World Cup 2016: Best On Best?

[Elvs]

Revamp what?

2 teams in any All Star Game

2 teams in the Summit Series

8 teams in the WCH

I suppose you could have 4 teams in a WCH tournament, but it wouldn't make for much of a tournament.

6 teams are countries with enough depth in their country to form a competitive team for the tournament from what they feel gives them the best chance to win.

One team with the best of the rest European players, who's countries of origin lack the depth to be competitive team, so they grouped them all together.

One team made up of the BEST young future stars in North America.

Sorry I just don't get what you mean by revamped to four teams. :shrug:

I think he meant the All Star game consisted of 4 teams the past season, and it was played in a mini tournament format.

 

[hitmen19]

I agree that it's pretty close to a best on best.



I don't doubt that there are many who are wrong. I've discussed the past editions with posters, many from Europe, over the years so I'm decently well versed in their issues with those tournaments. In fact, in some cases I agree with their issues. The best on best tournaments were the previous Canada/World Cups and the 1998 and onward Olympics. Room for interpretation with the 1976 and 1991 Canada Cups and the 2005 WC due to some unique issues. The very factual problem of half of the teams in this tournament not being able to select their best in a supposedly best on best tournament is an obstacle that can't be surmounted though. Just because some people use a term in the wrong manner doesn't make their interpretation valid. If I called a November game between Columbus and Edmonton a best on best I would hope that most people would be able to realize how stupid that would be, even though it happened to be my belief.

Once again you're free to be wrong all you want. I can't change your thoughts and don't expect to. It remains obvious that a tournament in which half of the teams cannot select all of their best (healthy) players is not a best on best though.



You've not been personally insulted that I've seen. Your poorly reasoned and factually wrong posts were rightly criticized though, despite the passive aggressive pouting that has followed. That you are unable to defend them makes it all the more clear.

Thank you for proving my point. You have your list, some others have their lists which might slightly differ then yours such as the 05 world championships as you listed or 91 Canada cup, or just Canada Cups in general. There are many Russians who want to use Challenger Cup or Rendevouz to increase their total. The point is that there is no consensus outside the 98 and post Olympic tourneys that everyone can agree upon. With such non consensus amongst all the others, this world cup will fall right into line with that group. As of last check, this world cup is about 50-50%, probably just like the Canada cups, 05 world championship, etc.

So you have your list and this world cup isn't included. That is fine, and you are entitled to believe which ones you want to consider. Many Europeans don't include Canada Cups, while we can argue all we want with them, don't consider them best on best. It is easy to say from your view point and all Canadians in general why we believe the Canada cups should be, but that doesn't mean their is consensus on it from Europeans. So the premise that there is consensus what best on best meant is not accurate. Everyone has their own lists, and the world cup is a best on best as every player even playing has indicated. Im not going to make built in excuses that Canada and the USA didn't have access to their best players as an excuse in case some European team wins

 

[JackSlater]

That is a game. This is a tournament.

Can you have a tournament with just two teams?

No. But you can have a series, like in 1972. That was a best on best series.

All Star is a best on best game.

The World Cup is a best on best TOURNAMENT.

Now, at least this logic is consistent. Of course best on best never referred to the all star game before, but if one considers that game to be best on best then this tournament likely does meet the criteria as well. Once we accept everyone's definition blindly, as some here propose, anything can suddenly be a best on best.

I was being sarcastic.

Was Canada eligible to select any Canadian player they wanted for this tournament? Was the U.S.? If the answer is no, then I don't know how this can be a best-on-best tournament. In Vancouver (2010 Olympics), Canada and USA met in the final and both nations had all the players they wanted to have. That made it best-on-best.

If you create teams that takes players from other teams, it's no longer a best-on-best. Otherwise we could just call the NHL best-on-best, all the best players are there. They are just spread out over 30 teams.

Yes, it's pretty obvious. Whenever someone attempts to give a definition for best on best as simply "the best players are there" they are of course describing the all star game and the whole NHL, but very few of them (other than TLeafsFan) will actually call the all star game or the NHL best on best hockey. That would be because that definition of best on best is clearly wrong. People seem strangely offended by this not being a best on best event. That it isn't a best on best doesn't mean that the hockey will be bad or that the product won't be entertaining.

Thank you for proving my point. You have your list, some others have their lists which might slightly differ then yours such as the 05 world championships as you listed or 91 Canada cup, or just Canada Cups in general. There are many Russians who want to use Challenger Cup or Rendevouz to increase their total. The point is that there is no consensus outside the 98 and post Olympic tourneys that everyone can agree upon. With such non consensus amongst all the others, this world cup will fall right into line with that group. As of last check, this world cup is about 50-50%, probably just like the Canada cups, 05 world championship, etc.

