World Cup: Let's decide right now: does this count?

[86Habs]

Not that viewership affects whether or not a tournament is a best on best, but there was certainly a level of apathy in Canada toward this tournament that you would never see for a best on best tournament. Just an anecdote of course, but my father has watched all Canadian best on best hockey in history. He scheduled a trip that took place over the duration of this tournament. First off, he didn't even know it was happening, and when he found out he didn't particularly care.

There's no question that people were apathetic / disinterested in this tournament. The Blue Jays being in contention and in direct competition for viewers certainly didn't help matters. I don't blame the gimmick teams entirely for this, but there is no question that the reboot of this tournament got off on the wrong foot with the controversial introduction of the gimmick teams in 2015. It would have been much, much cleaner and simpler for the NHL to have gone with the tried and true traditional format this first time out. Establish the tournament as a mid-Olympic cycle best-on-best, and look to change it up and experiment a little with European venues or different formats only after its a credible and established tournament.

The thing is, even without the gimmick teams the NHL would likely have still gotten McDavid and Eichel into the tournament (based on Babcock's and Lombardi's respective comments) if that was their motivation for establishing the NA U24 team in the first place. Their net loss in terms of "draws" are Gaudreau (may still have made Team USA), Matthews, and Kopitar, not to mention the Canadian guys who are always left off anyway. No biggie. Now, if they want to continue the tournament in 2020 the NHL needs to do an about-face and scrap at least NA U24 or amend the rules significantly unless they want three of the potential best players in the game (McDavid, Eichel, Matthews) playing against their own nations. Credibility is gained through consistency, and people don't tend to latch onto things when you're constantly moving the goalposts or changing the playing field.

Finally, to answer the original question in this thread, no, I won't count this as a best-on-best win for Canada. A minor footnote in "international competition", somewhere below the 2004 World Cup (ultimately forgettable except for the Czech - Canada game) and Rendez-vous '87 (not best-on-best, but extremely high quality of hockey).

 

[Xokkeu]

There's no question that people were apathetic / disinterested in this tournament. The Blue Jays being in contention and in direct competition for viewers certainly didn't help matters. I don't blame the gimmick teams entirely for this, but there is no question that the reboot of this tournament got off on the wrong foot with the controversial introduction of the gimmick teams in 2015. It would have been much, much cleaner and simpler for the NHL to have gone with the tried and true traditional format this first time out. Establish the tournament as a mid-Olympic cycle best-on-best, and look to change it up and experiment a little with European venues or different formats only after its a credible and established tournament.

The thing is, even without the gimmick teams the NHL would likely have still gotten McDavid and Eichel into the tournament (based on Babcock's and Lombardi's respective comments) if that was their motivation for establishing the NA U24 team in the first place. Their net loss in terms of "draws" are Gaudreau (may still have made Team USA), Matthews, and Kopitar, not to mention the Canadian guys who are always left off anyway. No biggie. Now, if they want to continue the tournament in 2020 the NHL needs to do an about-face and scrap at least NA U24 or amend the rules significantly unless they want three of the potential best players in the game (McDavid, Eichel, Matthews) playing against their own nations. Credibility is gained through consistency, and people don't tend to latch onto things when you're constantly moving the goalposts or changing the playing field.

Finally, to answer the original question in this thread, no, I won't count this as a best-on-best win for Canada. A minor footnote in "international competition", somewhere below the 2004 World Cup (ultimately forgettable except for the Czech - Canada game) and Rendez-vous '87 (not best-on-best, but extremely high quality of hockey).

This tournament was always going to struggle. That's mostly the NHL's fault since they've disgraced it since 1996. But adding the fake teams just it so easily for many people to write it off as a serious endeavor.

 

[Confucius]

This tournament was always going to struggle. That's mostly the NHL's fault since they've disgraced it since 1996. But adding the fake teams just it so easily for many people to write it off as a serious endeavor.

If the fake teams were bad you may have legitimate point but the fake teams were two of the better ones.

 

[Xokkeu]

If the fake teams were bad you may have legitimate point but the fake teams were two of the better ones.

It's not about being bad, it would actually be better if they were bad. The point of international tournaments is to measure your country's development to others. That's what draws people to it, that's why it gets insane ratings. When you create fake teams that are better than the national teams and in one case weakened a national team, it ruins the main aspect that draws people to these tournaments over all star games.

 

[Westcoasthabsfan]

to play devil's advocate - we all agree this tournament is a disgrace, but do we need to overstate just how weakened canada and usa are by this format? They have essentially the same teams they'd otherwise have, right? Give or take one player, maybe two. An injury or a "don't feel like it" would have the same effect on either team and lord knows there are always a handful of those.

Weakened Canada that really walked thru everybody including Europe where Canada played down to their opponent....