World Cup 2016: Best On Best?

[Nordic*]

Well...the best players are here, but not always on the right teams.

And speaking for Sweden, we have lost 6 players to injuries now. That's 33% of the skaters of the starting lineup.

Canada could lose 10 players and still be favorites, too bad we don't have that quality and quantity.

 

[GoldiFox]

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.

What does that have to do with what I said? Even if a player declined to join the team it still eliminates the "best on best" aspect, because the best players declined participation.

In this example, John Tortorella's opinion of what the best US team is comprised of is highly unlikely to be the objective best team available to a country. Hence the subjectivity.

 

[Seanaconda]

Well...the best players are here, but not always on the right teams.

And speaking for Sweden, we have lost 6 players to injuries now. That's 33% of the skaters of the starting lineup.

Canada could lose 10 players and still be favorites, too bad we don't have that quality and quantity.

That's why I don't mind team na hahah it sucks for all the Canadian players that will never be able to play internationally when they could make other teams pretty easily.

But don't feel bad swedens not that far behind when not injured canada just has so much quantity.

 

[acor]

Two simple questions -

1. Can USA select all of its best players?

2. Can Canada select all of its best players?

Since the answer to both questions is very clearly no, it can't be considered a best on best.

Corson, Zamuner, Regehr and Draper, due to all respect, should never, at any point of their career, be elected to "team Canada" in "best on best" tournament... But Olympics are considered best-on-best tournaments anyway... All best players were eligible at this tournament, and thats enough to clasify this tournament as "best on best" (unlike World Championship)... Were all best players selected ? Maybe yes, maybe no, its up to managers... Gimmick teams have nothing to do with it, as they were also able to select their best players...

 

[Xokkeu]

What does that have to do with what I said? Even if a player declined to join the team it still eliminates the "best on best" aspect, because the best players declined participation.

In this example, John Tortorella's opinion of what the best US team is comprised of is highly unlikely to be the objective best team available to a country. Hence the subjectivity.

Injuries and team selection are part of sports. Under a strict definition like this there is an impossible litmus test of best players. Some fans are never going to like the team that was selected, and there's a near physical impossibility of every player in the world being healthy at the same time.

Sometimes players get hurt and miss the World Cup like Franck Ribery or Marco Reus were injured in Brazil 2014. Or the coach doesn't select a player like Klinsmann didn't select Landon Donovan. That's part of the game.

But it's entirely different if FIFA were to say, oh Germany you can't select Mario Gotze because he's too young and we want another team young Europeans instead of Honduras.

 

[Xokkeu]

Corson, Zamuner, Regehr and Draper, due to all respect, should never, at any point of their career, be elected to "team Canada" in "best on best" tournament... But Olympics are considered best-on-best tournaments anyway... All best players were eligible at this tournament, and thats enough to clasify this tournament as "best on best" (unlike World Championship)... Were all best players selected ? Maybe yes, maybe no, its up to managers... Gimmick teams have nothing to do with it, as they were also able to select their best players...

Team USA was not allowed to select their best players.

 

[JackSlater]

All they had to do was switch north America to being a snub team and it would of solved the debate.

It would go a long way, yes.

Corson, Zamuner, Regehr and Draper, due to all respect, should never, at any point of their career, be elected to "team Canada" in "best on best" tournament... But Olympics are considered best-on-best tournaments anyway... All best players were eligible at this tournament, and thats enough to clasify this tournament as "best on best" (unlike World Championship)... Were all best players selected ? Maybe yes, maybe no, its up to managers... Gimmick teams have nothing to do with it, as they were also able to select their best players...

Draper was a good pick in my opinion, but I know that isn't your point. Questionable picks are one thing, as are injuries. They are a reality of hockey, and all teams are equally susceptible to these issues. This tournament has rules in place that prohibit multiple teams from selecting from their whole pool though, and we know for a fact that USA would pick at least one player and likely more without these restrictions, and we can strongly guess due to Hockey Canada's comments and Babcock's recent comments that Canada would at least pick one as well. In fact, those players who USA/Canada are unable to select, despite being from those nations, are in this tournament on a completely different team. Quite a different situation.

The fact remains that four of the eight teams cannot select their best. It's unlikely that any team would pick its absolute best possible roster without the benefit of a crystal ball, but that's an unreasonable expectation. Teams being able to select any players from their country that they want at a supposed best on best tournament is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

 

[Sens Rule]

Didn't vote, because the term "best on best" is personally meaningless for me, and it feels like marketing term first and foremost.

But technically neither this or last World Cup can be considered as such, because in both tournaments chosen players were cut by the organizer, in 2004 Jere Karalahti and this time Slava Voynov.

I am following the tournament despite mixed feelings towards it, but if the price of this tournament is no NHL participation in Olympics, it will be the last time out of principle.

