I don't know. This is the Hockey Hall of Fame we're talking about here not the NHL Hall of Fame.
World Cup of Hockey '96
- Thread starter BlackRanger
- Start date
I don't know. This is the Hockey Hall of Fame we're talking about here not the NHL Hall of Fame.
Paxton Fettel
Registered User
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,238
- 309
On the contrary, I'm glad we won't see another World Cup. My main argument against this tournament is that the home teams (USA and Canada) have a huge advantage against the other teams.
If you don't agree with me, look at this :
World Cup 96 and 2004
- Canada : 2nd & 1st (avergage position : 1.5)
- USA : 1st & 3rd (average :2)
Olympics 98, 2002 and 2006
- Canada : 4th, 1st & 7th (average : 4)
- USA : 6th, 2nd & 8th (average : 5.3)
Besides, the only time Canada and the USA finished in the top 3 at the Olympics, was in North America once again!
As I Canadian I'd probably love to have some more Canada Cups and World Cups, but as an objective and neutral ice hockey fan, this must stop.
RedLightDistrict
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2005
- 603
- 0
You bring up a good point. If Daly and Saskin could pull their heads out of their a**, and realize the Olympics is meant for the top amatuer players, and promoted the hell out of the tournament with players like Ovechkin, Crosby, Lundy, Kovie, Prucha, Schremp (future American phenom), we'd have a hell of a World Cup. My question though is this: in previous worl cups, on a scale of 1-10, how popular was the world cup and the anticipation leading up to it in the European Venues?
Paxton Fettel
Registered User
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,238
- 309
Well I was in Prague in 2004, and I gotta say that very few people cared about the World Cup.
I attended 2 exhibition games at Sazka Arena, with Finland and then Sweden facing the Czech team, and the arena was filled to 25% of its capacity.
I think thats more due to the ticket prices. They are VERY high when the CZE national side play (and it being the World Cup, they went up even more I presume).
Chili
En boca cerrada no entran moscas
- Jun 10, 2004
- 8,500
- 4,376
There is a solution to that, rotating the venue.
They did have a number of the games in Europe last time but I agree it is an advantage that the finals are held in North America.
There are so many games, I don't know if one location should hold the event.
Certainly though, the finals could rotate between North America and Europe.
I don't understand the reasoning behind some people wanting to do away with the world cup due to some percieved insurmountable advantage for the North American squads.Surely there is no more advantage given to the U.S and Canadian squads then is recieved by the European squads at the annual world championships.In fact i'd say there is less due to the use of the big ice surface.pretty much all the main powers players are used to the small ice due to nhl play so what advantage is that for North American squads? The big ice however is only played on by the U.S and Canadian squads a few times when they may play the world juniors or when they come over to play at the worlds,it's a huge disadvantage for them yet they still send teams over and don't complain and in the case of Canada,have won several times despite it.
Are people saying the European teams should'nt have to suck it up(and i'm being pretty liberal there) and come over here and play a world class international tournament once in awhile?Why can't some top level International competitions happen here once in awhile? Travel? God guys..........we have to travel over there every damn year.Toughen up for God's sake!! Why is that such a difficult proposition for them? The U.S and Canada do it every year!!! Hell,the euros only have to do it once every 4!! What's the issue? I suspect their results are the issue!!! That's such a woosie little excuse it's not worth wasting breath on really and i don't care what Euro fans here hammer me for it.
A few posters put the results of their performances on here and that's what it is really about. But good hockey teams overcome and they already have.The Soviets were succesful in 1981,the Finns JUST missed out at the last World Cup and the Czechs played great against Canada in the semis,a bounce here or here and the game is theirs!! Don't give me some home soil disadvantage or jet lag excuse guys,that's ********.They did'nt look tired to me!!.
I guess fans only say they were tired when they come out on the losing end of the score. Euro teams will win again ,they are good enough to win and will do so in the future,they almost did last time. Why should we stop top level international competitions (which so many fans love) just because some fans don't like that their teams have not taken home top prize? As fans of hockey that's crazy. Is anyone asking for the Worlds to stop being played because it's in Europe every year and played on the big ice all the time? Of course not so whats the issue here then with the world/Canada cup?.The worlds have NEVER been held in North America,if that isn't ethnocentrism and wanting to control the enviroment the hockey is played on then i don't know what is.Fans giving North American hockey officials a hard time over the world cup don't seem to have a clue.
