Is there a competitiveness problem with the World Juniors?
- Thread starter Pavel Buchnevich
- Start date
- Status
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 28,780
- 16,931
Belarus is probably the closest to the tenth. They were showing some good fight at the U18 level before the invasion ban.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 28,780
- 16,931
To avoid the relegation issue with the hypo six team I would propose the following:
Take last place from the top group and first place from the second group. In August, have them face off in a one game showdown winner in the top division, loser in the second division. A relegation playoff. Do it with the current U20 rosters (the ones that will play at that upcoming world juniors). That way a strong cohort from a country doesn’t get entirely as screwed over by a weaker group from the year before, while still giving federations a path to breaking in.
Take last place from the top group and first place from the second group. In August, have them face off in a one game showdown winner in the top division, loser in the second division. A relegation playoff. Do it with the current U20 rosters (the ones that will play at that upcoming world juniors). That way a strong cohort from a country doesn’t get entirely as screwed over by a weaker group from the year before, while still giving federations a path to breaking in.
Yes, Gord Miller has been pushing for years to have the lower div qualification tournament happen the same year as the WJC so that the winning country doesn’t age out all the players that got them there. Your idea of the team that is going down actually getting a chance to play for their spot is good as well.
Hamilton Bulldogs
Registered User
- Jan 11, 2022
- 3,615
- 4,977
The tourney is the best thing of the year. Why change it? A change in format would only lead to missing out on guys like Stutzle if there team happened to be bad the year previous. Imagine not having Nino and the Swiss in 2011.
Most of the feel good stories are from these lower ranked teams. One of the best stories of the year was Latvia winning Bronze at the worlds. If they had a shortened field, they wouldn't even be able to compete.
Most of the feel good stories are from these lower ranked teams. One of the best stories of the year was Latvia winning Bronze at the worlds. If they had a shortened field, they wouldn't even be able to compete.
International hockey is an anomaly. Most of the countries that play it on top level are relatively small. Even Canada. Unless a country has passion, culture and traditions like Canada, Sweden or Finland, or human resources like USA or Russia, they are going to have up and down years.
Hockey also happens to be one of the sports where the gap between teams is reflected the most on the scorsheet due to skating and puckhandling being such complex skills. In football, find guys with good stamina and running speed and keep the score close. Same with basketball, just add height. But there are 0 chances in hockey against guys that outskate you.
Because U18 and U20 consist of players that are born within only few years, the gap can be even wider. Once a smaller country has its "down" year, it gets owned hard. Finland, Slovakia, Czechia, Switzerland, all had played in relegation rounds since 2010.
Reducing amount of teams to, say, 8, can be a solution. Will these 8 teams include Switzerland? Well, Switzerland lost 11-3 to USA just now. To 6 teams? Or 4? Well, its not really a tournament anymore. And will result in Switzerland that did not make the top division outplaying, say, Denmark, with the same 11-3 in the second division.
Sorry Canada, there is just no reason to make you play same three-four teams each year just for you to watch your NHL prospects. It will be boring for everyone else.
Hockey also happens to be one of the sports where the gap between teams is reflected the most on the scorsheet due to skating and puckhandling being such complex skills. In football, find guys with good stamina and running speed and keep the score close. Same with basketball, just add height. But there are 0 chances in hockey against guys that outskate you.
Because U18 and U20 consist of players that are born within only few years, the gap can be even wider. Once a smaller country has its "down" year, it gets owned hard. Finland, Slovakia, Czechia, Switzerland, all had played in relegation rounds since 2010.
Reducing amount of teams to, say, 8, can be a solution. Will these 8 teams include Switzerland? Well, Switzerland lost 11-3 to USA just now. To 6 teams? Or 4? Well, its not really a tournament anymore. And will result in Switzerland that did not make the top division outplaying, say, Denmark, with the same 11-3 in the second division.
Sorry Canada, there is just no reason to make you play same three-four teams each year just for you to watch your NHL prospects. It will be boring for everyone else.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,088
- 12,740
Not especially. You can argue that there are two too many teams every year but that's about it. Russia, one of the teams that can actually win the tournament, being absent makes it less competitive obviously, but on the whole things have never been more competitive.
The only argument you can make is that there should be eight teams rather than ten but the blowouts aren't a big deal and I'd rather have some blowouts than be guaranteed to miss out on one of Germany/Switzerland/Slovakia/Czechs every year. Now you have countries like Switzerland and Germany who are actually capable of producing world class players, even if the depth isn't there to challenge at the very highest level. You have more than two countries with a realistic shot at winning, which is largely in contrast to the early days. I don't think there is anything unusual going on outside of on of the contenders being banned and replaced with a clearly weaker team.
Not especially. You can argue that there are two too many teams every year but that's about it. Russia, one of the teams that can actually win the tournament, being absent makes it less competitive obviously, but on the whole things have never been more competitive.
