Are the World Juniors highlighting the growing weakness in International hockey?

[Davebo*]

Not really. Firstly, the creation of 20/20 isn't attracting any new nations to the sport. We still have the same powerbase in Cricket as we did twenty years ago. Bangladesh will inevitably become an elite nation because of the sheer population and interest. There are no other emerging cricket nations ; Ireland hardly count, Kenya hardly count. The sub contintent has no other candidates, North American cricket hardly exists and European cricket likewise.

As exciting as 20/20 is, it is also damaging the Test format significantly. There is virtually no mid-term cricket growth potential outside the already elite nations.

Can we stop talking about frigging cricket, please?

 

[joshjull]

Which is why I think Rugby qualifies. Sweden has the perfect conditions for it IE climate, proximity to other nations where the sport is popular (England, France) and so on. I wouldn't really be suprized if the number of rugby players in the world exceeds that of hockey by a margin.

Are you suggesting Sweden's current hockey development is impacted by Swedish boys deciding to play Rugby instead of hockey?

Because thats the only relevance of other sports in this discussion. That they are taking potential athletes/money away from the sport.

 

[Slimmy]

The discussion veered away from relevance when it started to get into cricket and other commonwealth sports.

I agree soccer would have an impact. But I think its truly just a numbers game. Canada and the USA have far more players to pull from thus giving them and advanatge in a tourney like the world juniors. But as others pointed out when the pool of players is all ages the Europeans do far better.


As an aside I've always wondered why Norway has never really had much of a hockey program as opposed to their neighbors Sweden and Finland. My sister in law is from Stavangar. She has said its never really been a popular sport and was viewed by some as a sport for thugs. The more popular sports were soccer, the alpine sports and handball. I can't remember if it was my sister in law or someone on here that mentioned the big diference was how they invested in their sporting infrastructure. Norway spends a good deal on the alpine sports and their development which accounts for their huge success in the sports internationally over the years. But spends very little on hockey and its development.

Norway has always been succesfull in the alpine winter games and never took any notice to Hockey. Guess they went with what came natural with the landscape being what it is. Denmark is part of the continent and not really a winter sports kinda country but it's picking up. Largely thanks to good hockey expertise being exported from Sweden to both Norway and Denmark.

 

[Thepainter]

We dont ever want or need anything remotely like ur NTDP. Our country is considerably bigger in terms of geographical area, and our players/ hockey hotbeds are far less concentrated ( unlike urs which are heavily concentrated , for the most part, in a few North Eastern states ).

the NTDP works fairly well stateside ( although it does smack of putting all ur eggs in one basket ), the CHL works even better here. And if u think otherwise, we're game for a Best on Best Jr Summit Series some August vs ur Yankee Doodle Dandies ( a la the Canada v Russia Eight game Jr Summit ) .

Me thinks our boyz would spank urs silly, which would sure be sweet, esp after that unfortunate incident last year in Saskatoon

CHEERS YANKEES

Canada won't even come close to beating the US. The only unfortunate incident last year was that Canada got lucky and tied the game up.

 

[Slimmy]

Are you suggesting Sweden's current hockey development is impacted by Swedish boys deciding to play Rugby instead of hockey?

Because thats the only relevance of other sports in this discussion. That they are taking potential athletes/money away from the sport.

Well, it's highly hypothetical but rugby and other variations of it is picking up in Sweden and our national teams have had an exponential success growth in later yaers. Seeing that the sport would be perfect for our "conditions" it could verry well become an "alternate" sport and find popularity. If volleball can become a popular sport to practice in Sweden, who's to say rugby can not?

 

[Davebo*]

Canada won't even come close to beating the US. The only unfortunate incident last year was that Canada got lucky and tied the game up.

Just like your workman-like group at this past Olympic Games - that was super lucky, eh? Good thing lady luck was smiling on Parise!

 

[wjhl2009fan]

Canada won't even come close to beating the US. The only unfortunate incident last year was that Canada got lucky and tied the game up.

Keep dreaming.

 

[joshjull]

Well, it's highly hypothetical but rugby and other variations of it is picking up in Sweden and our national teams have had an exponential success growth in later yaers. Seeing that the sport would be perfect for our "conditions" it could verry well become an "alternate" sport and find popularity. If volleball can become a popular sport to practice in Sweden, who's to say rugby can not?

