World cup is better than Olympics

[CantHaveTkachev]

I've thought the whole World Cup, minus the U23's, was a dud and boring.

yup

not one game has been a back-and-forth games with lots of chances...way too many shutouts

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

yup

not one game has been a back-and-forth games with lots of chances...way too many shutouts

Canada dominating is too much of a good thing for me. Even I get bored. Last night I switched to Big Brother.

I would not lose sleep if Best on Best went away for a long while.

 

[Claypool]

I've thought the whole World Cup, minus the U23's, was a dud and boring.

That's because teams have to play trap hockey and hope their goaltender steals a game to win. Canada is the only team that has the capability of playing up and down hockey, but even they refuse to play that way.

There also weren't any crap teams for players to pad their stats and get a lot of goals. Every team was competitive to some degree. International hockey with pro players is mainly pretty boring, just like NHL hockey. Why the World Juniors is exciting is because players tend to make more mistakes and there's potential for up and down hockey.

 

[BruinLVGA]

a) I can see why one might think that but it's a myth that's been disproven and if you had actually watched the previous Canada/World Cups, then you'd know this. Many people consider the 1987 tournament to be the best hockey they've ever seen just as one example.

b) Wrong again. If motivation was an issue like you say, then the level of play couldn't be as high as it has been. And again, the only reason you are blissfully unaware of how wrong you are is that you haven't been watching the games.

It's impossible for you to speak with any authority whatsoever on hockey games you haven't even seen, how do you not see this?

I think I suggested to you in that other thread months ago - get DVD's of the 3 game Canada/Russia final in 1987 and watch them. Once you do that, if you know anything at all about hockey then you'll understand that the rest of the hockey world isn't wrong to think this was amazing hockey, it's you who's wrong to think that it wasn't. This despite the fact that is was played in September and you thinking that the players have nothing to play for. Trust me, if you do this you'll be happy you did. And you don't even have to come back here to admit you're wrong, no-one will ever know.

You're the only person I've ever encountered who doesn't think the hockey played in previous Canada/World Cups was of the highest quality. Of course you're also the only person I've ever encountered who has such a strong opinion on this despite not having seen the games. Yes you insist that the rest of the hockey world is wrong, and you're right. Amazing stuff.

Re:
a) It is just that it's impossible for the players to be in absolute (or very close to it) peak form in September vs the peak of the season (say from February on, more or less). I believe this to be true for all tournaments, games.
b) we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

If I find a DVD of it, I will take a look at it, OK? By the way, that year (1987) I saw CSKA Moscow (= 95% of the Soviet Union national team) become European champion for clubs, dominating the final four tournament vs the Swedish champions, Czechoslovakian champions and Swiss champions. As in I was there at the stadium watching the games they played and to me, that is the best hockey I have ever seen. Poetry in motion. Style wise (and even for how effective it was), top Soviet hockey was beautiful.

Lastly, I never commented on the level of play in those tournaments, because I have only seen highlights of them, so I can't make an educated comment about them as a whole.
The only things I said, are point a + b of my previous post (about the shape of a hockey player in September as not being optimal vs later in the season + the fact that I believe that a tournament that is invitational loses meaningfulness. Both these factors can't impact positively any tournament, game).

 

[Nino33]

the '87 Canada Cup final series games are all available on youtube

 

[Maelmoor]

I think some people here underestimate the popularity of the Olympics, if I had to choose between a World Cup final or an Olympic final I would watch the the later one, no matter if there would be NHL players or not.

I know the 2010 final had amazing numbers, only beaten by the 1980 Olympics, 2014 in Sochi also had really good numbers.

As I said, I like good hockey and enjoy watching the World Cup but it will never beat the Olympics.

