WJC: Don Cherry: "American Development?!"

[htpwn]

I dont care where they learn the game all that matters is


2010 wj champoins: USA

and only 9 guys played in the chl, the other 14 where from the usndtp or the ncaa

That was his secondary point. The first point was that E. Kane, Tavares, Myers, Stamkos, Myers, O'Reilly, and Duchene all could have been playing for the Canadian team and weren't because they are in the NHL. It sounds like a sore loser but he was just responding to the people who say that the American development system was as good as Canadas which is obviously not true.

I didn't agree with everything he said, especially the fact he targeted the Americans playing in the CHL. I do however I agree with the fact that Canadians shouldn't be viewed as "sore losers" when we bring up the fact that we have 3/4 top 6 NHL forwards and a top pairing defenseman that didn't play.

 

[rumrokh]

If we're assuming 'best' is equal to 'better than all other plausible competition', then not necessarily. A 1-game hockey tournament is certainly a very poor way of determining who's the best in any given pool of participants. Especially in hockey, which is arguably more a game of chance than the other 3 major NA sports + soccer (1): 1 game doesn't really determine whether a team is better or worse: not because inherently a game cannot decide that, but because 1 game is a virtually useless sample size.

A test of one game is just as legitimate of a test as seven or seventy games - they're just different tests. Even a test to determine which team is "better than all other plausible competition" is 1. not awfully specific, and 2. potential tautology.

You're assuming that victories are pieces of data that go into determining the best team. In your definition of best, it's loosely: "the team with the best record," and probably more specifically: "the team with the best record against other highly ranked teams."

Instead, the single victory could be the whole point.

Within a tournament, the challenge is clear: win the tournament. "Best" isn't a team that has greater potential to win in some other format, it's whomever wins in the format in question. The teams and their management know this and build the teams and direct their play accordingly.

What I'm getting at is that there is no transcendent "best" for sports teams. The only remotely objective goal is to win the format in which you are entered. Win the championship. Now, regarding the WJC, I don't think that actually reflects the quality of the talent development of any country in general or anything like that, but some people assume that's the point. I don't see why.

 

[New User Name]

That was his secondary point. The first point was that E. Kane, Tavares, Myers, Stamkos, Myers, O'Reilly, and Duchene all could have been playing for the Canadian team and weren't because they are in the NHL. It sounds like a sore loser but he was just responding to the people who say that the American development system was as good as Canadas which is obviously not true.

I didn't agree with everything he said, especially the fact he targeted the Americans playing in the CHL. I do however I agree with the fact that Canadians shouldn't be viewed as "sore losers" when we bring up the fact that we have 3/4 top 6 NHL forwards and a top pairing defenseman that didn't play.

Exactly...kind of like what I heard from most American sportscasters after the Americans lost the baseball classic.
In fact some were downright arrogant about it.

 

[hockeydadx2*]

If Canadians really are that far ahead of the rest of us, then let's just cancel the whole damned tournament. Except for the fact that another team managed to win for a change, nobody cares about it anyhow. And it appears that the Canadians think they should be automatic winners every year anyhow based on their superiority, so why bother with it at all?

Question is, don't you Canadians realize that if you really DO win every year, that this tournament will shrivel up and die? Then who will you rant at?

(Note to self: buy Russian Olympic hockey jersey to wear next month....)

 

[New User Name]

A test of one game is just as legitimate of a test as seven or seventy games - they're just different tests. Even a test to determine which team is "better than all other plausible competition" is 1. not awfully specific, and 2. potential tautology.

You're assuming that victories are pieces of data that go into determining the best team. In your definition of best, it's loosely: "the team with the best record," and probably more specifically: "the team with the best record against other highly ranked teams."

Instead, the single victory could be the whole point.

Within a tournament, the challenge is clear: win the tournament. "Best" isn't a team that has greater potential to win in some other format, it's whomever wins in the format in question. The teams and their management know this and build the teams and direct their play accordingly.

What I'm getting at is that there is no transcendent "best" for sports teams. The only remotely objective goal is to win the format in which you are entered. Win the championship. Now, regarding the WJC, I don't think that actually reflects the quality of the talent development of any country in general or anything like that, but some people assume that's the point. I don't see why.

Summed up well

Everyone knows, even Herb, that the best team on paper in 1980 was the Soviets, but the best team in the one game that counted for something was the USA.

 

[New User Name]

If Canadians really are that far ahead of the rest of us, then let's just cancel the whole damned tournament. Except for the fact that another team managed to win for a change, nobody cares about it anyhow. And it appears that the Canadians think they should be automatic winners every year anyhow based on their superiority, so why bother with it at all?

Question is, don't you Canadians realize that if you really DO win every year, that this tournament will shrivel up and die? Then who will you rant at?

(Note to self: buy Russian Olympic hockey jersey to wear next month....)

A bit of over reaction?

 

[PlagerBros*]

I don't recall Don saying anything negative about American players.

He is NOT using it as an excuse--he was responding to some members of the Canadian media saying 'whats wrong with Canadian hockey"

I get it now, you are the official defender of Canada and Don Cherry on these forums and you respond to all who dare think poorly of either using misdirection as often as possible. Congrats, you and the xenophobic moron win the internet.

 

[Alberta tough]

Any youtube? BTW you guys have to realize that he said all this on a Canadian channel and he is talking to a Canadian audiance.

 

[cdnhky1]

The result of the 2010 WJC proved one thing: that the 2010 US WJC team was one goal better than the 2010 Canadian WJC team. The problem arises when ignorant hockey fans and journalists try to attach more meaning to the result than what is really there. These are the people who have concluded that the Canadian development system isn't working and the US system is a better system because of an overtime win.