Maybe Rugby will catch on but what does that have to do with right now?

Btw the more you post, the more I get to enjoy your avatar

 

[Slimmy]

Maybe Rugby will catch on but what does that have to do with right now?

Btw the more you post, the more I get to enjoy your avatar

Then I'll endulge you

True. It was simply an observation and has no implications for the near future, if at all.

 

[Rogalo]

During the Canada/Czech game they were talking about the Czech's trying to get their junior players to commit to 5yr deals with club teams? So that if they did leave the club team or the Czech ice hockey federation would get compensated. Could you explain what they were talking about?

Here is the deal - there is NO agreement between the Czech hockey federation and the NHL concerning juniors leaving CZE. Therefore if a junior leaves at the end of his contract the Czech club is not compensated at all (like Mrazek or Polasek but there are a lot of other cases out there). If they however were under a contract, the clubs in NA would be forced to buy them out (like Frk leaving to Halifax). Therefore it is very clear why clubs in CZE are interested in longterm contracts - it would seriously raise their chances in seeing a return on investment of the money invested into the players´ development - in the time of their departure they would simply be under contract.

This current state - of players leaving as free agents without compensation - is killing Czech hockey. Clubs are trying to draw attention to this non-compensation and trying to force the Czech federation into doing something about the non-existing agreement. And they are doing so by BANNING players from representing the junior national team until they are reinbursed. Vitkovice are the strictest club in this matter. It is a sad and desperate attempt into getting money invested in development of players. This sad policy is affecting the careers of young players (such as mentioned Mrazek, Polášek) and is decreasing the (already low) overall quality of the junior national team.

I hope I answered your question

 

[New User Name]

European nations are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to junior hockey.

In Canada, hockey has been number 1 forever and likely will never change. Canadians spend millions on kids hockey.

Canadian hockey gets developmental fees and while USA hockey doesn't, they started getting 8 million a year officially from the NHL in 2008. (there was rumours of USA hockey getting $ from the NHL before that too)

It should be noted that USA hockey gets far more money than they would if they received development fees. (Nice to have an American controlled NHL)

http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFi...u_Annual_Meetings/Special Meeting Notice .pdf


The sad thing and something that should piss off Europeans is that the NHL has all but forgotten about European hockey, in favour of USA hockey.

So while Canadian hockey gets development $ and USA hockey gets a handout, Europeans get zilch.

It would be nice to see a group of European players tell the NHL that this is BS and they want equal treatment.

This tournament was far better when European countries were always in the mix. It's good for hockey that players come from many countries, as opposed to what seems to be a growing trend mainly from Canada and the USA.

 

[wjhl2009fan]

European nations are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to junior hockey.

In Canada, hockey has been number 1 forever and likely will never change. Canadians spend millions on kids hockey.

Canadian hockey gets developmental fees and while USA hockey doesn't, they started getting 8 million a year officially from the NHL in 2008. (there was rumours of USA hockey getting $ from the NHL before that too)

It should be noted that USA hockey gets far more money than they would if they received development fees. (Nice to have an American controlled NHL)

http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFi...u_Annual_Meetings/Special Meeting Notice .pdf


The sad thing and something that should piss off Europeans is that the NHL has all but forgotten about European hockey, in favour of USA hockey.

So while Canadian hockey gets development $ and USA hockey gets a handout, Europeans get zilch.

It would be nice to see a group of European players tell the NHL that this is BS and they want equal treatment.

This tournament was far better when European countries were always in the mix. It's good for hockey that players come from many countries, as opposed to what seems to be a growing trend mainly from Canada and the USA.

I think it goes a bit deeper then that and has more to do with the local teams in europe how they run there programs etc.Sure there are some solid programs but there just as many that are not good programs and have issues.Should the good programs get funding yes but the bigger issue is the programs that have issues saying here we will give your a ton of money thats not the way to go.Its very easy to just blame the nhl but there not the root of this probleam its much deeper then that.

 

[Gurth]

It's clear to me that it's become Canada and everyone else when it comes to this tourney. The fact that Russia can no longer be competitive and Sweden is usually shooting for silver at best is unfortunate.

