Discussion in 'International Tournaments' started by SChan*, Feb 13, 2006.
I thought they were running up scores to make sure they get any tie-breaker later in the tourney. Maybe the USA should have run up thier scores too.
Exactly, tiebreakers in international tournaments go by Goals For and Against. It will likely decide who gets home ice advantage between Can and USA in the goldmedal game. Maybe that is why the US is mad
Classless either way.
It the Olympics, not some local pee-wee tournament. These teams got there the same way Canada did, so why should Canada take it easy on them. Canada is winning the best way they can, because it's of no benefit to take it easy and pick up bad habits.
Either way it'll be Canada vs. USA in the finals, theres no reason to run up the score.
I'd rather be beaten with everything they've got then have them back off.
To me, it is
"I'll beat you with one arm tied behind my back"
"I'll treat you like a legitimate opponent"
Canada's women are just showing that women's ice hockey should not be an Olympic sport. That's all.
"Sport" means competition, unpredictable results. But in women's ice hockey, only 2 countries can compeat. It's absurd. Maybe the Olympic commitee should consider including some "regional" sports that are played in only 1 or 2 countries ...
These players (from Russia and Italy) are professionals and the elites from every nation. If you are going to play at the highest level of hockey, then expect to play a full 60 mins every game and don't expect the opposition to go easy on you (simply out of guilt).
If I make up a sport and find one other guy to play it can it become an olympic event?
If anything the scores show why womens hockey shouldn't have been an olympic sport. A sport where max four countries are decent have no place in the Olympics. Mens hockey with seven good nations is almost on the short side also, but there atleast we have tradition.
But a tournament with eight teams where four are horrible is a joke.
The team with the higher goal differential is going to get last-change during the Gold Medal game, so either blame the IIHF for using this rule (and thus forcing teams to run up the score), or suggest another idea...
Dude, are you my twin brother whom I've never met?
There are not many Olympic sports for which only males or females compete exclusively. If there is a men's hockey, there will be a women's hockey. It is as simple as that.
If you're seriously going for gold, you're going to want every advantage you can get. Since it is the Olympic way (their rules, not Canada's rules), should it come down to goals for/against, you're going to want that advantage for the gold game. You will want the last change, the faceoff advantage, and maybe even the choice of using the home/away sweater ( ). I heard something regarding how they got rid of softball because one team was just pwning the field in the summer Olympics. Maybe it'll happen to womens hockey.
What's the point of playing a full 60 minutes if Canada is just going to drop back after scoring 6 goals in the first 20?
You either give it 100% or give 0%. How are any of these teams supposed to learn anything from international competition if they're only getting a half-assed effort from the opposition? If Canada really wanted to embarass the opposition, they would've used the 4th line for 40 minutes and have them pass the puck nonstop.
Besides, a lot of Canada's goals came on sound offensive plays. It's not like they're scoring 10 goals in a game on breakaways. They actually bother with passing and all.
Everyone is saying the Americans are so nice because they only score 11 combined goals in the first two games. Please, take a look at how many shots they had in the Germany/US game. The Germans got peppered.
oh ffs... you guys don't think the men's hockey wasn't like this the first few olympics?
Canada beat Czechslovakia 40-0 in 1920. I highly doubt people whinned back then.
besides, Canada's game against Italy could have been a helluva lot higher if it hadn't been for the first Italian goalie. She was brilliant. I'm sorry, but the Italian women didn't belong in this tournament, considering some of them can't even skate properly.
Alright then check out the summer Olympics. There are several sports that are exclusively for men, and others exclusively for women. And I'm not talking about one, but several sports. And this has never been questionned.
Hey if you look back 40 -50 years ago, Canada destroyed everyone in Men's hockey, it just took time for the other countries to catch up and that's the same in women's hockey now. The other countries just have to catch up.
So with this thinking, Mens Ice Hockey should have been eliminated from the Olympics pre-1950s....
What about distance running. You know its going to be
9. Maybe Germany or something
Once the countries time required to develop their players they'll be competitive. Its only a matter of time. I was pretty impressed by Italy considering the extremely young defense (one 15yo) and first olympics and all. Other stats that were intersting ~250 registered women playing hockey in Russia. ~ 60000 in Canada
completely ridiculous to be *****ing about a team when you're just as good if not better than them.
Yes, patience is needed.
The IIHF was formed in 1908, and it took until 1947 before a European trained team (Czechoslovakia) beat Canada.
If we can wait approximately 40 years for the Mens, I'm sure we can give the Women's side more than 8 years...
Exactly. The Olympics just ousted baseball and softball from the games because they claimed that not enough teams can put forth a competitive team. Yet, there are many nations that can. What the IOC really means is that the European countries can't put together a competitive teams, and therefore it should not be an Olympic event.