This is where it collapses the most. The quate your words "serviceable" is almost as if insulting the whole quality of the tournament. Teams there will be stacked once again and having a guy who is able to make a pass but not exactly forcing his way to an open space to make it isn't enough. Nättinen (who was in the u18 WJC), Hintz (with V8 engine and without circuit to navigate), Saarela and Kalapudas were miles behind last year to be playing on top level when the par was set by the best players of last year's WJC. It really remains to be seen how far they have elevated, but I wouldn't make a bet they have what it takes to face NA teams' top centers and prevail the way we need them to, in sense of creating enough chances while keeping the possession out of D-zone. Finland doesn't have even one center that could remotely come close to Teräväinen's ability to create space and scoring (when looking back).
Okay. I can see why you don't have much faith in our current centre selection, but on the other hand - isn't it more of an argument
for setting up the lineup as evenly as possible? After all, if things are like you say, there are no standouts who should be eating the biggest minutes. (As opposed to 2013 when the three top '93 borns, Salomäki, MaG and Armia should've been doing the very thing.)
There's Kapanen, maybe, but to me this just further nails the point he shouldn't be on a line with either Laine/Pulju, but be the star of his own.
Also excluding both Lehkonen and Teräväinen from being able to count as scorers doesn't hold much value. TT's release and shot have always been fantastic and while Lehkonen may not have had the best shot, he's always been one of the best Finnish forwards in WJC when it comes down to playing around the net and having an arsenal of ways to score. Teuvo was playing wing and wasn't relied upon to playmake the game unlike the other year.
Like I said, I'm not questioning their offensive ability - I'm just thinking they're not the correct type to play in a line's "finisher" role. Lehkonen is and always will be more of an utility forward and most home in that slot within a line, whereas Teuvo is a playmaker first and utility second. I even consider him a supporting two-way guy third before casting him as the designated sniper.
Sure, every player will take the obvious solution like an open net or a shot if they see no lane to pass - but there is a reason why we compare players who have the "shoot first" mentality as opposed to "pass first" one. Hockey is a fast-paced game where decisions have to made in a split second - so a player considering a solution not natural to him is going to affect the entire line's play. In 2013, the only player with a "shoot first" mentality
and enough skill to answer the call was Armia.
Suppose our views differ here and I've already adressed these points before so there's no reason in repeating them.
In conclusion there's no reason lifting unreal expectations to two 17 year old kids when you have better option and the depth to surround them with other talent. That's why we got older guys like Kapanen and even Aho (with one year advantage) to support Laine and Puljujärvi. Another thing is letting the top 6 guys play the top 6 minutes as opposed to letting bottom 6 guys feed off minutes from kids who have more caliber. Would 17 year old undrafted Teräväinen had carried Finland into medals? Or even year after? That's a rhetorical question with an obvious answer. I'm not even sure if Rantanen is the difference make here but his appearance would have opened up a lot more possibilities. I still prefer not to play with theoretical factors as opposed to realities.
Hang on. First you're saying that we shouldn't place too much of a burden on these 17-year-olds - but you're
also against spreading them 'round the lineup, as in, having them play in lines with more mature supporting players instead of, like, each other? Don't those two points kind of... defeat themselves?
The reality is that both of these '98 born future high picks will make this team if healthy, and another bit of reality is that they'll have to play with a centre forward who may not possess all the qualities a true leading playmaker has - because, as you say, we lack one.
So how does it complete your argument if you think the third player in each of these lines should not be a more mature supporting player - which is what I've been saying all along? Isn't having a 2nd line like, say, Laine - Saarela - Puljujärvi very much putting those unrealistic expectations on the shoulders of these two "superkids"? To me, having a supporting player like Aho on the left wing makes the line look tons more "safe". Same with giving Laine a big steady Liiga forward like e.g. Repo to play with, along with Gymer/Nättinen or whoever ends up being his centerman.
Or is the difference that you see Kapanen suitable for a role like this? Because I don't - thus far he's been a chronic underachiever on this level, and now he's suddenly supposed to be someone who shelters the kids and leads the charge? I'd much rather give him as natural a slot as the circumstances allow. Give him our best centerman out of the bunch (I presume that will be either Lammikko or Nättinen) and whoever's the most mature forward we've got to bring balance to the line. If we get Rantanen, filling said slot is going to be a no-brainer. If we don't, Hintz getting healthy in time would be nice too. If he's a no-go too, well, then things may get a bit hairy. But I'd still say we have a bunch of guys with nice Liiga experience available, like Tammela, Hopponen, Virta and who else. Pretty much
anybody else than a 17-year-old who should be - as you yourself say it - not having too much expected of him.
Kinda funny how all you said here in no way disagrees with the thing I'm trying to point out.
Still disagree. Try to understand, it's not just the general quality of players, it's about the player types you have.