Voynov would likely be ineligible to play in the USA and maybe Canada.

Getting convicted for beating your wife and not getting to play in a tournament because of your legal troubles is not something that disqualifies a tournament as being best on best. Oh no! The 100th best player can't play because he beat the crap out of his wife! I won't even watch this garbage tourny!

 

[Sens Rule]

the most talented hockey tourney in history.

so yes.

this is actually the FIRST time we've ever had an actual best on best tourney. ever.

Perhaps. I would prefer it to not be an NHL star show and to make it more like the World Cup in football and try to have it become the defining International tournament. It would take time though.

This World Cup can exist as it is. I hope the next one has a dozen teams and they are all individual countries. The next one has sixteen teams... And so on.

Latvia, Switzerland, Germany and others are always getting better.

If the NHL can figure out how to make big money and also have like an every 2 or 4 year top level tournament better then the World Championships and the equal or better then the Olympics... That is what I would like over time.

 

[Seanaconda]

Perhaps. I would prefer it to not be an NHL star show and to make it more like the World Cup in football and try to have it become the defining International tournament. It would take time though.

This World Cup can exist as it is. I hope the next one has a dozen teams and they are all individual countries. The next one has sixteen teams... And so on.

Latvia, Switzerland, Germany and others are always getting better.

If the NHL can figure out how to make big money and also have like an every 2 or 4 year top level tournament better then the World Championships and the equal or better then the Olympics... That is what I would like over time.

They already have the Olympics for that tho no reason for two. Have this. Have the nhl Ryder Cup and keep the Olympics as the true best in the world tournament

 

[Zine]

It's a best-v-best the same way the NHL all-star game is; but this World Cup is not an international best-v-best.

Problem is the NHL is marketing this as an international best-v-best.

 

[spacemanatee]

Yes who gives a **** about Slovakia or Switzerland. They have no chance anyways

this is pretty offensive imo.

anyways i'd rather have slovakia & switerland in the tourny than NA & team europe. if you can't even have a team in the same pool as the two others than there is something seriously wrong with the tournament.

 

[Gary Nylund]

It's a best-v-best the same way the NHL all-star game is; but this World Cup is not an international best-v-best.

Problem is the NHL is marketing this as an international best-v-best.

Why is that a problem? I personally couldn't care less how the NHL markets their product.

 

[Skobel24]

Who? People from Slovakia and Switzerland, at the very least, and hockey is pretty popular sport there. No one gives a **** about Team Europe.

I'm Canadian, and I want to see Switzerland in this tournament. Get rid of Team Europe, get rid of team North America. What made the Olympics so fun to watch for me was seeing these underdog countries play their ****ing hearts out and come so close to upsetting a powerhouse. Canada vs Latvia was one of the most exciting games I've ever seen. Seeing Switzerland beat Canada in 2010 (was it 2010?) was amazing.

 

[garbageteam]

Yeah let's act like those two countries have any kind of chance against Canada in a best on best.

One of the best international hockey games involving Canada I've ever watched was Canada's 3-2 semifinals win over Slovakia, holding on at the death with Lu (for once) not acting like an absolute sieve while the dmen were scrambling to mark their men. I really thought, with a minute left, that the Slovaks would tie it with momentum having totally shifted in their direction and the puck spending the entire time in the Canadian zone and ultimately won it to eliminate Canada. Slovakia has struggled lately, but their junior team won bronze just a couple of years ago, finishing ahead of Sweden, USA, Czechs & Finland.

Were you aware Switzerland beat Canada 2-0 in '06 and Canada needed not OT, but a luck-of-the-draw PSO to beat them in '10? Not to mention in '14 Switzerland beat a "good enough to be included in this tournament" Czech Republic and almost solved Sweden.

These are not teams that walk into tournaments to get destroyed 10-0, and I think people that don't really know international hockey shouldn't be commenting on it .

Switzerland and Slovakia individually as NTs would beat Team Europe due to chemistry, national pride, cohesiveness and familiarity of playing together over many years in a nationally implemented and well-executed system etc. Team Europe wasn't formed to help the competitiveness of the tournament but for the NHL to market as many of their players as possible. It's an incredibly weak and disjointed team and will likely get smashed in the round robin (color me surprised if not), and does not reflect nor represent the performances and capabilities of the strongest represented nations (Slovenia in 2014 could end up having placed better than this team in the final standings).

Team NA is actually good, of course, functioning as a USA&Canada B team. The ironic impact of this is that USA and Canada don't have their true best on best A teams; USA much moreso than Canada, but the point still stands. This isn't something like an injury impact which can't be avoided, this was arbitrarily orchestrated.

I find the European teams slightly weakened too due to the over-reliance on NHL players; in true best on best (Olympics) the "worst" couple of NHL players on the current rosters of the WCH would have been replaced with some of their most effective players globally playing in other leagues that might better complement the team makeup.

