It's much more than that. We skated slower, we were terrible at trying to make passes, we simply had no team play. The US played a much more skilled game, our goalie kept us in the game.
Why is Hockey Canada so slow to acknowledge the Woman's game needs change?
- Thread starter Ilyeu
- Start date
4thlineduster
Registered User
- Jan 6, 2012
- 1,017
- 474
And that speaks again to our lack of coaching. Canadian national teams have always been picked with the coach having a big say in the roster. Our roster did have some questionable picks such as the defender who I can’t recall her name, but had minimal minutes, and was a dumpster fire every time she was on the ice. She was picked to be a PP specialist because of her “booming shot.” Which I did not see her use once. Nurse was having a good game and was one of the few players who could keep pace. Coach thought the best use for her was on the bench.
Team Canada has traditionally had issues with not taking the best available in favour of role players and the “coach’s guys (or girls).” Our game is not not developing as well as othe Americans we just employ terrible coach’s with questionable roster selections at all levels for our national teams.
Last edited:
Lack of coaching for the National Team yes but also most importantly lack of adequate coaching at the youth level.
During the entire 4vs.4 I think we probably completed something like 2 passes in the US half of the ice...
Sidney the Kidney
One last time
- Jun 29, 2009
- 55,712
- 46,637
I don't know enough about the players available who weren't selected, but one thing was certain. Apart from maybe 3 or 4 players, that Canadian team was slooooooow. Every time the US came down the wing, it looked like Team Canada was skating in quicksand.
They also couldn't connect on a tape to tape pass to save their lives. I don't recall that being an issue for the 2014 and 2010 team. Something about this particular group, they either selected the wrong women or too many of the women from 2014 are too old/slow to play at a high level now.
To use an NHL analogy, Team Canada looked like it was assembled by Chiarelli and he went with a big, slow team, when the trend is speed and skill.
They also couldn't connect on a tape to tape pass to save their lives. I don't recall that being an issue for the 2014 and 2010 team. Something about this particular group, they either selected the wrong women or too many of the women from 2014 are too old/slow to play at a high level now.
To use an NHL analogy, Team Canada looked like it was assembled by Chiarelli and he went with a big, slow team, when the trend is speed and skill.
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
The numbers behind
Not only is there are a huge difference in physical dimensions -- 5'8'' is the average height of this year's Team Canada women's team --, but the talent pool in women's hockey is significantly smaller than that of the male game. I think there is a major disparity in the quality of coaching as well. The way that they play is extremely one-dimensional -- everything seems very tunnel-visioned, and the decision-making of these players is suspect relative to even major junior hockey.
It's clear that the average size of female hockey players will never match the size of male hockey players. The most obvious deficiency, however, is the lack of soundness in their fundamental decision-making on the ice. A certain degree of soundness can be coached into a player. This is evident in the men's game. What separates elite players in the world from mediocre players is intuition -- not every male player has elite intuition, otherwise known as hockey IQ. As players graduate to the next level of hockey, only the players with the greatest amount of skill and hockey IQ from the previous level are taken. The problem here is that not enough women play for there to be a sufficient number of players with enough talent or hockey IQ to really exceed midget-level hockey. Hayley Wickenheiser is a rarity in the women's game when players of her caliber really should be more common. Blame low participation levels. However, even Wickenheiser -- 5'9'' in stature -- would have benefited immensely from a stronger development system.
When players in women's hockey currently skate with the puck, they tend to take way too much time to decide what they want to do, and it often burns them. It goes hand-in-hand with a lack of confidence in making crisp tape-to-tape passes. The number of turnovers in a game is so much higher in the women's game than in the men's. Coaching can fix this. Fundamentals and details can be taught to a large degree. Evidently, even the coaches were asleep today, as they should have been yelling at #14 to keep her eye on Team USA's #7 on the tying play in the third. There is very little attention to detail.
The women's game is so far behind the men's game in terms of having players think the game well, and it's due to a combination of the insufficient development system (relative to men's hockey) and a lack of participation in the sport to broaden the talent pool.
This applies to all countries that represent women's hockey.
Canada has 17.45 times as many female hockey players as Sweden does. This is reflected in their on-ice performances at international events. Relative to the entire women's field, Canada is so much more advanced. Relative to men's hockey, though, Canadian women's hockey is practically in its infancy -- the greatest gain can be made by developing smarter players and teaching faster, more precise puck movement.
According to IIHF's 2016 statistics, only 13.7% of Canadian hockey players are female.
Not only is there are a huge difference in physical dimensions -- 5'8'' is the average height of this year's Team Canada women's team --, but the talent pool in women's hockey is significantly smaller than that of the male game. I think there is a major disparity in the quality of coaching as well. The way that they play is extremely one-dimensional -- everything seems very tunnel-visioned, and the decision-making of these players is suspect relative to even major junior hockey.