 

[Don Corleone]

Do people even remember the last Olympics? The level of hockey being played in this tournament is certainly better. A weak as a noodle Finland team nearly went to the finals and spanked the US for bronze just because nearly every top nation except Canada played poor hockey. Add in the wonderful D level squads of the weaker hockey nations and a longer schedule and you got yourself a poor tournament. However, 2010 was clearly better so maybe I should rather compare the WC to that. Even then I prefer this format because there is no unnecessary padding. All games have meaning except for one US vs Czechs, no weak squads, tight schedule and longer finals. I will say that playing on NHL ice is wayyyy better than international ice and since the Olympics rarely are played that way it has to taken into account.

Now that is not to say all games in this tournament have been great, Sweden Russia for example was a complete chore to watch.

 

[Rayban*]

USA and Finland ruined the tournament.

 

[Xokkeu]

USA and Finland ruined the tournament.

Can't have everyone win the tournament

 

[Rayban*]

Can't have everyone win the tournament

Yea but 1 goal? might as well invite Germany.

 

[Slimmy]

Do people even remember the last Olympics? The level of hockey being played in this tournament is certainly better. A weak as a noodle Finland team nearly went to the finals and spanked the US for bronze just because nearly every top nation except Canada played poor hockey. Add in the wonderful D level squads of the weaker hockey nations and a longer schedule and you got yourself a poor tournament. However, 2010 was clearly better so maybe I should rather compare the WC to that. Even then I prefer this format because there is no unnecessary padding. All games have meaning except for one US vs Czechs, no weak squads, tight schedule and longer finals. I will say that playing on NHL ice is wayyyy better than international ice and since the Olympics rarely are played that way it has to taken into account.

Now that is not to say all games in this tournament have been great, Sweden Russia for example was a complete chore to watch.

Certainly better than the Swe - Fin game. I thought Rus - Swe was the most enjoyable game to watch in the whole tournament (out of the early starts. Only saw Can - Cze out of the later games).

 

[gwh]

Do people even remember the last Olympics? The level of hockey being played in this tournament is certainly better. A weak as a noodle Finland team nearly went to the finals and spanked the US for bronze just because nearly every top nation except Canada played poor hockey.

Now that is not to say all games in this tournament have been great, Sweden Russia for example was a complete chore to watch.

The zone exits in smaller ice are done in completely different way. Finland is playing big ice hockey on small ice.The same reason why USA (and sometimes Canada) gets dumpstered in the big ice.

Forechecking on small ice = turnovers and dead D. Forechecking on big ice = hacking with sticks and playing catch, 3v2 to own end.

That s a part reason why RUS-SWE looks like that. If you throw 2 guys behind the opponent's goal on big ice, the opponent is scoring.

RUS-SWE, 4 guys constantly under the puck at all times.

 

[Don Corleone]

Certainly better than the Swe - Fin game. I thought Rus - Swe was the most enjoyable game to watch in the whole tournament (out of the early starts. Only saw Can - Cze out of the later games).

It was just an example. Agree that the Sweden Finland game was also a bore. But do not agree at all that is was among the most entertaining games. All NA games were way better, same with the Canada games and so on.

The zone exits in smaller ice are done in completely different way. Finland is playing big ice hockey on small ice.The same reason why USA (and sometimes Canada) gets dumpstered in the big ice.

Forechecking on small ice = turnovers and dead D. Forechecking on big ice = hacking with sticks and playing catch, 3v2 to own end.

That s a part reason why RUS-SWE looks like that. If you throw 2 guys behind the opponent's goal on big ice, the opponent is scoring.

RUS-SWE, 4 guys constantly under the puck at all times.

Enjoy the thought behind this post and agree. But still that Finnish team was nothing to write home about just like the entire 2014 Olympics except for Canada. And how could I forget the cry fest that happened after the bronze medal game, man was that cringe worthy!

 

[Jon Riley]

Why do "good defensive games" qualify as bad hockey, exactly?
I still have problems understanding what people consoder good hockey. A 5-6 ot win is good hockey because is a close match with a lot of goals and chances or is rather an exicting match with questionable goalies and awful defensive plays?

 

[Jablkon]

Yea but 1 goal? might as well invite Germany.

