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

[jekoh]

How does a country like Russia fit into this scenario? Do they also not focus more on creativity, speed, and individual skill?...perhaps to a fault? They have been perennial underachievers in international play, both at the junior and senior level.*

How exactly has Russia underachieved? Over the last 4 Olympics they've done better than the USA and only marginally worse than Canada, this with not even half as many players to choose from.

 

[patnyrnyg]

How exactly has Russia underachieved? Over the last 4 Olympics they've done better than the USA and only marginally worse than Canada, this with not even half as many players to choose from.

How do you figure? Over the last 4, the US has 2 silvers, Canada has 2 Golds, Russia has 1 silver, 1 bronze. In 2002, the US beat Russia in the semis. In 2006 Russia eliminated Canada, but in 2010, Canada completely obliterated Russia in the quarters.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

How exactly has Russia underachieved? Over the last 4 Olympics they've done better than the USA and only marginally worse than Canada, this with not even half as many players to choose from.

I think Russia has much higher aspirations than that

 

[S.S. Giggy]

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..

I think it has more to do more with funding in sports programs. Obviously, hockey is Canada's past-time so it's only logical that the government is willing to invest heavily on developing hockey talent. I'm not so sure about the US where hockey is no. 4 on the sports list. My educated guess would be that because the US was the richest nation in the world, they're willing to invest heavily in hockey programs as well but only in certain areas. Furthermore, 24 of the NHL's 30 teams are in the US.

It makes sense for Sweden to invest a good amount of money on hockey programs because I believe that Soccer(Football) and Hockey are mainstay sports in Sweden(with handball being in a distant 3rd), I could be wrong. However, Finland is questionable regarding their talent since their case is similar to that of Sweden's, it's either Soccer or Hockey. Then again, f1nn may have said it best:

Finland has definitely been experiencing a dry spell in talent lately, but imho we're starting to produce more quality players now.. Granlund, Vatanen, Pulkkinen, Armia.. I've been impressed with Finland's play so far this year (although we are missing our best player) and hope we can continue the trend.. The problem is at the junior level a country of 5 million people is of course going to be hardpressed to ice a competitive team each year when playing against much bigger countries... there's just not enough depth

I also seem to remember talking with a fan in Norway asking him about hockey in Norway and why they don't churn out any NHL talent and he said that it was a combination of Norwegians loving their Alpine sports more and the government willing to spend more on Alpine sports and soccer while leaving hockey with the leftovers.

J17 vs Proclamation's post makes sense when he talked about a part of Russia's problem is political. I do believe that politics is a big growth stunt to talent development in Russia and, perhaps, incompetence/corruption at the top also playing a huge part as to why Russia's on the decline right now.

As for the Czech Republic and Slovakia, I do remember somebody talking about them in the Olympics about how everyone's leaning towards soccer and handball more than hockey and that Slovakia's effort was also an effort to get themselves back on the hockey map.

Both Switzerland and Germany are on the rise with developing North American Capable talents in Germany like Sturm, Goc, Seidenberg, Abeltschauser, Kuhnhackl, Pielmeier, and Switzerland like Hiller, Streit, Sbisa, Wick, Weber, Josi, Niederreiter, and Bartschi mainly because they have a bigger economy than Russia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Norway despite the fact that hockey is no. 3 in both countries behind soccer and motorsports in Germany and soccer and alpine sports in Switzerland. Furthermore, Swiss players are being coached and developed by Canadians like Ralph Krueger(formerly) and Chris McSoreley and that's why you see Team Switzerland play a fusion of both European and North American styles in the Olympics than a pure European style of game.

In short, I think it's more about how much money you have as a country and how much you're willing to spend on developing hockey talent through your hockey program if you have one. These are just my thoughts and no thought is perfect.

 

[jekoh]

How do you figure? Over the last 4, the US has 2 silvers,

They also finished 6th and 8th. Russia overall place better, it's a fact.

 

[jekoh]

I think Russia has much higher aspirations than that

They're a little delusional if you ask me. There's little reason for Russia to be better than Sweden or Czechia or the USA, other than marginally.

 

[Bojovnik]

What I've noticed is that Canada and America seem to produce talent in depth, whilst in each year pool for European teams, there are distinctly a couple of players per year group who seem to be exceptionally good.

Therefore, this causes a problem at junior level, as the European teams just don't have the strength in depth to shatter the seeming dominance of the North American teams in the tournament, however at a senior level, it is a different story.