The U.S. is narrowing the gap and will win titles from time to time and maybe even get to the point where we trade titles, but having only two legitimate contenders does not make for an interesting tourney long term. It will make for a heated rivalry no doubt, but I'd love to see 6 teams with a legitimate chance each year.

I'm sure that you Northerners loved winning 5 in a row, but it made for a really boring 5 years for the rest of the world. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't have to be the U.S. winning it each year, but I'd like to feel like Sweden, Finland or even Russia are real threats from time to time.

Eventually it could become like the women's Olympics where everyone else is playing for bronze. BORING!

I have no solution, not sure there is one. This is where it's heading though.

 

[wjhl2009fan]

It's clear to me that it's become Canada and everyone else when it comes to this tourney. The fact that Russia can no longer be competitive and Sweden is usually shooting for silver at best is unfortunate.

The U.S. is narrowing the gap and will win titles from time to time and maybe even get to the point where we trade titles, but having only two legitimate contenders does not make for an interesting tourney long term. It will make for a heated rivalry no doubt, but I'd love to see 6 teams with a legitimate chance each year.

I'm sure that you Northerners loved winning 5 in a row, but it made for a really boring 5 years for the rest of the world. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't have to be the U.S. winning it each year, but I'd like to feel like Sweden, Finland or even Russia are real threats from time to time.

Eventually it could become like the women's Olympics where everyone else is playing for bronze. BORING!

I have no solution, not sure there is one. This is where it's heading though.

Its hard sure you could expand to 12-14 teams and all teams stay no matter if they come last maybe doing this more countries would be willing to invest in there programs.

 

[KristoLeblanc*]

I belive its pretty simple.

USA and Canada are huge countries with alot of people living in them. They are bound to get more talents then the rest of the world.
And every countries has their good and bad years.

Sweden is an exception tho. Only 9 million people and 20% of them are foreigners.
Yet they produce alot of awesome players.

Finland are just having really bad years right now. And so on..

Ehhh.... Canada is a huge country population wise. Slightly above 30 millions...

 

[Slimmy]

It's clear to me that it's become Canada and everyone else when it comes to this tourney. The fact that Russia can no longer be competitive and Sweden is usually shooting for silver at best is unfortunate.

The U.S. is narrowing the gap and will win titles from time to time and maybe even get to the point where we trade titles, but having only two legitimate contenders does not make for an interesting tourney long term. It will make for a heated rivalry no doubt, but I'd love to see 6 teams with a legitimate chance each year.

I'm sure that you Northerners loved winning 5 in a row, but it made for a really boring 5 years for the rest of the world. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't have to be the U.S. winning it each year, but I'd like to feel like Sweden, Finland or even Russia are real threats from time to time.

Eventually it could become like the women's Olympics where everyone else is playing for bronze. BORING!

I have no solution, not sure there is one. This is where it's heading though.

Sweden has been a major contender the last two tourneys and if you recall, just as well could have been the finalist against Canada last year who lost to the US aswell. With that logic, the outcome would have been anything but certain.
I'd even go so far as to say Sweden, talentwise, was the better team the last two tourneys.

 

[PuckOut]

I think it goes a bit deeper then that and has more to do with the local teams in europe how they run there programs etc.Sure there are some solid programs but there just as many that are not good programs and have issues.Should the good programs get funding yes but the bigger issue is the programs that have issues saying here we will give your a ton of money thats not the way to go.Its very easy to just blame the nhl but there not the root of this probleam its much deeper then that.

Wow that's patronizing.

"Thanks for the players, but we can see some flaws in you programs so we won't give you any money for taking them"

The way it works is bulls**t, simple as that.

 

[Gurth]

Sweden has been a major contender the last two tourneys and if you recall, just as well could have been the finalist against Canada last year who lost to the US aswell. With that logic, the outcome would have been anything but certain.
I'd even go so far as to say Sweden, talentwise, was the better team the last two tourneys.

You gotta win one though.

If it can't be us, I hope it's you, simply for balance.

 

[Hart_House_Ca]

Cricket is the most popular sport in India and Pakistan and also popular in the UK and Australia. It's obviously much bigger sport than hockey.