Would there be good hockey being played by competitive teams? Yes. Will the on-ice product be entertaining? Yes. Would this be a positive development for international hockey if they fix the many serious issues that plague the format to potentially be a viable replacement for the Olympics in the future? Yes. But in its current form it's not a true best-on-best due to forcibly weakened top-6 teams and two fake teams that hopefully will not see the light of day again.

 

[Xokkeu]

I'm Canadian, and I want to see Switzerland in this tournament. Get rid of Team Europe, get rid of team North America. What made the Olympics so fun to watch for me was seeing these underdog countries play their ****ing hearts out and come so close to upsetting a powerhouse. Canada vs Latvia was one of the most exciting games I've ever seen. Seeing Switzerland beat Canada in 2010 (was it 2010?) was amazing.

2006 they won.

 

[Gary Nylund]

During last night's Canada-Russia broadcast, I must have heard the term best on best 5 times before the game even started. The definition police better start a massive recruiting drive soon because they're getting clobbered in this battle.

 

[JackSlater]

During last night's Canada-Russia broadcast, I must have heard the term best on best 5 times before the game even started. The definition police better start a massive recruiting drive soon because they're getting clobbered in this battle.

The broadcaster of a tournament is trying to present that tournament in the best possible light? Or anyone trying to make some money off it is trying to do that? Colour me shocked! I'm more amused by your feeble posts trying to support something that you know isn't even accurate, by your own admission. I suppose hurt feelings over the inaccuracies of your poorly researched posts (This isn't supposed to be an international tournament! The NHL never wanted to leave the Olympics before the insurance issue!) being pointed out are stronger than the desire to admit what you know is true. Ah well.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Canada is not weakened by this format but USA can make an argument.

 

[PensBandwagonerNo272*]

I love the U23 team and hope it's a staple, but as a result I don't consider this a best on best no.

 

[86Habs]

During last night's Canada-Russia broadcast, I must have heard the term best on best 5 times before the game even started. The definition police better start a massive recruiting drive soon because they're getting clobbered in this battle.

Assuming you were watching Sportsnet, they aren't exactly the most credible or objective of sources.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Assuming you were watching Sportsnet, they aren't exactly the most credible or objective of sources.

They're not the only source. Everywhere I've heard this tournament discussed, it's referred to as best on best with the exception of some nits on this board. I agree that by some definitions it's technically it's not best on best but the de facto result is that it's so close, the difference is only an issue to those who are really looking hard for issues. It seems to me that it's the same people looking for any excuse to dump on this tournament who make a big deal of people referring to it as best on best (who cares), the name of the tournament (who cares), is it international or not (who cares), how the NHL is marketing it (who cares) and so on and so on and so on and on and on. The definition police are working overtime, the rest of us are just enjoying the hockey.

 

[hitmen19]

They're not the only source. Everywhere I've heard this tournament discussed, it's referred to as best on best with the exception of some nits on this board. I agree that by some definitions it's technically it's not best on best but the de facto result is that it's so close, the difference is only an issue to those who are really looking hard for issues. It seems to me that it's the same people looking for any excuse to dump on this tournament who make a big deal of people referring to it as best on best (who cares), the name of the tournament (who cares), is it international or not (who cares), how the NHL is marketing it (who cares) and so on and so on and so on and on and on. The definition police are working overtime, the rest of us are just enjoying the hockey.

Great post.
The best on best definition police have some sort of official best on best tracker, that is posted somewhere in IIHF hall of fame I guess, that no one acknowledges anyways.

Wow, you can use best on best definition tag and argue with people on the internet.

I'd prefer to actually watch the best players play in a tournament that THEY actually consider a best on best like every single player has said.

 

[Analyst365]

It's best on best just like the All Star game is.

And we all now just how inspired everyone is to watch the all star game. And how revered the winners of that game are.

 

[JackSlater]

Great post.
The best on best definition police have some sort of official best on best tracker, that is posted somewhere in IIHF hall of fame I guess, that no one acknowledges anyways.

Wow, you can use best on best definition tag and argue with people on the internet.

I'd prefer to actually watch the best players play in a tournament that THEY actually consider a best on best like every single player has said.

It's pretty simple actually to use the meaning that has been widely used for decades now. If this was a new term, it would be worthy of debate. In this instance though it's very simple. Can USA select all of its best players? Can Canada select all of its best players? Can North America select all of its best players? Can Europe select all of its best players? The answer is clearly a no on all counts. If best on best just meant that the best players were there, we would have spent the last few decades calling the NHL and the all star game best on best, and yet we didn't. Because the term obviously means more than that.

Once again though, people are free to enjoy the all star exhibition all they like. Most of the world's best are certainly there. No need to lie about what this tournament is though.