What is "this scale"? If you want to see a real setback, look at Norway. Denmark is doing fine. You can't expect hockey nation this small to turn their absolute peek into what's expected on average in 10 years. You make a big deal out of U20s being where they haven't been in ages but "ages" is actually 5 years. There is a tense competition at this level, only 2 nations have won U20 D1A twice since its creation, can you really say Denmark hockey is so much head and shoulders above Austria, Belarus or Latvia that losing to them once in 5 years is such a big deal?
If Denmark gets relegated to D1B, like Norway or France did, sure, let's make it into a big deal because it definitely shows the program as a whole is slipping. But it's not going to happen because you already have a kid who carries your U20 team at age 16.
Also, in general, the tendency is and is going to be that those former USSR nations (Kazakhstan, Belarus, Latvia, maybe even Ukraine, eventually) that used to be really good at hockey and had outside events disrupt them heavily, will start catching up with Norway and Denmark as their economy started pulsing again. So Denmark having to battle it out in that 8-14 level of international hockey will become much more of a norm than it being on top of this group.
You give Belgium as an example in football but at the same time, ignore the same instances in hockey. Look at Belarus as a clear example. Hockey is the number 1 sport there and every village has its rink. You forget that as recent as 06/07 Latvia had 4 players in the NHL, Belarus had 4, Kazakhstan had 2, Lithuania had 2, Ukraine had 2, Austria had 2, Denmark had.. 2. Both at the very beginning of their careers. Year before, Denmark had 0. So it's amazing Denmark has created such a gap between themselves and those other nations in recent years but it's silly to think those were never going to bounce back. Especially when locally, Danish hockey is really nothing to write home about.
Have had a bit of a hiatus from these parts of the forum, so had not seen this.
But, I guess it all comes down to where you stand, and what culture you were brought up with.
I think Belarus is a bad example, with it being an unstable dictatorship - And Latvia will always be a dificult case with such a small population, even if Hockey is king.
I don’t think federations need to look to other federations that are failing, but federations that are not.
That is why I gave Belgium as an example.
I am not saying Denmark is going to be a powerhouse, or need to be one - I am saying the momentum was not grabbed to make hockey a mainstay in Denmark.
I am saying that they were not very pro-active.
Like I mentioned, I know people withing the federation that feel the same way.
They too feel that there is a very defeatist mentality, that is far too often seen in Denmark, or if not defeatist, then a mentality of being content.
It is fine that all here disagree, and you can come with all the reasons why you think I am wrong - That to me is just excusing that kind of mentality - I dunno if it is a small nation thing, but it is something I really noticed in Denmark.
With all this said, it is important for me to make clear, that what Denmark have done in the past, and the level they have been at the last 14 years is incredible - I am only talking about lack of taking advantage of the momentum hockey has had.
I personally think we have seen the best of Danish hockey.
No need to argue further, as I doubt we will reach any agreements, I just wanted to make clear my point, and that I have nothing but respect for what they have achieved on the ice.
This whole discussion is bordering ot, so if any of you really want to challenge my opinion and make me think otherwise, pm me instead