So you have your list and this world cup isn't included. That is fine, and you are entitled to believe which ones you want to consider. Many Europeans don't include Canada Cups, while we can argue all we want with them, don't consider them best on best. It is easy to say from your view point and all Canadians in general why we believe the Canada cups should be, but that doesn't mean their is consensus on it from Europeans. So the premise that there is consensus what best on best meant is not accurate. Everyone has their own lists, and the world cup is a best on best as every player even playing has indicated. Im not going to make built in excuses that Canada and the USA didn't have access to their best players as an excuse in case some European team wins

I've never denied that other people have their opinions, so I don't know why you keep repeating that to me. Their opinions are wrong, but I am well aware that they exist. As I said, if I come out with some opinion like that a random NHL game is a best on best, that doesn't somehow make it valid. As for excuses, I already explained that your inference is wrong, so I don't know why you brought it up again. Canada and USA not having access to all of their best players is fact, and unfortunately it tarnishes the result of the tournament regardless of who wins. Another fact is that the supposed continental teams don't have access to the best players from their continents. This is particularly bad in my eyes because I fully expect Canada to win. Remembering that the final is best of three, I will change my earlier statement and state that I now expect that Canada's odds of winning are above 50%.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

I was being sarcastic.

Was Canada eligible to select any Canadian player they wanted for this tournament? Was the U.S.? If the answer is no, then I don't know how this can be a best-on-best tournament. In Vancouver (2010 Olympics), Canada and USA met in the final and both nations had all the players they wanted to have. That made it best-on-best.

If you create teams that takes players from other teams, it's no longer a best-on-best. Otherwise we could just call the NHL best-on-best, all the best players are there. They are just spread out over 30 teams.

If it had been best-on-best it wouldn't have been in Canada with Canadian refs

 

[TLeafsFan]

I was being sarcastic.

Was Canada eligible to select any Canadian player they wanted for this tournament? Was the U.S.? If the answer is no, then I don't know how this can be a best-on-best tournament. In Vancouver (2010 Olympics), Canada and USA met in the final and both nations had all the players they wanted to have. That made it best-on-best.

If you create teams that takes players from other teams, it's no longer a best-on-best. Otherwise we could just call the NHL best-on-best, all the best players are there. They are just spread out over 30 teams.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they were. Any player over 23 as per the criteria.

You take players AVAILABLE to you. That doesn't NOT make it a best on best.

Ovechkin isn't available to the US, even though he lives there most of the year.

Team NA gimmick or no still deserved to be able to for a team based on the criteria they were given.

Some people might be pissed that Matthews and Eichel weren't available to team USA, oh well. Kessel was available and they passed on him.

This is still a best on best tournament.

 

[TLeafsFan]

I think he meant the All Star game consisted of 4 teams the past season, and it was played in a mini tournament format.

Oh yeah the 3 on 3 for the entire game.

At least they actually showed up to play last season.

 

[JackSlater]

Actually, I'm pretty sure they were. Any player over 23 as per the criteria.

You take players AVAILABLE to you. That doesn't NOT make it a best on best.

Ovechkin isn't available to the US, even though he lives there most of the year.

Team NA gimmick or no still deserved to be able to for a team based on the criteria they were given.

Some people might be pissed that Matthews and Eichel weren't available to team USA, oh well. Kessel was available and they passed on him.

This is still a best on best tournament.

Great, so the WJC is a best on best right? Hlinka tournament too. As long as you take the best available to you, regardless of the criteria, then it's a best on best. Solid.

 

[Xokkeu]

Great, so the WJC is a best on best right? Hlinka tournament too. As long as you take the best available to you, regardless of the criteria, then it's a best on best. Solid.

My Thursday night league is best on best.

 

[Xokkeu]

Oh yeah the 3 on 3 for the entire game.

At least they actually showed up to play last season.

The John Scott Cup!

 

[Elvs]

Ovechkin isn't available to the US, even though he lives there most of the year.

You are kidding, right?

 

[Xokkeu]

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.

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2...-why-you-should-support-team-north-america-at

Be honest. If Team Canada wins this second-class tournament, you won't feel that excited. If you cheer for them and they lose, you'll feel disappointed. If you cheer for North America, you're in for a ride, win or lose. And isn't that what we want out of hockey?

Go Team North America. Everybody pulls for David.

https://www.thestar.com/sports/brea...lly-no-other-choice-than-toronto-to-host.html

The only question is whether this is really a World Cup. It is not. The term "world cup" for this tournament really is an insult every other sport that holds World Cups and sets the NHL up for mockery.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/world-cup-of-hockey-10-baffling-questions-answered-171434476.html

1 – Should I care about this thing?