 

[patnyrnyg]

They also finished 6th and 8th. Russia overall place better, it's a fact.

Sorry, but all that matters is the medals. If you are not in the top-3, then whether you finish 4th, 5th, or 10th really doesn't matter.

 

[Jussi]

Sorry, but all that matters is the medals. If you are not in the top-3, then whether you finish 4th, 5th, or 10th really doesn't matter.

This. Counting the non-top-4 finishes is grasping at straws or really biased thinking, which is actually normal on internet message boards. Twisting the facts to suit one's thinking/purpose/agenda.

 

[jekoh]

Sorry, but all that matters is the medals.

How hypocritical is it to mention the quarter-final goal difference then?

If you are not in the top-3, then whether you finish 4th, 5th, or 10th really doesn't matter.

Winning or losing your QF still makes a difference, whether some HFBoards poster likes it or not (I guess next time he will argue only gold matters). Ask the Slovaks if they prefer a SF berth or going out in the QF. Ask Belarus, too, while you're at it.

 

[patnyrnyg]

How hypocritical is it to mention the quarter-final goal difference then?


Winning or losing your QF still makes a difference, whether some HFBoards poster likes it or not (I guess next time he will argue only gold matters). Ask the Slovaks if they prefer a SF berth or going out in the QF. Ask Belarus, too, while you're at it.

Much bigger deal for Belarus to get to the semis considering they didn't have any NHL'ers on their team. Slovakia the same considering about 1/2 their squad was not from the NHL. For teams like Russia it isn't a big deal. If you think so, fine. But not many are going to agree with you.

I mentioned the score because they played head-to-head. Sorry, but the US finish 6th and 8th to Russia's 4th and 6th in their non-medal showings doesn't make a difference. Especially when 5th-8th are ranked on tie-breakers.

If you want to pull the World Cup into the discussion, the US won it in 96 (beating the Russians twice), and beat Russia in the play-offs in 04 (although Russia beat them in the prelims).

 

[mattihp]

If you want to pull the World Cup into the discussion, the US won it in 96 (beating the Russians twice), and beat Russia in the play-offs in 04 (although Russia beat them in the prelims).

I think few europeans put any real value except entertainment into the World Cup since it is not an IIHF event.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I think few europeans put any real value except entertainment into the World Cup since it is not an IIHF event.

Fans maybe. However, I seriously doubt the players are treating it like entertainment.

 

[Brodie]

To get back to something we discussed earlier... I'd say hockey's popularity is about equal to baseball's worldwide. Both are behind soccer, basketball, cricket, rugby and probably volleyball worldwide for team sports.

 

[jekoh]

Much bigger deal for Belarus to get to the semis considering they didn't have any NHL'ers on their team.

Actually, they did have one.

Slovakia the same considering about 1/2 their squad was not from the NHL. For teams like Russia it isn't a big deal.

You do realize half the Russian team was not from the NHL either, right?

Sorry, but the US finish 6th and 8th to Russia's 4th and 6th in their non-medal showings doesn't make a difference.

Are you seriously saying the 8th place finish by the US in 06 was not more embarassing than Russia's 4th place?

The US could not beat Latvia! Had it been Russia instead of the USA, I can only imagine the abuse that would have been directed at Russia. You just have to look at that Vancouver QF loss. It's pretty obvious it does make a difference

 

[patnyrnyg]

Which was stupid on Russia's part as they had better players playing in the NHL. I remember when the team was announced how a lot of people were saying some of the selection process was a political thing to hype up the KHL.

Again, 8th place vs 4th place is all the same. Losing in the Quarters vs winning the quarters only to lose the next two? Who cares. Neither is going home with hardware. 06 was a bad year for the US squad. When the team was named I didn't think they had any chance to be in the medals. Rick DiPietro was their netminder. Was also a down year for Canada.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Are you seriously saying the 8th place finish by the US in 06 was not more embarassing than Russia's 4th place?

Not scoring a goal in their last 2 games was pretty embarrassing

 

[Muuri]

Not scoring a goal in their last 2 games was pretty embarrassing

They were shutout by strong Finland team and didn`t give rass about bronze medal game. Nothing embarrasing about that. Overall they played good tournament, winning Canada and Sweden.

