countries. Simple. Even from Slovenia, Norway, Austria, Slovakia, Switzerland, or other countries.
Click to expand...

Then you do not need countries.
Any criterion to divide the best players in team is equally valid, height, age, language, color of hair, musical tastes.
That's ok, I guess.
To me that's an abomination, but if people likes it, why not.

Even though I would love to watch Team Baroque Classical Composer destroy Team New Metal in the Great World Cup Of Hockey
 
zeke said:
No, best on best means best on best.

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

Does Canada have all of the best Canadians?

Does USA have all of the best Americans?

Does Europe have all of the best Europeans?

Does North America have all of the best North Americans?

The answer to each of those questions is no. Literally four of the teams do not have their best, so obviously it is not a best on best. That three of the teams having their best is mutually exclusive (Canada, USA and North America) makes it even funnier to hear anyone claim it is a best on best.

True Hockey Fan said:
It is best on best because the best are playing. How about that. And even the players that can't play for Can/Us are playing at the tournament, in their own North American team. There are the best from all countries. Simple. Even from Slovenia, Norway, Austria, Slovakia, Switzerland, or other countries.
Click to expand...

Perfect, too bad we all missed out on all that best on best hockey played at the NHL all star game and all that best on best hockey played in the NHL, where all the best players play against each other. You surely count that hockey as best on best too, since it meets your criteria.
 
True Hockey Fan said:
yeah but there's 6 national teams, and 2 continental teams. That has as much to do with "Team Brunette against Team Blonde tournament concept" as a chocolate cake with a trash can.
Click to expand...

And among the six national teams, two aren't allowed to pick all the players they want.
 
Elvs said:
And among the six national teams, two aren't allowed to pick all the players they want.
Click to expand...

The continental teams cannot select all of the players they would have wanted either. Best on best though because.... because.
 
Paxton Fettel said:
Team NA23 will lose on purpose against either Canada or USA in the semifinal, so it's not really best on best. Team Europe doesn't seem to care, I would have rather seen Switzerland and Slovakia.
Click to expand...

Lose on purpose? Care to explain why you say that?
 
You can't call a tournament that has Luca Sbisa playing in it "best on best".

But that's what happens if you limit the player pool to the league you want to promote.
 
True Hockey Fan said:
and those players are still in the tournament, so.
Click to expand...

So it's not Canada's best on USA's best on North America's best on Europe's best. Pretty obvious.

You've proven your point though. This tournament is definitely as much a best on best as the NHL all star game or the NHL itself, where the best players play against each other on random teams.

TheNeutrality said:
You can't call a tournament that has Luca Sbisa playing in it "best on best".

But that's what happens if you limit the player pool to the league you want to promote.
Click to expand...

Yes, the argument that this is best on best simply because "all the best players are there" falls apart when a person considers the worst players in this tournament compared to the best players not involved. There are plenty of players missing from this tournament who are better than many of the players in this tournament. It's almost as if that criteria is flimsy to the point of being indefensible.
 
When several of Canada and the US's best players are on a separate team, it's not best on best. Close, but no cigar, just like the 1972 Summit Series when Canada was banned from taking WHA players.

It's still going to be great hockey though.
 
Aho Mitakuye Oyasin said:
Best will still always be subjective. Is Canada really the "best" without Subban? The U.S. without Kessel or Faulk? Russia without Kovalchuk and Radulov?

If it wasn't team NA or Europe, people would find something else to complain about.
Click to expand...

Kessel and Faulk were eligible. Whether they were injured or simply not picked is part and parcel of sporting competition. Quite a leap from inherently denying players the right to play for their country at all.
 
All they had to do was switch north America to being a snub team and it would of solved the debate.
 
Seanaconda said:
All they had to do was switch north America to being a snub team and it would of solved the debate.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be happy with a fake snub North America team, but I'd stomach it for what would hopefully be one tournament. It would make a big difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom