World Cup: Is international hockey dead (or too boring to resuscitate)?

[Reindl87]

I'd say this post devalues all your other posts. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

So you don't agree that this was CLEARLY a penalty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruloAuFazcg
(pause at around 59 seconds -1 minute)

You also want to tell me that Canada didn't CLEARLY make a changing mistake right before the 2: 1 happened in this years World Cup final?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DpS0kekqE8
pause at around 30 seconds

Those aren't close calls, these are blatant irregular goals.

 

[BruinLVGA]

The strawman manufacturer is complaining about my responses? Oh my, how will I ever survive.

Not my kind of thing to do. I only squarely address what folks ask me / tell me. In the case of your last post, it's nothing. Therefore I can only comment on that.

 

[Gary Nylund]

So you don't agree that this was CLEARLY a penalty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruloAuFazcg
(pause at around 59 seconds -1 minute)

You also want to tell me that Canada didn't CLEARLY make a changing mistake right before the 2: 1 happened in this years World Cup final?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DpS0kekqE8
pause at around 30 seconds

Those aren't close calls, these are blatant irregular goals.

You actually expect me to watch this nonsense? Judging the quality of refereeing by a couple of cherry picked moments is beyond ridiculous. Just stop.

Not my kind of thing to do. I only squarely address what folks ask me / tell me. In the case of your last post, it's nothing. Therefore I can only comment on that.

I told you (again) that you're manufacturing strawmen. You haven't addressed that but that's OK, sometimes silence speaks for itself. Nice post BTW, I'm overwhelmed by the "substance".

 

[Yakushev72]

It's funny to read about a team having an advantage by virtue of a three game final. Oh the shame in eliminating a bit of the randomness in hockey. Three game final is one of the things the Canada/World Cup (sometimes) gets right. Of course it is an advantage for the best team, but it is a completely fair advantage. Having a ref call a game fairly is also an advantage for the better team. Playing 60 minutes instead of 10 is an advantage for the better team. There is nothing to complain about.

Many Russian fans believe the Soviets got screwed in '84 and '87 in the Canada Cup, especially in '87 when the Soviets had their best team available, appeared to be on the way to win a best of 3, only to have it taken away from them by biased refereeing. Don't take my word for it, Google "Mike Noeth," and listen to the play-by-play call from Dan Kelly of CBC, who said "I'm cheering for Canada, but this is ridiculous!" Obviously, Soviet fans would have agreed with him. But I suppose you could get screwed just as easily in a single game as in a best of 3 format.

 

[JackSlater]

Many Russian fans believe the Soviets got screwed in '84 and '87 in the Canada Cup, especially in '87 when the Soviets had their best team available, appeared to be on the way to win a best of 3, only to have it taken away from them by biased refereeing. Don't take my word for it, Google "Mike Noeth," and listen to the play-by-play call from Dan Kelly of CBC, who said "I'm cheering for Canada, but this is ridiculous!" Obviously, Soviet fans would have agreed with him. But I suppose you could get screwed just as easily in a single game as in a best of 3 format.

Yes I'm well versed in all that. I think your tangent is meant to convey that you agree with me though, basically that fair refereeing is beneficial to the superior team since an even playing field will see the superior team win more often than not. It also seems pretty obvious that it is more difficult to be screwed in a best of three setting.

 

[Kitchener Boy]

Many Russian fans believe the Soviets got screwed in '84 and '87 in the Canada Cup, especially in '87 when the Soviets had their best team available, appeared to be on the way to win a best of 3, only to have it taken away from them by biased refereeing. Don't take my word for it, Google "Mike Noeth," and listen to the play-by-play call from Dan Kelly of CBC, who said "I'm cheering for Canada, but this is ridiculous!" Obviously, Soviet fans would have agreed with him. But I suppose you could get screwed just as easily in a single game as in a best of 3 format.

Kind of funny hearing Russians complain about refs.

Russians are considered the worst refs over here.

 

[jj cale]

Kind of funny hearing Russians complain about refs.

Russians are considered the worst refs over here.

It is really funny to hear them complain about reffing when the refs and tournament officials basically handed them a win against Finland at the WHC in belarus a couple of years ago. Talk about a rip job.

I won't even get into the snow job they pulled with the amateur status thing during Soviet times, it has been done to death here. They are o.k with that kind of cheating and a lot more when looking at the doping scandal they have going on as we speak.And do we even need to go into the reffing in Moscow in 72?

Hardly coming from a position of well earned authority when talking about integrity.

 

[jj cale]

No, the better team did. But it was all for a good cause, Alan Eagleson was killing communism.

We are o.k we were getting ripped off, we fought through it and won.

But thanks for your concern.

 

[jj cale]

You are so upset that it's actually almost endearing. Why do you get so easily bent out of shape about an Internet forum discussion? And you talk about growing up and being mature & then you proceed to throw tantrums about pretty much everything. The irony is strong in this.

I have not insulted a soul, you keep on saying that but that doesn't mean it's true. It isn't. Bring forth any example of that, that would help make your point more than just pure imagination.
I said it's not normal to want to try and favor an already stronger team... You replied to that in many posts with always a combo of "Your arguments are dumb! What's wrong with you! You are afraid of playing Canada! You have no guts!" (<-- a very mature, non-personal way to express yourself... ) ... In reply to that, I said that no one is afraid of Canada in any way, shape or form for anything you can think of. That's the "insult", according to you. Because JJ wants folks/nations to fear Canada, but if they don't he is "insulted". Does all this seem logical to you? The big problem with you is that it probably does.



Seems about right, especially with all the playoffs time that Canadian teams have been seeing lately. Also I am afraid that finding a decent hockey size rink in Canada would be pretty much impossible outside of the handful of cities that have NHL teams. After all, one couldn't for example imagine seeing a IIHF WC held in places like Quebec City... Or Halifax... That would be impossible, now would it?

(guess again, JJ. The first guess was baaaaad...)

Give it up bruin...............you've been owned long ago.

You are only digging a deeper hole each new post of pathetic rambling trying to justify being afraid to play better teams in best of threes.


I cannot make you have balls, it is something you have to be willing to develop yourself.

No one wants to hear anymore of this around here. you want to discuss it then p.m me.

 

[Kitchener Boy]

It is really funny to hear them complain about reffing when the refs and tournament officials basically handed them a win against Finland at the WHC in belarus a couple of years ago. Talk about a rip job.

I won't even get into the snow job they pulled with the amateur status thing during Soviet times, it has been done to death here. They are o.k with that kind of cheating and a lot more when looking at the doping scandal they have going on as we speak.And do we even need to go into the reffing in Moscow in 72?

Hardly coming from a high ground when talking about integrity.

Yeah there's no high ground there.

Not sure how the Russians even got into the Olympics with state sponsored stunts they have been pulling.

 

[Yakushev72]

Yes I'm well versed in all that. I think your tangent is meant to convey that you agree with me though, basically that fair refereeing is beneficial to the superior team since an even playing field will see the superior team win more often than not. It also seems pretty obvious that it is more difficult to be screwed in a best of three setting.

I fully agree with you that fair refereeing is beneficial to merit winning out, which is another way of saying what you said. But keep in mind that the Canada Cup was a privately owned financial venture (the NHLPA) whose objective was to serve the best interests of ownership. So, hypothetically, if Eagleson ordered the refs to make sure Canada had every advantage, and Canada lost the first game, that could be seen as a signal to the refs to intervene more in subsequent games. In that scenario, your argument doesn't work.

 

[BruinLVGA]

I told you (again) that you're manufacturing strawmen. You haven't addressed that but that's OK, sometimes silence speaks for itself. Nice post BTW, I'm overwhelmed by the "substance".

If there's no substance in what I am addressing in the first place, there isn't much I can do. I am not a miracle worker.

Give it up bruin...............you've been owned long ago.

You are only digging a deeper hole each new post of pathetic rambling trying to justify being afraid to play better teams in best of threes.


I cannot make you have balls, it is something you have to be willing to develop yourself.

No one wants to hear anymore of this around here. you want to discuss it then p.m me.

See? At least I got you to calm down a bit. That's way better for you. Now, the rest of your statements is clearly beyond salvage, but at least I can take this opportunity not to bury you any more. There's no fun in dismantling all the things you say (last one in line, this IIHF WC guess... Oh my... Brutal... Ahahah). Ta ta...

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

You guys are going back to the Cold War to prove your point. Of course Russian referees were biased towards the Russians. Just like the Canadian and American refs were biased towards the NA players. Nothing to see here.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Not my kind of thing to do. I only squarely address what folks ask me / tell me. In the case of your last post, it's nothing. Therefore I can only comment on that.

LOL "nothing" - I pointed out your usage of straw man arguments. Are you not familiar with the term? If not, you can start by reading this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I hope that helps.

I'll help you out a bit more. In post #245, you attributed statements to me that I never made and then mocked those statements (that is a textbook example of a strawman argument). I pointed this out to you in post #264 and ever since you have been deflecting with statements like "no substance blah blah blah".

Go back to your original post, man up and admit that you were making straw man arguments and it may be possible to have a discussion. If you're too stubborn to do this then that's your choice. That makes your complaints about "substance" a joke though.

The ball is in your court my friend.

 

[Gary Nylund]

You guys are going back to the Cold War to prove your point. Of course Russian referees were biased towards the Russians. Just like the Canadian and American refs were biased towards the NA players. Nothing to see here.

Yeah not really comparable. The refs in 1972 were a joke, period. NHL refs have always done their job in international games the same way they do in the NHL - objectively. They have made some mistakes, nobody has ever claimed they're perfect but those mistakes have cut both ways.

 

[Reindl87]

You actually expect me to watch this nonsense? Judging the quality of refereeing by a couple of cherry picked moments is beyond ridiculous. Just stop.



I told you (again) that you're manufacturing strawmen. You haven't addressed that but that's OK, sometimes silence speaks for itself. Nice post BTW, I'm overwhelmed by the "substance".

Yeah of course blatant no calls right before the deciding goals of the tournaments is cherry picking

 

[jj cale]

If there's no substance in what I am addressing in the first place, there isn't much I can do. I am not a miracle worker.



See? At least I got you to calm down a bit. That's way better for you. Now, the rest of your statements is clearly beyond salvage, but at least I can take this opportunity not to bury you any more. There's no fun in dismantling all the things you say (last one in line, this IIHF WC guess... Oh my... Brutal... Ahahah). Ta ta...

And to think you have the logo of the Boston Bruins as your avatar, a model of intestinal fortitude.

How ironic.

 

[jj cale]

LOL "nothing" - I pointed out your usage of straw man arguments. Are you not familiar with the term? If not, you can start by reading this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I hope that helps.

I'll help you out a bit more. In post #245, you attributed statements to me that I never made and then mocked those statements (that is a textbook example of a strawman argument). I pointed this out to you in post #264 and ever since you have been deflecting with statements like "no substance blah blah blah".

Go back to your original post, man up and admit that you were making straw man arguments and it may be possible to have a discussion. If you're too stubborn to do this then that's your choice. That makes your complaints about "substance" a joke though.

The ball is in your court my friend.

That was done to me also. His reply was that he was not responsible for fabricating things about a poster because it wasn't his responsibility to keep track of anyones posts. He is fine with lying about you but is in no way responsible for the veracity of his statements.

What does that say?

You can see the minset and why there is no problem in wanting special treatment for his team in tournaments so they do not have to play best 2 out of 3.

 

[Lepardi]

NHL refs have always done their job in international games

In 1987 their job was to help Canada win.

 

[Aceboogie]

No way. Canada is on a great run right now because of a generation of great players that was at the heart of the 2005 world junior champs. When they're gone it will likely be a different story. The U.S. is producing as many top prospects right now as Canada is, and the problems the Russians are having won't last forever. Canada beat Finland 11-2 at the '76 Canada Cup. Those days are long over.

Canada is still producing the best talent in the world. No longer are the producing the best single prospects AND the most amount of good ones. Now its a 3/4 way tie for best single prospects (USA, Canada, Russia and Finland sneaking in). But for overall talent Canada is still leading pack. Just look at the breakdown of the 1st and 2nd rounds of any draft

USAs problem is the management and coaching is an absolute and udder joke. You could tell they were going to blow the minute the roster was announced and Tortella was coach. Brutal selections throughout

If USA can buck that trend then yes they might compete. But honestly management is getting worse and its a total boys club. Its only a matter of time before Roenick and Hull are running it

 

[Gary Nylund]

That was done to me also. His reply was that he was not responsible for fabricating things about a poster because it wasn't his responsibility to keep track of anyones posts. He is fine with lying about you but is in no way responsible for the veracity of his statements.

What does that say?

You can see the minset and why there is no problem in wanting special treatment for his team in tournaments so they do not have to play best 2 out of 3.

IMO it says intellectual dishonesty (being really polite here). I find straw man arguments to be the most annoying things on this board. Posts without substance - no problem, tons of those in every thread, I'm used to that. But when someone puts words in your mouth and then arrogantly belittles you for those same words ... what can you even say about someone like that?

Canada is still producing the best talent in the world. No longer are the producing the best single prospects AND the most amount of good ones. Now its a 3/4 way tie for best single prospects (USA, Canada, Russia and Finland sneaking in). But for overall talent Canada is still leading pack. Just look at the breakdown of the 1st and 2nd rounds of any draft

USAs problem is the management and coaching is an absolute and udder joke. You could tell they were going to blow the minute the roster was announced and Tortella was coach. Brutal selections throughout

If USA can buck that trend then yes they might compete. But honestly management is getting worse and its a total boys club. Its only a matter of time before Roenick and Hull are running it

This. I don't see that Canada's spot on top of the pecking order is in any danger whatsoever. We could lose a game on any given day of course, that's just the nature of the beast but that's always been the case anyway.

 

[JackSlater]

I fully agree with you that fair refereeing is beneficial to merit winning out, which is another way of saying what you said. But keep in mind that the Canada Cup was a privately owned financial venture (the NHLPA) whose objective was to serve the best interests of ownership. So, hypothetically, if Eagleson ordered the refs to make sure Canada had every advantage, and Canada lost the first game, that could be seen as a signal to the refs to intervene more in subsequent games. In that scenario, your argument doesn't work.

My scenario is about fair reffing. What you described is not fair reffing. I'm not a fan of the reffing in 1987 (1984 is not so bad) but I'm not sure all of that is based on nationality. Refereeing at the time was terrible (see the fourth Soviet goal in game 3 of the 1987 final for example) though I can certainly see the argument that the Soviet players would not have been used to the standards employed in the NHL (and Canada Cups) at the time. Luckily refereeing by NHL referees has been very solid internationally for nearly three decades now.

 

[BruinLVGA]

LOL "nothing" - I pointed out your usage of straw man arguments. Are you not familiar with the term? If not, you can start by reading this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I hope that helps.

I'll help you out a bit more. In post #245, you attributed statements to me that I never made and then mocked those statements (that is a textbook example of a strawman argument). I pointed this out to you in post #264 and ever since you have been deflecting with statements like "no substance blah blah blah".

Go back to your original post, man up and admit that you were making straw man arguments and it may be possible to have a discussion. If you're too stubborn to do this then that's your choice. That makes your complaints about "substance" a joke though.

The ball is in your court my friend.

The only part that I attributed to you is the part where I mention in quotation marks your great rebuttal of my theories/opinions is a simple "they have many, many holes". Your very own words, that you never tried to explain/motivate in any post.

If you don't even try to motivate this "many, many holes" rebuttal effort (by itself if you say something has holes and don't explain what those are, it means nothing) & at the same time go down a very sarcastic/patronizing path, the only reasonable position that I can conclude you are at, is that you must be exactly 180 degrees from my theories/opinions. As in completely opposed to what I think.

Therefore what you describe as me attributing statements to you (if I attribute statements to someone, I put them in quotation marks. Always. That's an established way of doing that in civilized society. Maybe in Estonia they don't? I never been to Estonia, I don't know what happens there) is me simply describing what the polar opposite to my theory is and conclude that must be what you think.
Is it not what you think? Just say so. What is it that you think, besides this "many, many holes" one-line statement? Why do you infer that my theories/opinions about that are worthless? I can't read minds just yet and you never bothered to explain that. Hence the lack of substance from you that I have mentioned a few times. Lots of words, zero explanation on why you rejected that. Zero on anything, really.

However, I am not an idiot, I am sure that you are not willing to have an honest dialogue here. You are just trying to poke here and there to see if there is anything where you can attach yourself to patronize me about my opinions. It is easy to conclude this when you are not speaking about hockey matters any longer. This has been, for a long time, me saying what's my opinion on hockey related things... you trying to ridicule that... rinse and repeat. Man up, admit to that.

 

[BruinLVGA]

That was done to me also. His reply was that he was not responsible for fabricating things about a poster because it wasn't his responsibility to keep track of anyones posts. He is fine with lying about you but is in no way responsible for the veracity of his statements.

What does that say?

You can see the minset and why there is no problem in wanting special treatment for his team in tournaments so they do not have to play best 2 out of 3.

What did I supposedly "fabricate" about "a poster" (you refer to yourself in the third person now? Who are you, Muhammad Ali???)? What post, what phrase? Link it here, you have a golden chance.
You know what REALLY happened? You said you made certain statements in other threads, in relation to what you were currently talking about at that moment with me. If my memory serves me well, you said that those posts showed what your position was on something.
And I, totally stunned, asked you if you thought that I was supposed to somehow know about those posts of yours around the forums.

What does that say? Easy: that your name in real life can only be Pinocchio, seeing all the porky pies you are saying...

For the record, I don't want any special treatment for my team (your nose just grew a bit more on this one too, Mr P...). What I want is that I... don't want a special treatment -such as having from now on always home field advantage for all these tournaments & other cute stuff - for your team, because they should not need also to be given that.

 

[jj cale]

What did I supposedly "fabricate" about "a poster" (you refer to yourself in the third person now? Who are you, Muhammad Ali???)? What post, what phrase? Link it here, you have a golden chance.
You know what REALLY happened? You said you made certain statements in other threads, in relation to what you were currently talking about at that moment with me. If my memory serves me well, you said that those posts showed what your position was on something.
And I, totally stunned, asked you if you thought that I was supposed to somehow know about those posts of yours around the forums.

What does that say? Easy: that your name in real life can only be Pinocchio, seeing all the porky pies you are saying...

For the record, I don't want any special treatment for my team (your nose just grew a bit more on this one too, Mr P...). What I want is that I... don't want a special treatment -such as having from now on always home field advantage for all these tournaments & other cute stuff - for your team, because they should not need also to be given that.

Just go back in this thread and read where you said I was against single elimination knock out and you will see it, though I cannot believe you cannot remember. I told you I had said prior in several posts that I was not against single game elimination at all. just look at the posts!!

Then after you were caught making things up about me and got caught in it your reply was that you were not responsible because it was not your job to read my posts.

Well, if you are going to be making stuff up about people and posting lies about them you damn sure as hell better be responsible about what you write and make sure you are correct in what you say about them before posting ******** about them or their viewpoints.

but no.......you are not responsible. You have a get out of jail free card to lie according to you.

Not surprising you have that attitude when you aren't even man enough to accept losing in a format you don't want your team to have to play in a hockey tournament because you have a weaker team.


You have been brutally exposed here the last few days, might be time for you to move on.

And for your information it is in post 46 in this very thread, a thread you have been involved in and making yourself look foolish in from the beginning, since you have been on me like white on rice from the start then surely you saw it. I made it clear I was o.k with single elimination early on and way before you decided you would attribute a viewpoint to me that I never held. There, I took the "golden chance" and proved you wrong...........................again.

How much more of this will have to occur before you will just slither away and be done with us around here?