Bottom line: Europe does not(nor does Canada or the U.S) have the right to monopolize every single tournament in international hockey,bottom line,the wealth has to be spread around. Suck it up and play hockey,i am well aware you can so just do it. Stop complaining about such things. It makes you look like you can only accept hockey challenges strictly on your own terms.What kind of sportsmanship and arrogance is that?
The only thing that can happen over such silly complaining based on nothing more then having a terrible case of sour grapes is less international hockey and i don't see how that as true hockey fans benefits us at all.
what do you want to watch? ............more poker?
You want the world cup rotated between venues? Go ahead,be my guest.Just make sure you rotate those Worlds too and all should be solved.Then we can get back to just watching hockey,not crying that the games screw us over because we are'nt at home and mommy can't call us in to home for supper at night after the game is over.
What silliness.
Are people saying the European teams should'nt have to suck it up(and i'm being pretty liberal there) and come over here and play a world class international tournament once in awhile?Why can't some top level International competitions happen here once in awhile? Travel? God guys..........we have to travel over there every damn year.Toughen up for God's sake!! Why is that such a difficult proposition for them? The U.S and Canada do it every year!!! Hell,the euros only have to do it once every 4!! What's the issue? I suspect their results are the issue!!! That's such a woosie little excuse it's not worth wasting breath on really and i don't care what Euro fans here hammer me for it.
A few posters put the results of their performances on here and that's what it is really about. But good hockey teams overcome and they already have.The Soviets were succesful in 1981,the Finns JUST missed out at the last World Cup and the Czechs played great against Canada in the semis,a bounce here or here and the game is theirs!! Don't give me some home soil disadvantage or jet lag excuse guys,that's ********.They did'nt look tired to me!!.
I guess fans only say they were tired when they come out on the losing end of the score. Euro teams will win again ,they are good enough to win and will do so in the future,they almost did last time. Why should we stop top level international competitions (which so many fans love) just because some fans don't like that their teams have not taken home top prize? As fans of hockey that's crazy. Is anyone asking for the Worlds to stop being played because it's in Europe every year and played on the big ice all the time? Of course not so whats the issue here then with the world/Canada cup?.The worlds have NEVER been held in North America,if that isn't ethnocentrism and wanting to control the enviroment the hockey is played on then i don't know what is.Fans giving North American hockey officials a hard time over the world cup don't seem to have a clue.
Bottom line: Europe does not(nor does Canada or the U.S) have the right to monopolize every single tournament in international hockey,bottom line,the wealth has to be spread around. Suck it up and play hockey,i am well aware you can so just do it. Stop complaining about such things. It makes you look like you can only accept hockey challenges strictly on your own terms.What kind of sportsmanship and arrogance is that?
The only thing that can happen over such silly complaining based on nothing more then having a terrible case of sour grapes is less international hockey and i don't see how that as true hockey fans benefits us at all.
what do you want to watch? ............more poker?
You want the world cup rotated between venues? Go ahead,be my guest.Just make sure you rotate those Worlds too and all should be solved.Then we can get back to just watching hockey,not crying that the games screw us over because we are'nt at home and mommy can't call us in to home for supper at night after the game is over.
What silliness.
Last edited by a moderator:
GuloGulo
Registered User
Tricolore#20
PK PK PK
I'm a born and raised Canadian, and support Canadian hockey in these types of tournaments, but this isn't a valid argument. If you want to have a true World Cup, I'm sure Europeans wouldn't mind if it were held in Canada or the US. However, even as a Canadian what I object to is that the European teams had to travel DURING the tournament to play their semi-final and finals games. How could you make the two european teams in the last World Cup (Finland and the Czech Republic) travel across the Atlantic, while the Americans and Canadians sat at home waiting for them. How is that fair when that happens during the most pivotal moments of the tournament?
The difference with World Championships is that the entire tournament is played in one setting, with little to no travel. It is a completely different situation from what transpired at the World Cup, which gave a significant disadvantage to half of the competition. This is what happens at every world class event, in nearly every sport. In the World Cup this year in Germany, half the teams weren't expected to play on a different continent then travel to Berlin for the final. It is a faulty way of hosting a tournament, and it is clear that the NHL slanted it so that they could maximize revenues, by having the two North American teams close to the finals.