The only argument you can make is that there should be eight teams rather than ten but the blowouts aren't a big deal and I'd rather have some blowouts than be guaranteed to miss out on one of Germany/Switzerland/Slovakia/Czechs every year. Now you have countries like Switzerland and Germany who are actually capable of producing world class players, even if the depth isn't there to challenge at the very highest level. You have more than two countries with a realistic shot at winning, which is largely in contrast to the early days. I don't think there is anything unusual going on outside of on of the contenders being banned and replaced with a clearly weaker team.
The only argument you can make is that there should be eight teams rather than ten but the blowouts aren't a big deal and I'd rather have some blowouts than be guaranteed to miss out on one of Germany/Switzerland/Slovakia/Czechs every year. Now you have countries like Switzerland and Germany who are actually capable of producing world class players, even if the depth isn't there to challenge at the very highest level. You have more than two countries with a realistic shot at winning, which is largely in contrast to the early days. I don't think there is anything unusual going on outside of on of the contenders being banned and replaced with a clearly weaker team.
Not especially. You can argue that there are two too many teams every year but that's about it. Russia, one of the teams that can actually win the tournament, being absent makes it less competitive obviously, but on the whole things have never been more competitive.
The only argument you can make is that there should be eight teams rather than ten but the blowouts aren't a big deal and I'd rather have some blowouts than be guaranteed to miss out on one of Germany/Switzerland/Slovakia/Czechs every year. Now you have countries like Switzerland and Germany who are actually capable of producing world class players, even if the depth isn't there to challenge at the very highest level. You have more than two countries with a realistic shot at winning, which is largely in contrast to the early days. I don't think there is anything unusual going on outside of on of the contenders being banned and replaced with a clearly weaker team.
Every year like clockwork, someone wants to complain about lopsided scores at this tournament.
The only sport in which there isn’t always a host of blowouts early is football. FIBA World Cup: Canada beat Lebanon by 55. Brazil beat Iran by 41. US beat Jordan by 60. Rugby World Cup: South Africa beat Romania 76-0. Italy beat Namibia 52-8. England beat Chile 96-0. That’s just a sample. And at Senior tournaments, where the skills gap is less likely to be as broad. In junior tournaments, of course there’s going to be blowouts.
This is a snobbish, front-runner’s argument: don’t let those pissants into our club. Well, screw that. It’s a world championship, not a private club. It’s a fine tournament. Quit trying to screw around with it.
The only sport in which there isn’t always a host of blowouts early is football. FIBA World Cup: Canada beat Lebanon by 55. Brazil beat Iran by 41. US beat Jordan by 60. Rugby World Cup: South Africa beat Romania 76-0. Italy beat Namibia 52-8. England beat Chile 96-0. That’s just a sample. And at Senior tournaments, where the skills gap is less likely to be as broad. In junior tournaments, of course there’s going to be blowouts.
This is a snobbish, front-runner’s argument: don’t let those pissants into our club. Well, screw that. It’s a world championship, not a private club. It’s a fine tournament. Quit trying to screw around with it.
Gigantor The Goalie
Speak for the Goalies
TheBeastCoast
Registered User
Gigantor The Goalie
Speak for the Goalies
I don't know if you've noticed but the U18 women's worlds tournament has switched to the men's format and the 2025 women's worlds will be switching to the men's format. So it'll just be one single format for every tournament.
frontsfan67
Registered User
- Dec 3, 2022
- 1,350
- 548
I think a big part is that the weaker teams (Latvia, Norway, Switzerland are missing big key pieces they’ve had in previous years- and for teams that already suck losing their best players only makes them worse)
Teams like Canada usa Finland and Sweden won’t be affected by this as much because they’re always the top teams but the other ones certainly are struggling a little bit more than normal
Latvia just got bronze at the WC. Pretty relevant and great for hockey.
hockey20000
Registered User
- Dec 23, 2018
- 4,301
- 2,504
the tournament is fine the way it is just grumpy old men during the holidays who deciding to whine like usual
ORRFForever
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2018
- 18,048
- 9,479
Czechboy
Easy schedules rule!
- Apr 15, 2018
- 22,880
- 18,902
I do believe there was an agenda here. But it wasn't about being grumpy or old. More about a certain banned nation and how it now sucks without them.
Maybe I'm being all crazy though.lol
SOLR
Registered User
Slovakia is stronger than usual, compensates for the Fins.
Without Russia and with the current state of the Scandinavian/Finnish junior programs, might as well replace this tournament with a 7 game series between the U.S. and Canada
- Jun 22, 2018
- 6,983
- 15,817
Without Russia any hockey competition automatically becomes a joke.
Czechboy
Easy schedules rule!
- Apr 15, 2018
- 22,880
- 18,902
SOLR
Registered User
EXTRAS
Registered User
- Jul 31, 2012
- 8,906
- 5,357
You're right. The iihf should begin lobbying to make czechoslovakia a thing again.
International hockey went to hell as soon as GB stopped being able to use Canadian officers stationed in London for the period leading up to world war 2.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: WCQF Game 3: Dallas Stars @ Vegas Golden Knights | 7:30PM PT |- Latest: KirkAlbuquerque
-
GDT: Around the League 2023-24: The Marathon Becomes A Sprint- Latest: TopShelfGloveSide
-