....

In monitoring the pre-tournament chatter from the majority of hockey media, the answer here would be: “Yes … well, sure … I mean, it beats covering completely inconsequential and meaningless preseason games and practices. At least this has a [expletive] trophy, the whiff of nostalgic importance and a few fleeting narratives and highlights we can all focus on for a few weeks. Also, Toronto has great bars, and two words: PER. DIEM.â€

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/plus-minus-world-cup-hockey-1.3760129

It's hard to argue against a team full of "Millennials" because watching a bunch of kids take it to the veterans would be nothing but fun. The idea is ambitious, but seems more gimmicky than anything else. International tournaments are country vs. country. When one-quarter of the teams don't even fit the definition, well ...

....

It's up in the air whether the NHL plays in the 2018 Games and beyond, but even if do keep going, bridging the four-year gap with the World Cup would fail to fill the hunger for international hockey because it feels almost like a giant all-star tournament instead of a flag-raising honour.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, because people love watching the best players in the world play. But the emotion of cheering on your country may not be as strong, leaving international fans unsatisfied during what's supposed to be a bridge tournament.

 

[hitmen19]

I've never denied that other people have their opinions, so I don't know why you keep repeating that to me. Their opinions are wrong, but I am well aware that they exist. As I said, if I come out with some opinion like that a random NHL game is a best on best, that doesn't somehow make it valid. As for excuses, I already explained that your inference is wrong, so I don't know why you brought it up again. Canada and USA not having access to all of their best players is fact, and unfortunately it tarnishes the result of the tournament regardless of who wins. Another fact is that the supposed continental teams don't have access to the best players from their continents. This is particularly bad in my eyes because I fully expect Canada to win. Remembering that the final is best of three, I will change my earlier statement and state that I now expect that Canada's odds of winning are above 50%.

so besides the Olympics which should have 100% agreement rate, the rest of them are no where close to consensus.

So without there being any particular hockey body or governing agency to dictate which tourney is considered best on best:

Jack Slater can argue tourney X,X,X,X but no world cup 2016 is included

Rando Russian can argue tourney X,X,X should be included but so should tourney Z,Z

Hitmen19 can argue tourney X,X,X,X and world cup 16 is included.

Jack can state according to his definition that he is right and all that don't agree with him are wrong. That's fine, that's what opinions are about

Hitmen19 will argue with his own list, but has world cup 16 in it.

And I guess that's what this exercise is all about. I will go into this tourney wanting my country to win so I can put a win under the win column eventhough it is weaker due to something it agreed upon entering the tourney. If some other countries are the best they can be and win. Great for them, its going in their win column.

The only good these unofficial titles are good for are for argument purposes on these forums. I would much prefer to have the satisfaction of watching the tournament with best on best players as the structure agreed upon by the two countries that get hurt by the structure, a structure which the players believe are best on best, and give the win to the country under its win total that will totally have deserved it.

 

[TLeafsFan]

The John Scott Cup!

All Star MVP!

 

[TLeafsFan]

so besides the Olympics which should have 100% agreement rate, the rest of them are no where close to consensus.

So without there being any particular hockey body or governing agency to dictate which tourney is considered best on best:

Jack Slater can argue tourney X,X,X,X but no world cup 2016 is included

Rando Russian can argue tourney X,X,X should be included but so should tourney Z,Z

Hitmen19 can argue tourney X,X,X,X and world cup 16 is included.

Jack can state according to his definition that he is right and all that don't agree with him are wrong. That's fine, that's what opinions are about

Hitmen19 will argue with his own list, but has world cup 16 in it.

And I guess that's what this exercise is all about. I will go into this tourney wanting my country to win so I can put a win under the win column eventhough it is weaker due to something it agreed upon entering the tourney. If some other countries are the best they can be and win. Great for them, its going in their win column.

The only good these unofficial titles are good for are for argument purposes on these forums. I would much prefer to have the satisfaction of watching the tournament with best on best players as the structure agreed upon by the two countries that get hurt by the structure, a structure which the players believe are best on best, and give the win to the country under its win total that will totally have deserved it.

Just think of the party across Canada AND the US of team NA wins!

 

[Gary Nylund]

Really because a good number of media outlets seem to call it something less than the Stanley cup and Olympics but a fun preseason tournament.

So what? This thread is about ... well see the thread title. I've read newspaper articles lately where they refer to the World Cup as best on best. I keep hearing the phrase on TV, I keep hearing people use that phrase. So it's pretty obvious, that many people consider this tournament to be best on best. Other don't.

Conclusion = opinions vary.