With the World Championships, the fact is that it occurs during the Stanley Cup playoffs. A World Tournament would garner almost no attention during that time, in North America (incidently, the Worlds will be coming to Canada in a couple of years) and would be detrimental to television audiences in Europe (who care far more about this tournament). It wouldn't make sense for the IIHF to host the tournament at any other time, since all the players are in peak form, and are coming off their seasons for their clubs in Europe and because the NHL season is too long (and all the players in the world, aside from those playing late into the playoffs, would be too far removed from their peak form if it were held after the NHL playoffs). Furthermore, only 2 countries in the entire international hockey competition are from North America. The majority of countries in international hockey are in Europe. Thus, it would make sense that the tournament is held there every spring.
What the IIHF could do to make everybody happy, and something I would be in favour with, is to host the World Championships in September, every 4 years in between each Olympics (so 2002 Olympics, 04 Worlds, 06 Olympics, 08 Worlds, etc...). That way, it would be a true best on best, and would have a greater significance. However, I think both the IIHF and the NHL are too stubborn to pull this off.
Again, what you say is just silly.
People here aren't upset the tournament was held in Canada or wherever. It's just that it was held all over the World, and forced teams to travel needlessly. By having the tournament in a SINGLE place, these complaints would be non-existent.
Paxton Fettel
Registered User
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,238
- 309
Errr ... okay.
Must be hard being the 7th best hockey country in the world ...
Anyways, I really don't see any link between Europe and big ice surfaces. These rules are International, they weren't made up by Swedes or Czechs. If Canadians want to build smaller rinks, it's their problem. Just play by IIHF standards and everything should be fine.
And all this nonsense about World Championships not being played in Canada? Jesus! First of all, those tournaments are meaningless, and above all Canada doesn't want to host the Worlds!!! Guess why? Ever heard of NHL Playoffs? The World Juniors are played in Canada as often as they're played anywhere else, because in that case Canada wants to have them.
So if there should ever be a World Cup again, it should be played in Russia, in Slovakia, Sweden, USA, Finland ... and not just one or 2 games. You can't take seriously a tournament with a rule that says : Slovakia will play in Minnesota if the QF matchup is against the US, and will play in Toronto if the game is against Canada.
Tricolore#20
PK PK PK
Agreed. This is just the way that international hockey is set up. Just because Canada doesn't play by these rules doesn't mean that they are flawed, or must be changed. These rules have also been established for many years, and Canada has had success with it in the past, so it should never really be questioned as a bias towards Europeans. Same thing goes for other sports, such as basketball, where the NBA plays different rules than FIBA.
Exactly. Have the tournament in a single country, wherever you want in the world. Officials just need to make sure that teams aren't given a massive disadvantage for no reason (and don't mistake this with home ice advantage, because if you rotate the tournament from year to year, this factor cancels itself out).
Just because the IIHF (which has an extensive history of euro-centrism) decided to go with a certain size rink, it doesn't mean it was the original or proper size. Hockey was created in Canada, and Canada has more rinks and registered players than all of Europe combined. jeebus, people act like Canada took the game of hockey and bastardized it.
If an NHL-run tournament wants to use NHL sized ice in NHL venues, why not? How many players in the world cup (outside of the non-contending german or swiss entry) actually play their club games on large ice? 10 maybe?
Yeah right.The argument on what constitutes un-fair changes depending on how the tournament is played and what the results are for their entries,nothing more.For years i heard cries that the Canada/world cups were held EXCLUSIVELY on North American/Canadian soil..............it was hostile territory and small rinks.So what do we do? We give them games on the continent and what's the cry now? Yep.....you guessed it, all the teams don't play the games in North America,they have to travel too far.LOL..........right.
The problem is the results not any actual performance problems.Did you watch Canada's game against the Czechs at the last world cup? If you watched that game (or Finalnds) and still tell me travel affected them one iota then i know you're just blowing smoke to try and back these silly arguments up.Both teams were awesome,they easily could have won and gone all the way.If anything Canada was out-played by the Czechs,wish my habs would get that jet-lag all next season on their road trips.