Globally, hockey is a minor sport. There's more hockey players in Canada than in all other countries of the world(excluding the US) combined.

There are more Tim Hortins in Canada than in all other countries of the world (including the US) combined.

 

[Hart_House_Ca]

It's clear to me that it's become Canada and everyone else when it comes to this tourney. The fact that Russia can no longer be competitive and Sweden is usually shooting for silver at best is unfortunate.

The U.S. is narrowing the gap and will win titles from time to time and maybe even get to the point where we trade titles, but having only two legitimate contenders does not make for an interesting tourney long term. It will make for a heated rivalry no doubt, but I'd love to see 6 teams with a legitimate chance each year.

I'm sure that you Northerners loved winning 5 in a row, but it made for a really boring 5 years for the rest of the world. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't have to be the U.S. winning it each year, but I'd like to feel like Sweden, Finland or even Russia are real threats from time to time.

Eventually it could become like the women's Olympics where everyone else is playing for bronze. BORING!

I have no solution, not sure there is one. This is where it's heading though.

Solutions:
1. Eat more Tim Hortins donuts
2. Spend more time at the hockey rink
3. Build more hockey rinks
4. Watch more hockey on TV
5. Buy kids more hockey related items
6. Teach kids to skate very early
7. Force kids to practice everyday
8. Spend 1000's of dollars each year on equipment and games
9. Wake up early for 7am games
10. Raise kids to play hockey with Canadian Heart (Most Important)

 

[Gurth]

Solutions:
1. Eat more Tim Hortins donuts
2. Spend more time at the hockey rink
3. Build more hockey rinks
4. Watch more hockey on TV
5. Buy kids more hockey related items
6. Teach kids to skate very early
7. Force kids to practice everyday
8. Spend 1000's of dollars each year on equipment and games
9. Wake up early for 7am games
10. Raise kids to play hockey with Canadian Heart (Most Important)

I do all of that except #10. Doomed to failure?

 

[JVR]

Youth and juniorplayers per nation;

1. Canada 325.432
2. USA 293.691
3. Russia 58.527
4. Sweden 41.104
5. Finland 36.411
6. Czech 32.623

Imo European countries really do well.

I think it's more about Canada and US getting the to point where they should be.

Think of the resources Canada has when it comes to hockey. More licensed players than all of Europe combined and a GDP that matches countries like Sweden and Finland. The US also has huge advantage in the amount of players available. This gap in talent pool is even more pronounced in junior competitions.

With these facts in mind, it's not suprising if Canada and the US will proceed to dominate the international scene. The European clubs will have to rely on excellent coaching and sound team effort in order to match the NA clubs. These are the reasons why Finland, for example, has managed to succeed in recent years, despite the relative lack of top calibre players.

So, it's not so much about the weakening of European countries, as it is about the realization of the resources that Canada and the US possess.

I agree with this.

 

[puck swami]

I do all of that except #10. Doomed to failure?

Of course. Canadians love to tell everyone about their monopoly on heart.

Of course, we Americans have our own mythology when it comes to sports...

 

[UvBnDatsyuked]

What does this have to do with anything. Or are you implying something about the foreigners in your country.Good observations on OP. But we did see a good Canada/Russia game. I wonder if hockey in Europe is more of a trend, coming and going in popularity with whatever's happening in soccer.

In Canada, hockey is life, and you'll always get strong teams from over here because people keep playing.

Maybe that 20% of the youth hockey players in Sweden are not foreign and the diversification of the population is not reflected in the hockey programs. Thanks for fighting the fight though. We need more people to imply that others are implying bigotry.

Never heard that one before

 

[Everlasting]

What does this have to do with anything. Or are you implying something about the foreigners in your country.

Good observations on OP. But we did see a good Canada/Russia game. I wonder if hockey in Europe is more of a trend, coming and going in popularity with whatever's happening in soccer.

In Canada, hockey is life, and you'll always get strong teams from over here because people keep playing.

Foreigners in sweden dont play hockey.
Seriously, name 5 foreigners from sweden who is playing hockey. Not just "hockey" but in elitelevel.
I cant think of anyone. The closest i get is Hagos and Mark in da park but they were born in Sweden.