It's clear that the average size of female hockey players will never match the size of male hockey players. The most obvious deficiency, however, is the lack of soundness in their fundamental decision-making on the ice. A certain degree of soundness can be coached into a player. This is evident in the men's game. What separates elite players in the world from mediocre players is intuition -- not every male player has elite intuition, otherwise known as hockey IQ. As players graduate to the next level of hockey, only the players with the greatest amount of skill and hockey IQ from the previous level are taken. The problem here is that not enough women play for there to be a sufficient number of players with enough talent or hockey IQ to really exceed midget-level hockey. Hayley Wickenheiser is a rarity in the women's game when players of her caliber really should be more common. Blame low participation levels. However, even Wickenheiser -- 5'9'' in stature -- would have benefited immensely from a stronger development system.
When players in women's hockey currently skate with the puck, they tend to take way too much time to decide what they want to do, and it often burns them. It goes hand-in-hand with a lack of confidence in making crisp tape-to-tape passes. The number of turnovers in a game is so much higher in the women's game than in the men's. Coaching can fix this. Fundamentals and details can be taught to a large degree. Evidently, even the coaches were asleep today, as they should have been yelling at #14 to keep her eye on Team USA's #7 on the tying play in the third. There is very little attention to detail.
The women's game is so far behind the men's game in terms of having players think the game well, and it's due to a combination of the insufficient development system (relative to men's hockey) and a lack of participation in the sport to broaden the talent pool.
This applies to all countries that represent women's hockey.
Canada has 17.45 times as many female hockey players as Sweden does. This is reflected in their on-ice performances at international events. Relative to the entire women's field, Canada is so much more advanced. Relative to men's hockey, though, Canadian women's hockey is practically in its infancy -- the greatest gain can be made by developing smarter players and teaching faster, more precise puck movement.
Last edited:
sabresEH
Registered User
OP isn't completely wrong. As soon as it went to OT and there was more space for the US they took it to us. The US were faster and more skilled. We were smarter and more systematic.
Our defence as a whole was not very mobile. We have the talent out there to beat the US at their own game, we just chose to pick a team that was more "Canadian".
Our defence as a whole was not very mobile. We have the talent out there to beat the US at their own game, we just chose to pick a team that was more "Canadian".
After watching last night's game, I'd DEFINTELY be concerned for Canada. The Canadian offense was crap most of the game and especially in OT. Their defense was mediocre and had a number of unforced giveaways that made me keep yelling at my TV and they gave the US a ton of great scoring chances. I'm not sure what was going on, but every so often you would see a Canadian player with no American around them just for whatever reason lose the puck from their stick and it would go to an American player and give them a top scoring chance. Just made me go nuts watching it.
Also although I obviously wanted Canada to win, it would've felt like we stole it from the US again where they outplayed the Canadian women and yet still lost the same way they did in Sochi where the US was better, were unlucky with not scoring that empty netter and then Poulin saved us and we won where we probably shouldn't have.
Eternal Leaf
Registered User
You're acting as if we just saw a reincarnation of Brazil vs. Germany (WC 2014 final).
Canada will be fine.
So they lose a shootout which is effectively a 50/50 crapshoot, and Hockey Canada is run by a bunch of morons.
Maybe I'm crazy but I felt the Canadian women held the advantage in most areas, the only area that the US women were clearly better was skating.
How does the youth system work for girls up there? I assume its like in the US where they start coed and then slowly drift to girls only with the last ones switching around 13-14 (unless there are unique circumstances). Do Canadian women eventually come down and play US College hockey?
How does the youth system work for girls up there? I assume its like in the US where they start coed and then slowly drift to girls only with the last ones switching around 13-14 (unless there are unique circumstances). Do Canadian women eventually come down and play US College hockey?
Yarborough
This is not a robbery, I swear!
canuck2010
Registered User
- Dec 21, 2010
- 2,700
- 844
The USA has been better than us at women's' hockey for years. They were the best team in 2018 and the best team in 2014 and the best team in between and before that.
On average their skill level is higher and their team game is better. Our saving grace is that it is always a one-game final. Makes it closer than it really is.
The American NCAA women's' system will continue to turn out more highly skilled and better-coached players because of the nature of the beast. Our women have nowhere to play.
True, but the US couldn't score more than one goal all through that period and zero in the OT when the Canadians used one fore checker.
Canada does not have a pro league for women anymore? You used to have two!
BTW, 5 women for Canada played at Wisconsin versus 4 for the US.
You are doing fine.
No, Canada does have the CWHL (which is finally paying its players this season) but I think he's referring to the fact the Canadian university league isn't as strong as the NCAA. Like all but two of the Canadians played NCAA, Szabados (NAIT) and Daoust (McGill) are the two that didn't.
That's one area I think Hockey Canada should improve, its not great that all our players have to move to the states for school.
