World Cup: Best on Best: Canada is too good (solution?)

[Phil McKraken]

This thread is so Canadian. We are essentially apologizing for being too good at hockey.

Not really, it's the opposite. Ideas like this split-up thing are the equivalent of a boxer tying one of his hands behind his back to insult the opponent. "I can beat you without even using everything I got".

 

[KevinRedkey]

As stated above... If Canada's recent WJHC performances are any indication, competition is coming.

That's not a best-on-best tournament though. A lot of top prospects are missing from some teams, including Canada.

I dislike the idea of two Canadian teams. I think we would win regardless honestly.

 

[snipes]

Not really, it's the opposite. Ideas like this splitting up thing are the equivalent of a boxer tying one of his hands behind his back. "Look at what I can do without even using everything I got".

Different perspectives, I guess?

In any event, splitting up our country into "East" and "West" would be foolish.

Tre Kronor, Russia, Suomi, the Yanks, or Czechia could easily win a game here and there against Canada. The run we are on is special, but this is hockey. Upsets happen, Suomi have some excellent forwards coming up, Russia has some very good D coming up too. Lots of countries have good hockey players on the rise.

Hockey unites Canada, splitting us up into "East" and "West" is silly and disrespectful to the other hockey powers.

 

[ulvvf]

Solution. Have neutral tournaments, No biased refs, played on neutral ground, organized by neutral organisation. Then you would have lesser golds from Canada. It has been 2 best on best tournament that can be seend as neutral (OC 98 and 06), no medals for Canada there.

 

[snipes]

Solution. Have neutral tournaments, No biased refs, played on neutral ground, organized by neutral organisation. Then you would have lesser golds from Canada. It has been 2 best on best tournament that can be seend as neutral (OC 98 and 06), no medals for Canada there.

Is this still continuing? Are you really unwilling to admit that we are the best hockey nation?

 

[Drij]

I agree: I think the Canadian dominance has peaked with the 2014 olymics and this WCOH. While the Canadians should remain the favourites for the foreseeable future, there will be increased competition perhaps as soon as the next Olympic tournament with the Finnish and American young guns coming into their own, among others. The vast majority of the Canadian roster is at peak age right now: there is not enough coming through the pipe to replace their inevitable decline due to age.

Sorry but that's bull. There are plenty of good young Canadians that didn't even make team canada that are ready to take over for the old guys on the team.

And looking at the WJHC results for the last 5 years or so. Those other countries will maybe get 1 or 2 good players from those teams playing on their men's team.

That isn't going to close the gab.

 

[Hutz]

Solution. Have neutral tournaments, No biased refs, played on neutral ground, organized by neutral organisation. Then you would have lesser golds from Canada. It has been 2 best on best tournament that can be seend as neutral (OC 98 and 06), no medals for Canada there.

Ah, so the Sochi (and to a lesser extent Salt Lake) Olympics don't count because they were on hostile ground?

 

[Neutral Hockey Fan]

Solution. Have neutral tournaments, No biased refs, played on neutral ground, organized by neutral organisation. Then you would have lesser golds from Canada. It has been 2 best on best tournament that can be seend as neutral (OC 98 and 06), no medals for Canada there.

Legitimate question.

Who should have won gold in 2010 and 2014? As you say, Canada shouldn't have, so I want you to answer here and tell us all who was better please. Thanks

Now that I think about it...didn't Canada win the last couple world championships under the conditions you just mentioned? How is it possible for Canada to win on neutral ground, with iihf refs, which was organized by a neutral party? Impossible!!! IIHF is biased towards Canada obviously.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

The solution is for other countries to get better. Why should international competition be ruined for the sake of parity? Anyone who wants to see parity can fortunately tune into the NHL and watch over 1000 games at relative parity every year.

Also, this talk of Canada being too good is way too much. People were saying the same thing after the 2009 WJC. A few bounces the other way in a single elimination game and Canada can lose to pretty much any team.

I think this is spot on. To me, it's the "little things" that sets Canada up for success in these tournaments. Coaching/preparation for sure. It's easy to see that the U.S. for example lacked that. Talent is important, but that gap has narrowed (even though overall depth remains a significant advantage for Canada).

 

[Tomas W]

No more Gimmick teams, please. Even if Canada win every tournment (they wont) the next hundred years.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The Canada/World Cup has no meaning because there has now been Olympic participation by Canada. The Canada/World Cup was basically made so that Canada could play the Soviets back in the day, because they couldn't otherwise for various reasons. Now they do play against each other in the Olympics, the mysterious Soviet machine is just Team Russia that has players allowed to play in the NHL, and Russia doesn't even medal in the pro tournaments anymore. In a way, the Canada Cup from the beginning was sort of a gimmick.

The NHL doesn't want the players they're paying to go off and play for a few weeks, risking injury, and paying for the privilege to see them possibly get hurt. That's the only reason they brought back this tournament; to try and give themselves some kind of bargaining power against the Olympics. It came back after the people in charge of the Olympics said they might not pay for the insurance and all that anymore. It was hastily put together because of that, and it is what it is.

You're not going to improve the tournament, as it doesn't matter. It's not the Olympics, and it doesn't even set the stage for the Olympics like the World Championship, even with the hodgepodge rosters the teams have in that. Unless the Olympics says pro players can't play, the reason for the Canada/World Cup no longer exists. Some of the game have been fun, it's interesting how Team NA and Team Europe have ended up rallying around something as a group, but there's nothing to the tournament.

 

[Ari91]

This forum never fails to find ways to 'fix' things that aren't broken. A tournament of any kind shouldn't be compromised for the sake of parity. Canada will not be dominant forever. Yes, they are playing incredible hockey to the point where you expect them to win and you expect them to make it look incredibly easy...but that won't always be the case and even now, it only takes a bad bounce, a split second bad decision for tides to turn and for Canada to be on the opposite side of the win column. International tournaments are fixated on national pride. I can't decide if from a Canadian perspective this is really being considerate or arrogant but I know that if I weren't Canadian, I would find the proposal to be insulting. If a country loses by 1 in OT or gets slapped around on the scoreboard, there is still dignity in losing in an honest battle against a team that was assembled with the intention of being the 'best of'.

 

[syc]

Right now Canada is clearly a level above every other nation. This won't last forever, the USA played horrible but they still have so many good young players. Same with Finland, in four years a best on best will look very different then this.

 

[bert]

Exactly what I thought, speaking as a Canadian.

This is the generation of Canadians that completely dominated the WJC's too. Look at the WJC's of the last 5-6 years that include the stars of tomorrow.

2011- Russia gold
2012- Sweden gold
2013- USA gold
2014- Finland gold
2015- Canada gold
2016- Finland gold

Canada has been in the finals of the WJC, TWICE since 2011... This current crop has always dominated in international competition. I'm sure the next generation lead by McDavid will be great too, but I don't think they'll be heads and shoulders above the Yanks, Russians, Swedes, and Finns, like they currently are.

Canada consistenly doesnt send its top players to the WJC because they are in the NHL already. I dont think this is a true indicator that there is parody.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Right now Canada is clearly a level above every other nation. This won't last forever, the USA played horrible but they still have so many good young players. Same with Finland, in four years a best on best will look very different then this.

I don't know if the next 4 years are going to change as much as everyone expects. People say the same thing after every best on best tournament. Other countries are indeed improving but it still takes time.

This past season has seen the least amount on Canadian born NHL'ers ever (I think) and yet this tournament is probably the most dominant yet by Canada.

These best on best tournaments are what? The Olympics since 98 and all the Canada Cup/World Cup events. IF these are what's considered best on best that means since 1976 there have been 12 "best on best" tournaments and Canada has won 8 of them. After tonight that will likely be 9 wins in 13. This is at a time where Canada (at least by NHL standards) are the weakest they've ever been.

Other teams are getting better but I think it's going to take a lot longer than 4 years before Canada stops being this much above everyone else at best on best hockey.

 

[Gsus]

Time will correct the issue. Canada won't be as superior as of now.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Canada should just sit out the next few to give crappier countries a chance.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Time will correct the issue. Canada won't be as superior as of now.

Certainly. Other teams are crap at the moment. But not for long.

 

[Mario le Magnifique]

I know this would dilute Canada's talent pool, but I'd do an Eastern Canada team and a Western Canada team.

Then, USA, Russia, Sweden, Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia. 8 teams total.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't know if the next 4 years are going to change as much as everyone expects. People say the same thing after every best on best tournament. Other countries are indeed improving but it still takes time.

This past season has seen the least amount on Canadian born NHL'ers ever (I think) and yet this tournament is probably the most dominant yet by Canada.

These best on best tournaments are what? The Olympics since 98 and all the Canada Cup/World Cup events. IF these are what's considered best on best that means since 1976 there have been 12 "best on best" tournaments and Canada has won 8 of them. After tonight that will likely be 9 wins in 13. This is at a time where Canada (at least by NHL standards) are the weakest they've ever been.

Other teams are getting better but I think it's going to take a lot longer than 4 years before Canada stops being this much above everyone else at best on best hockey.

The funny thing is that no country has more talent to add than Canada over the next few years. In a relative sense though the other countries will close the gap somewhat. If Canada goes from a 9 to a 10 but Finland goes from a 4 to a 7, that is significantly closer in a one game elimination setting.

 

[Mario le Magnifique]

Solution. Have neutral tournaments, No biased refs, played on neutral ground, organized by neutral organisation. Then you would have lesser golds from Canada. It has been 2 best on best tournament that can be seend as neutral (OC 98 and 06), no medals for Canada there.

All opinions have the right to exist but this one has got to be at a tinfoil hattery level of conspiracy.

I once heard Reptilians were ruling Earth from the planet Nibiru. True story.

 

[Xokkeu]

The funny thing is that no country has more talent to add than Canada over the next few years. In a relative sense though the other countries will close the gap somewhat. If Canada goes from a 9 to a 10 but Finland goes from a 4 to a 7, that is significantly closer in a one game elimination setting.

Yeah doesn't matter if Canada has 100 A+ forwards. You can only roll 16. If Finland or the states get 10 A+ forwards then it's basically an even game.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

1972... Canada NHL Pros were supposed to be the best too. They ended up winning by the skin of their teeth but they were initially in shock.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Yeah doesn't matter if Canada has 100 A+ forwards. You can only roll 16. If Finland or the states get 10 A+ forwards then it's basically an even game.

Then Finland gets 2 injuries and it is not even anymore.

And having choice between 100 A+ forwards means that you can pick and choose and form the best team possible based on the style of play you wanna play and chemistry. When you have 10 A+ forwards, well, you gotta pick them all.

Depth is still a big advantage.

 

[Xokkeu]

Then Finland gets 2 injuries and it is not even anymore.

And having choice between 100 A+ forwards means that you can pick and choose and form the best team possible based on the style of play you wanna play and chemistry. When you have 10 A+ forwards, well, you gotta pick them all.

Depth is still a big advantage.

Don't think I said Canada was disadvantaged in this situation