 

[BigT2002]

I wanna know how much each country dedicates to their development programs. The one issue that is tainting this championship is the fact that many of these kids are integral parts to their NHL team which they obviously aren't going to leave. Would Duchene, Stamkos, Tavares, Hall all be playing for Canada if they could?? I don't know the ages of these guys off hand

 

[BigT2002]

I wanna know how much each country dedicates to their development programs. The one issue that is tainting this championship is the fact that many of these kids are integral parts to their NHL team which they obviously aren't going to leave. Would Duchene, Stamkos, Tavares, Hall all be playing for Canada if they could?? I don't know the ages of these guys off hand

 

[jekoh]

Which was stupid on Russia's part as they had better players playing in the NHL. I remember when the team was announced how a lot of people were saying some of the selection process was a political thing to hype up the KHL.

Probably the same geniuses that said the same thing about the Czech team in 1998.

 

[glovesave_35]

They're a little delusional if you ask me. There's little reason for Russia to be better than Sweden or Czechia or the USA, other than marginally.

From a pure skill/talent standpoint Russia is probably just below Canada in terms of what they can put together for a men's tournament. With the current state of Czech Republic and Slovakian hockey I definitely disagree with your assessment of Russia's expectations. The United States has made significant headway toward becoming a more skill-based team that can play with Canada, Russia, and Sweden, but the only thing that puts USA on close to even footing with Russia or Canada is that they seem to buy into the team concept. If Russia can get out of their own way, both in terms of buying into the team concept and by icing the absolute best roster they can put together rather than letting league allegiances dictate who makes the cut, they would be as formidable as Canada.

Probably the same geniuses that said the same thing about the Czech team in 1998.

I won't comment on 1998, but the things that were coming out in the media regarding Russia's roster for 2010 supports the idea that the Russian hockey federation did allow politics to come into play. I wouldn't say it was necessarily to hype up the KHL, I don't agree with that phrasing. But there was definite in-fighting about that roster; the Zubov situation was absurd.

 

[Hackett]

To get back to something we discussed earlier... I'd say hockey's popularity is about equal to baseball's worldwide. Both are behind soccer, basketball, cricket, rugby and probably volleyball worldwide for team sports.

baseball is waaaay bigger. You got a huge market in japan where baseball is massive, and you also got the latino countries.


When we say that we are watching a hockey game to the vast majority of the world, they will instinctively think that we are watching the hockey that you play with short sticks on an outdoor turf. Our hockey is not even the most popular form of hockey. Its a niche sport in the US and an even more niche sport globally.

 

[jekoh]

From a pure skill/talent standpoint Russia is probably just below Canada in terms of what they can put together for a men's tournament. With the current state of Czech Republic and Slovakian hockey I definitely disagree with your assessment of Russia's expectations. The United States has made significant headway toward becoming a more skill-based team that can play with Canada, Russia, and Sweden, but the only thing that puts USA on close to even footing with Russia or Canada is that they seem to buy into the team concept. If Russia can get out of their own way, both in terms of buying into the team concept and by icing the absolute best roster they can put together rather than letting league allegiances dictate who makes the cut, they would be as formidable as Canada.

If Russia is even on par with the USA, then they overachieve, seeing has they don't have nearly as many players to chose from.

As for the notion that Russia does not buy into the "team concept", it's utter cräp. They had a great team effort in 08 coming from behind to beat Canada, but i guess you didn't watch then. You in NA are always going to say that anyway. Any Russian defeat somehow "proves" all your prejudice while their wins are down to "pure individual skillzz/talent!!11!".

the things that were coming out in the media regarding Russia's roster for 2010 supports the idea that the Russian hockey federation did allow politics to come into play. I wouldn't say it was necessarily to hype up the KHL, I don't agree with that phrasing. But there was definite in-fighting about that roster; the Zubov situation was absurd.

That's the kind of BS you expect in NA media. Teams are always going to be second guessed, especially when they fail, but if you're able to leave your anti-russian bias behind you will realise that they did in fact ice the best possible team.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Are you seriously saying the 8th place finish by the US in 06 was not more embarassing than Russia's 4th place?

The US could not beat Latvia! Had it been Russia instead of the USA, I can only imagine the abuse that would have been directed at Russia. You just have to look at that Vancouver QF loss. It's pretty obvious it does make a difference

If you gave me a choice for the next four Olympics and offered 1) US will win 2 silvers, but finish 6th and 8th in the others or 2) win one bronze, one silver, a 4th and a 6th, I am taking option 1.