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2...-why-you-should-support-team-north-america-at

https://www.thestar.com/sports/brea...lly-no-other-choice-than-toronto-to-host.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/world-cup-of-hockey-10-baffling-questions-answered-171434476.html

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/plus-minus-world-cup-hockey-1.3760129

Not sure how this relates to the discussion at hand. I'm sure if you spend no more than 1 minute with google you will find articles that refer to this tournament as best on best.

 

[JackSlater]

My Thursday night league is best on best.

I didn't realize it, but as a kid I won a few best on best tournaments. Wish I had cherished the experience more.

so besides the Olympics which should have 100% agreement rate, the rest of them are no where close to consensus.

So without there being any particular hockey body or governing agency to dictate which tourney is considered best on best:

Jack Slater can argue tourney X,X,X,X but no world cup 2016 is included

Rando Russian can argue tourney X,X,X should be included but so should tourney Z,Z

Hitmen19 can argue tourney X,X,X,X and world cup 16 is included.

Jack can state according to his definition that he is right and all that don't agree with him are wrong. That's fine, that's what opinions are about

Hitmen19 will argue with his own list, but has world cup 16 in it.

And I guess that's what this exercise is all about. I will go into this tourney wanting my country to win so I can put a win under the win column eventhough it is weaker due to something it agreed upon entering the tourney. If some other countries are the best they can be and win. Great for them, its going in their win column.

The only good these unofficial titles are good for are for argument purposes on these forums. I would much prefer to have the satisfaction of watching the tournament with best on best players as the structure agreed upon by the two countries that get hurt by the structure, a structure which the players believe are best on best, and give the win to the country under its win total that will totally have deserved it.

You are entitled to enjoy it if you wish. This tournament not being best on best shouldn't impede anyone's enjoyment of the all star exhibition. Millions enjoy the WJC, myself included, and that is only a best on best to TLeafsFan.

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2...-why-you-should-support-team-north-america-at



https://www.thestar.com/sports/brea...lly-no-other-choice-than-toronto-to-host.html



http://sports.yahoo.com/news/world-cup-of-hockey-10-baffling-questions-answered-171434476.html



http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/plus-minus-world-cup-hockey-1.3760129

Ken Campbell of The Hockey News is pretty critical, though agreeing with him made me reflect on my own position. Any opinion can be found in the media though.

 

[hitmen19]

You are entitled to enjoy it if you wish. This tournament not being best on best shouldn't impede anyone's enjoyment of the all star exhibition. Millions enjoy the WJC, myself included, and that is only a best on best to TLeafsFan.



QUOTE]
Just like you were entitled to enjoy the Canada Cup's that others didn't think fit their Criteria either. The Canada Cup's fit yours, so you enjoyed it and This world cup will fit mine, and I also will enjoy it.

 

[Xokkeu]

So what? This thread is about ... well see the thread title. I've read newspaper articles lately where they refer to the World Cup as best on best. I keep hearing the phrase on TV, I keep hearing people use that phrase. So it's pretty obvious, that many people consider this tournament to be best on best. Other don't.

Conclusion = opinions vary.



Not sure how this relates to the discussion at hand. I'm sure if you spend no more than 1 minute with google you will find articles that refer to this tournament as best on best.

You claimed the only nits who don't like it are here.

 

[Xokkeu]

Just think of the party across Canada AND the US of team NA wins!

Dude the NFL and NCAAF season just started. These games are going to be getting like 2-300k for team USA games at best. Probably in the five figures for the Euro games.

 

[JackSlater]

Just like you were entitled to enjoy the Canada Cup's that others didn't think fit their Criteria either. The Canada Cup's fit yours, so you enjoyed it and This world cup will fit mine, and I also will enjoy it.

The Canada Cups being obviously best on best, and this tournament obviously not being best on best, really shouldn't factor into enjoyment that much. The on ice product is unaffected by such things, and luckily for some they care only about the exhibition aspect.

 

[TLeafsFan]

Dude the NFL and NCAAF season just started. These games are going to be getting like 2-300k for team USA games at best. Probably in the five figures for the Euro games.

I'm sure there is still enough of the pie, for a World Cup event to garner a good chunk of viewership.

 

[Xokkeu]

I'm sure there is still enough of the pie, for a World Cup event to garner a good chunk of viewership.

I'm not sure you understand how the NHL works south of the border. People generally only watch their local team, and really only start to pay attention around Christmas or whenever their NFL team is eliminated. (So maybe ratings for this will be great in Dallas )

 

[Gary Nylund]

You claimed the only nits who don't like it are here.

Your completely distorting what I said.

 

[Xokkeu]

Your completely distorting what I said.

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.

Really?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Really?

Yup. Those links you posted were not things I had read. Im not saying every article Ive read praises the gimmick teams, but I have not read anything where people complain about the term best on best.