For years nhl guys from Canada and the U.S flied over to those worlds and played while the euro teams were basically all over there all year save for a few Swede and finn players. And now they are crying about travel? You say my argument is silly,i say it's silly sour grapes on their part.And we are still playing on the big rinks EVERY year IN EUROPE.Who's got the better deal here tell me? They're complaining? Man,talk about prima donna fans. Why are they so special that every thing has to be catered to them? just answer that for me.
The way i see it the only way we'll settle this dispute is to have these tournaments in Asia or something with all teams on the ground there for a week.But until then,it is still going to sicken me to have them complain about travel one time,then when you give it to them another way they'll complain that the tournament is held in North America at all.Because it isn't the travel nor the fact that it is held in North America thats the real problem,it's the results of their teams that are the issue.If you can't see that and swallow that snow job they are giving you there is nothing i can do. Think you would hear any of this if Jagr instead of Lecavalier scores the go ahead goal? Travel problems my ***.
Last edited by a moderator:
First of all Canada does want to host the worlds and will be doing so in a few years,you did'nt know this? About time it is too!!
And secondly,being 7th in the world does'nt bother me.What bothers me is sookie baby fans who have had it their way for so long complaining about tournamnents over here and things like travel when they've had a monopoly on International tournaments that exists to this day and yet have the nerve to get all worked up because we get one every 4 years? Forgive me if i'm not losing any sleep over that one,know what i mean? travel time, God,we got the shiity end of the stick on that for years. Tell someone who cares.
And you say the worlds are'nt important too do you? Ask their fans if they think the worlds are'nt important.Go ahead,i dare you.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
I'll admit the '96 World Cup final was great Hockey. Aside form the '02 Can USA game ther has never been better Hockey played since then. If you watch the games in the final all of them are classics especially game 3. I'll admit both teams are very equal if you watch the games aside from Game 3 where Canada just dominated the game (they outshot USA 32-14 after two periods). A lot of Americans were in their prime and Chelios, that *****, was still a good defenseman. What bothered me was the players it lacked. The Americans didnt have Roenick and Vanbiesbrouck. No big deal. But Canada didnt have the undisputed #1 player on the planet there as Lemieux was hurt. Throw in the 50 goal man in Kariya, and then possibly still the best defenseman in the league Bourque and you've got three superstars right there.
ANother thing was somehow Roy wasnt even asked for that tourny. Do you think Roy would have let in three goals in the last three minutes of game 3? Nope. And if that isnt good enough How about Francis and MacInnis? Both injured neither played. So throw Lemieux, Kariya and Francis in there. Take out Graves, Linden and Claude Lemieux. Then throw in Bourque and MacInnis and take out Odelein and Cote. Then put Roy in Joseph's place, or Ranford's. Does Canada lose a single game? No way.
There were some untimely injuries, bad picks ( no Roy) and guys who just didnt want to play (Bourque). USA deserved to win that tourny, but that loss really screwed up our psyche. After that we had to BUILD a team for '98 jsut to beat the Americans. And we did beat them in '98. But the likes of Zamuner, Linden and others couldnt beat the Czechs. So for four years we had to hear about how we had no skill, until '02 at least. Its funny up until '96 I never heard of the fact that Canadians had no skill. But that loss screwed up our minds.
ANother thing was somehow Roy wasnt even asked for that tourny. Do you think Roy would have let in three goals in the last three minutes of game 3? Nope. And if that isnt good enough How about Francis and MacInnis? Both injured neither played. So throw Lemieux, Kariya and Francis in there. Take out Graves, Linden and Claude Lemieux. Then throw in Bourque and MacInnis and take out Odelein and Cote. Then put Roy in Joseph's place, or Ranford's. Does Canada lose a single game? No way.
There were some untimely injuries, bad picks ( no Roy) and guys who just didnt want to play (Bourque). USA deserved to win that tourny, but that loss really screwed up our psyche. After that we had to BUILD a team for '98 jsut to beat the Americans. And we did beat them in '98. But the likes of Zamuner, Linden and others couldnt beat the Czechs. So for four years we had to hear about how we had no skill, until '02 at least. Its funny up until '96 I never heard of the fact that Canadians had no skill. But that loss screwed up our minds.
Exactly,they always seem to forget this stuff too. Well said man,who's doing the bastardizing here anyway? Not us that's for damn sure!!!