No, they will be just be mixed together next time. Tough rules of WC

 

[BruinLVGA]

the '87 Canada Cup final series games are all available on youtube

Didn't know that. Thanks, that makes it easier AND cheaper. What's not to like.

 

[Don Corleone]

Why do "good defensive games" qualify as bad hockey, exactly?
I still have problems understanding what people consoder good hockey. A 5-6 ot win is good hockey because is a close match with a lot of goals and chances or is rather an exicting match with questionable goalies and awful defensive plays?

I will give my take on this. A good game has to have excitement in it. Goals naturally are just that but grade A scoring chances, huge hits, great saves and other memorable moments like that. That being said the game has to be at least somewhat competitive to be all that exciting. Watching a powerhouse terminate a team is not that engaging, like the typical Olympic top country vs teams that barely qualified. So its about having a bunch of stuff happen during the game. The dynasty Oilers were tremendous to watch just because they made things happen, overall the hockey back then was more exciting.

Then there are the games where you can literally count the prime scoring chances with both or even worse one hand. The game today is not physical either so there goes that. So what you have left in those games is to watch defensive plays and such, not that engaging. NA for example was great to see but a Finland Sweden game was not.

 

[Slimmy]

It was just an example. Agree that the Sweden Finland game was also a bore. But do not agree at all that is was among the most entertaining games. All NA games were way better, same with the Canada games and so on.

Guess it depends on the perspective. A bench clearing brawl is also entertaining.
It felt very satisfactory to see the Swedish D in action against that Russian team. Never seen Ovy that frustrated. Thing of beauty to behold Karlsson and Hedman gaining control of center ice with a single stride.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Re:
a) It is just that it's impossible for the players to be in absolute (or very close to it) peak form in September vs the peak of the season (say from February on, more or less). I believe this to be true for all tournaments, games.
b) we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

If I find a DVD of it, I will take a look at it, OK? By the way, that year (1987) I saw CSKA Moscow (= 95% of the Soviet Union national team) become European champion for clubs, dominating the final four tournament vs the Swedish champions, Czechoslovakian champions and Swiss champions. As in I was there at the stadium watching the games they played and to me, that is the best hockey I have ever seen. Poetry in motion. Style wise (and even for how effective it was), top Soviet hockey was beautiful.

Lastly, I never commented on the level of play in those tournaments, because I have only seen highlights of them, so I can't make an educated comment about them as a whole.
The only things I said, are point a + b of my previous post (about the shape of a hockey player in September as not being optimal vs later in the season + the fact that I believe that a tournament that is invitational loses meaningfulness. Both these factors can't impact positively any tournament, game).

a)
That's a myth. It's one that's parroted by many but a myth nevertheless. Think about it a bit, what is it that you think hockey players can do better in February then in September after some practices and warm up games? Have they forgotten how to skate over the summer? Shoot? Pass? Stick-handle? Even over the last week we've seen team NA play beautifully, whatever summer rust they were carrying got shaken off pretty quickly.

You can debate whether or not players in February have any advantages, I don't see how you could prove it one way or the other but there is in fact one advantage that players have in September that is really not debatable IMO - it's a well known fact that by the time the playoffs roll around, everyone is playing hurt to some extent. The season is a long brutal grind. As a Leaf fan, the most poignant example I've seen with my own eyes is watching Doug Gilmour being worn down in the 93 playoffs. Adrenaline and will power go a long way but the fact is, players are in much better condition to play at a high level in September after they've had a summer to heal their wounds.

The soviets are always in peak form and ready to play, especially when Team Canada's on the menu. You know how amazing that soviet team was in 1987 OK good, then you should understand that if Team Canada wasn't in peak form they couldn't even compete with them yet they did and they even won. This despite the fact that they only had a short training camp to get to know each other whereas the soviets were together as a team all the time.

b)
Same as above applies - an unmotivated Team Canada would have been swept off the ice by that soviet team. Yes, it really is that simple.

If you do watch the games, you're in for a treat and after watching, you'll understand. If not then you'll be the first person ever to watch those games and think you're watching players who are unmotivated and not in peak shape. Enjoy!