Who and what gave them the power to arbitraily change the size of the rinks to suit their tastes anyway? And they call it "international" so to make it look good.It isn't international to us and never was.In hockey circles there really isn't any international,what international really means is "European" and anyone who does'nt know that is naive.
I'd love to hear the up-roar around here should we change the rules of football to suit our specifications and then pass it off as international.
The arrogance of some European fans and hockey officials is astounding.They think they own everything!! hence..............the complaints about the world cup. The sad thing is the percentage of North American fans willing to back this foolishness up. The European fans must just eat this stuff up.
I'll grant them this,they use everything to get their own way as much as possible,and they've succeded for the most part when it comes to international hockey. It's just to hear these guys complain and sook when most of the international system bends over backward to accomodate them in the first place.They've even made their own rinks that we (the creators of the game) have to live with. Tell me how the hell that happened?
And these guys complain?. Oh man, it's straight out of the twighlight zone.
When's the last time you ever heard a European fan,in the interest of fairness (which supposedly is so important to them) suggest splitting up the worlds on odd years from big to small ice.Or even better ,since damn near all the big 7's players play nhl hockey,to small ice every year so things will be fair across the board for all concerned each and every year?
Never. And then they've got the nerve to come here and claim tournaments here are unfair.
Clean up your own act European teams,act in good faith and we'll do the same. Until then take your lumps like men,Or win,whichever you think you're more quailfied to do first.
But don't crybaby please.You have it good enough as it is.
Never. And then they've got the nerve to come here and claim tournaments here are unfair.
Clean up your own act European teams,act in good faith and we'll do the same. Until then take your lumps like men,Or win,whichever you think you're more quailfied to do first.
But don't crybaby please.You have it good enough as it is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Paxton Fettel
Registered User
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,238
- 309
the bottom line is : the world cup has zero legitimacy.
show what you've got at the Olympics, hockey's equivalent of soccer's World Cup.
show what you've got at the Olympics, hockey's equivalent of soccer's World Cup.
You mean the world cup has zero legitiimacy WITH YOU.
There is a difference of course.and it brings me back to what i've said before.The only reason it has zero legitimacy with you and fans from there is because of the team you root fors RESULTS,nothing more.If the team you backed (i assume you have some strange thing for Russia or European teams as a whole,your avatar and attitude would suggest that) would have claimed victory then you would'nt be saying this. If the World cup has no legitimacy as you claim then why did loads of Finns call in taking the day off from work so they could watch the final last time around? Pretty strange behaviour for people that you say think the tournament has no legitimacy would'nt you say? That's because they knew that it is a top level international hockey tournament and winning it was the real thing,much more so then the annual worlds. It only becomes illegitimate with some people (usually from Europe or Europe backers) when they don't take home top prize..................that's it in a nut-shell and you know it. Canada cup 1980..........legitimate!! World cup 2004......not legitimate!!! Are you serious?
As for the olympics,we have shown it,i guess you forget us winning it in Salt Lake? Oh i forgot,that was in North America,that does'nt count does it? Was'nt there some grumbling that the U.S had ripped off Russia to get into the final game? The big conspiracy,they were calling to take their athletes out of the games LOL
What you really want to say is that only the Olympics in Europe is legitimate!! or more accurately,only International tournaments held in Europe are legitimate.Or more accurate even still,only tournamenst in which my teams wins,wherever they are held at,are legitimate. This is really what it is isn't it?
People would have to be really stupid/naive/ and just plain without any shred of honour not to see the game being played here by guys like you and others who think the same way all because who they root for can't pull victory out.You make these claims about their records in Europe versus in North America and you never even stop to think that maybe there record is better in Europe because they play in...............Europe!! Who's really at the disadvantage here anyway?.yeah sure their record is better in Europe.it's in their ballpark with mostly their refs and their rinks and game calling.You don't get the correlation here?
Now,how about getting those worlds on small ice? I don't think that tournament is legitimate because of it.It's in Europe every year and it's on big ice all the time.
Silly eh?
I know one thing,all this talk about the olympics being the only legitimate tourament will change pretty quickly come 2010 when the Euro teams lose.What will be the reason for this sudden switch from being the only legitimate tournament to an illegitimate one? You guessed it.................it was in North America and was on small rinks.
Hard to believe anyone could possibly swallow this Euro theory. It's just a big game to make up for the fact they are dissapointed they have lost,Nothing more. What is most disturbing is that some fans from here are actually gullible enough to take it hook,line and sinker.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heck,you've already begun laying the groundwork in your post up further where you state the only time Canada and the U.S have finished has finshed top three in the Oly's is when the olympics were held in N.A.(not even true,Canada finished 2nd aginst the C.I.S and Sweden the two previous games held in Europe) The bottom line is you can twist anything to make it sound like you actually have something in the ball yet anyone with any sense can see right through it.Just as easily as you can say...'hey look,these guys can only win when in North America"......i can just as easily say.."hey look,these Euro teams can only win when Tournaments are out of North America" Do you Get it? And your whole argument even that we can't win in europe or anywhere else is b.s...........we've won tournaments that are not in North America. What fools people are to believe this reasoning you and others have.
GuloGulo
Registered User
IIHF sized rinks are not mandatory in Europe. In fact, the IIHF specifies that only _their_ international tournaments have to be played on the "big rink". Venues can have whatever size their national federation allows. Nothing weird with a size being standard, it's pretty default in every sport that a governing body decides on a common ruleset. Can't have every nation come to the tournament expecting their own rulebook to apply.
Cawz
Registered User
To say it has zero legitimacy is incorrect, but the World Cup has less legitimacy that the Olympics.
Here in hockey mad Canada, when we won Olympic gold 4 1/2 years ago. The game ended at 3pm or so local time here in Calgary on a sunday I think. People were still running up and down the strip with Canadian flag and honking horns well into the evening. It was a party on the strip for hours (a scene that apparently was echoed in basically every Canadian city).
When we won the last World Cup a couple years ago, there was no celebrating here. Maybe in the bar I was watching it in, but after the game, there was no party in the street, no horns honking, no streakers running with flags, no people hanging out of car windows high-fiving everyone...
The World Cup is an out-of-place tournament, plunked down in the middle of the off-season. They should put it down already and focus on the Olympics only. They just have to adjust the NHL season better so its not so cramped.
Phenomenon
Registered User
- Jun 10, 2006
- 1,362
- 140
World Championships is a real cash cow for IIHF every year, so they don't want to make any changes. The expansion of the teams was made a couple of years ago so that the countries that temptate Central European marketing are involved (i.e. Germany).
Last edited:
The World Cup is plagued with a lot of problems. As mentioned earlier, the timing sucks. It starts in August. For many players, it gives them a two-and-a-half to three month off-season. If they can find an excuse not to play, they will. A minor injury? They won't play. A previous tiff with a coach? They won't play. It was really pronounced in the 2004 World Cup. I think part of the problem with the 2004 World Cup was historical timing. The lockout began the day after the tournament ended. For fans, it was nice, because it was a chance to see high-level hockey one last time before labour armagedon. I don't know if many players had their hearts in that tournament.
I'll agree that it wasn't that big of a deal for fans when Canada won in 2004. (It wasn't that big of a deal when Canada won the 1991 Canada Cup, either). Fans were as excited as they were when Canada won the Olympics in 2002. The 2002 Olympic victory was like our team winning the Stanley Cup. The World Cup victory was like our NHL team winning Game 3 in the second round of the playoffs to break a 1-1 series deadlock. I was more excited when our junior team won gold in 2005 and 2006.
The 2004 World Cup is going to mean little in Canada's international hockey history.
It was a big deal for the Canadian players, though. They knew that their performance in that tournament, along with the 2002 Olympics and the 2003, 2004 and 2005 World Championships, would have a major influence on the selection committee's decision for the 2006 Olympics. Unfortunately, a lot of guys who cemented their spot on Canada's Olympic team based on the 2004 World Cup (most notably Thornton and Lecavalier) were Canada's biggest flops in Turin.
I think the World Cup will have a place in the future. If it's true that the 2010 Olympics will be the last for NHL players, then having a World Cup in 2012 or 2014 would make sense. I won't miss it in 2008, though.
As for the shift in venues halfway through the tournament argument: does it really make that much of a difference? Watch the semi-finals in 2004. Finland beat the U.S. They deserved to win that game. The Czechs took Canada to the limit, had several chances to win in overtime, and got better as the game went along. In 1996, Sweden came over from the European group and put on a timeless classic with Canada. (Russia was in the North American group when they lost to the U.S.). I don't think players drop out because they dread that cross-Atlantic flight.
As for the statement that the Worlds mean nothing: it's a load of crap. Ask Team Canada in 1994 whether it means anything. Ask the 1997, 2003 and 2004 teams whether it means anything. Or better yet: ask the 1996 and 2005 teams, which lost in the final to the Czechs, how much they wanted to win that tournament. Over in Europe, the World Championships are king. Canadian kids dream of scoring the winning goal in the Stanley Cup. A lot of European kids dream of scoring the winning goal in the World Championship. Canada is the only country in the hockey world that makes a bigger deal about the WJC than the World Championships, just like we're the only ones who make a bigger deal about the Junior World Cup (Hlinka Memorial) than the WU18. When Quebec City hosts the Worlds in 2008, you'll see that it is a big deal.
I'll agree that it wasn't that big of a deal for fans when Canada won in 2004. (It wasn't that big of a deal when Canada won the 1991 Canada Cup, either). Fans were as excited as they were when Canada won the Olympics in 2002. The 2002 Olympic victory was like our team winning the Stanley Cup. The World Cup victory was like our NHL team winning Game 3 in the second round of the playoffs to break a 1-1 series deadlock. I was more excited when our junior team won gold in 2005 and 2006.
The 2004 World Cup is going to mean little in Canada's international hockey history.
It was a big deal for the Canadian players, though. They knew that their performance in that tournament, along with the 2002 Olympics and the 2003, 2004 and 2005 World Championships, would have a major influence on the selection committee's decision for the 2006 Olympics. Unfortunately, a lot of guys who cemented their spot on Canada's Olympic team based on the 2004 World Cup (most notably Thornton and Lecavalier) were Canada's biggest flops in Turin.
I think the World Cup will have a place in the future. If it's true that the 2010 Olympics will be the last for NHL players, then having a World Cup in 2012 or 2014 would make sense. I won't miss it in 2008, though.
As for the shift in venues halfway through the tournament argument: does it really make that much of a difference? Watch the semi-finals in 2004. Finland beat the U.S. They deserved to win that game. The Czechs took Canada to the limit, had several chances to win in overtime, and got better as the game went along. In 1996, Sweden came over from the European group and put on a timeless classic with Canada. (Russia was in the North American group when they lost to the U.S.). I don't think players drop out because they dread that cross-Atlantic flight.
As for the statement that the Worlds mean nothing: it's a load of crap. Ask Team Canada in 1994 whether it means anything. Ask the 1997, 2003 and 2004 teams whether it means anything. Or better yet: ask the 1996 and 2005 teams, which lost in the final to the Czechs, how much they wanted to win that tournament. Over in Europe, the World Championships are king. Canadian kids dream of scoring the winning goal in the Stanley Cup. A lot of European kids dream of scoring the winning goal in the World Championship. Canada is the only country in the hockey world that makes a bigger deal about the WJC than the World Championships, just like we're the only ones who make a bigger deal about the Junior World Cup (Hlinka Memorial) than the WU18. When Quebec City hosts the Worlds in 2008, you'll see that it is a big deal.
Sorry, but with the exception of three inductions (Tretiak, Fetisov and Kharlamov) it's been the NHL HOF for about 40 years. In the first 20 years, it was the HHOF. Not only did you have the early NHL stars being inducted, but you had the best of the pre-NHL, the stars of the West Coast leagues (the primary West Coast league was the better than the NHL for the first few years), and even a few amateurs like Hobey Baker.
If the voters cared about the international stuff, you'd see guys like Makarov and Nedomansky in there. They're still waiting. Kharlamov needed 20-some-odd attempts before he was inducted. Fetisov's NHL success played a key role. Even though he was a shadow of his former self, he did win three Cups. Voters also hold it against you if you passed up the NHL to play in the WHA. They won't pass over a Hull, but if you're a borderline case (Mark Howe or JC Tremblay, for example), you're odds of admission diminish.
Voters do pay attention to the international stuff for builders. But rarely for players.
Don't know if Richter will get in the IIHF HOF. World/Canada Cup is not an IIHF-sanctioned event. If it was, Richter's IIHF HOF chances would be much better than his HHOF chances.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: Around the League 2023-24: The Marathon Becomes A Sprint
- Latest: JordanGalhanth
-