The US played a great tournament and were full value for their win. That being said, it was a one goal game and Canada could have easily won the game. That's hockey. The point Cherry makes regarding the talent Canada was missing is certainly a valid one. By my count, Canada played without 8 players who would have been locks to play for Canada (Stamkos, Tavares, Duchene, Kane, Hodgson, O'Reilly, Myers and Del Zotto) and one (James Wright) who would have been a strong contender. Anyone who argues that these players wouldn't have had an enormous impact on Canada's performance isn't being honest.

If the Detroit Red Wings miss the NHL playoffs this season you can bet many hockey people will point to the fact that they've been without many of their top players for long stretches of the season as a key contributor. They can replace those players with call ups from the AHL but they certainly will not get the same performance from them.

If the NHL had been in the midst of a lockout like it was in 2005 I suspect we would be debating whether the 2010 version of Team Canada was better than the 2005 version of Team Canada. The fact is, Canada is developing more elite young players than any other country in the world. Unfortunately, with the state of the NHL many of these players will be unavailable to play for Canada in this tournament. While the relative strength of Canada's wjc teams may be diminished as a result, it certainly doesn't mean we aren't doing a good job of developing players.

There is nothing wrong with giving the US the credit it deserves for winning the WJC, and to Canada for putting up a good fight, but trying to make conclusions beyond the outcome of one game is preposterous when all of the facts are taken into account.

 

[bbud]

They shouldn't be, at least the first point about who Canada was missing. Any fan of the game would realize that.

The second point wasn't really that great. For one, these guys develop all over at different stages of their careers. The "Canadian system" taking credit for guys like Carlson, Fowler, Bourque, Morin, etc. is weak to put it nicely. Not one of those guys has spent more than one season in the CHL.

I'm not sure who he was targeting but I'm assuming it was Canadian journalists.

He was simply stating Canada had 6 more top forewards who were eligible at a little higher level {NHL} so his little rant was that the Canadian development system was very good and still better than that of the USA which is probably true because if even 3 of those top players played we likely win .
Upside is we produce a bunch of kids that are NHL ready no shame there, and 9 of the kids on USA WJC team do play in CHL and a few more have benefitted from NHL development camps as well , Cherry in his standard loud proud national tunnel is not really wrong if he was from the USA and doing the same about any number of sports dominated by American athletes he would be an icon to fans there as well.
As an add the USA team played great was fun to watch and im lookin forward to some of those kids in the future Schroeder is gonna look nice in canuck colors :]

 

[New User Name]

I get it now, you are the official defender of Canada and Don Cherry on these forums and you respond to all who dare think poorly of either using misdirection as often as possible. Congrats, you and the xenophobic moron win the internet.

He wasn't being anti American. He wasn't dissing the American players. He was responding to some members in the stupid Canadian media.


Kind of sad you're the way you are.

 

[Hooch314]

They developed their games as youngsters in the United States. How is what Cherry said at all true?

If their development were mostly in Canada and they spent most of their life playing in Canada, don't you think they would want to represent Canada? What is with the USA sweaters they are wearing? Wierd since apparently they were bred to play hockey in Canada.


You lost Canada. You are still better than us in hockey, overall. Chill. It was a junior tournament. And the US is improving. Deal with it.

 

[Grabovski]

An all-star Canadian Olympic team couldn't even score against Switzerland. What makes you so confident?

If I can recall, USA came 8th while Canada came in 7th.

 

[CapsWolverinesUSA]

The only thing I don't get is how American player development can be questioned. It's beyond dispute that Canada could field a better team than they did. But that's true every single year. It never changes. For the Americans, this Canadian team was a perfectly valid measuring stick, and they measured more favorably than in the past, which suggests that USA Hockey is doing an improved job with development.

Has anybody actually suggested that USA Hockey has somehow surpassed Hockey Canada in player development? I cannot imagine anyone has ever said that. But short of refuting that absurd argument that nobody seems to have made, I'm not sure what Cherry's point is.

 

[DAkings20]

If I can recall, USA came 8th while Canada came in 7th.

yeah but its Canada's game so they should have won gold right?

 

[RangerRed]

I knew he would whine. Hey Don, Canada holds no major tournament victories.

Um, the Ivan Hlinka Memorial Tournament says hi!

 

[Hooch314]

If Canadians really are that far ahead of the rest of us, then let's just cancel the whole damned tournament. Except for the fact that another team managed to win for a change, nobody cares about it anyhow. And it appears that the Canadians think they should be automatic winners every year anyhow based on their superiority, so why bother with it at all?

Question is, don't you Canadians realize that if you really DO win every year, that this tournament will shrivel up and die? Then who will you rant at?

(Note to self: buy Russian Olympic hockey jersey to wear next month....)

I agree completely.

A bit of over reaction?

Like the overreaction of Don Cherry being pissed off that Canada didn't win a stupid little tournament?


I think Cherry meant to say that while the US is improving in general, Canada is still ahead, and by a good margin. If that is what he meant to say, he is completely accurate.

But the way he went about it made him seem almost scared that the US is gaining a little ground....Or that he is outraged that Canada actually lost for once.

He should take a page from the book of the Canadien fans at the championship game who stayed and politely applauded the Americans during the presentation afterwards. Classy people there.

 

[New User Name]

The only thing I don't get is how American player development can be questioned. It's beyond dispute that Canada could field a better team than they did. But that's true every single year. It never changes. For the Americans, this Canadian team was a perfectly valid measuring stick, and they measured more favorably than in the past, which suggests that USA Hockey is doing an improved job with development.

Has anybody actually suggested that USA Hockey has somehow surpassed Hockey Canada in player development? I cannot imagine anyone has ever said that. But short of refuting that absurd argument that nobody seems to have made, I'm not sure what Cherry's point is.

He was responding to some members of the Canadian media who have said there must be something wrong with Canadian hockey.

I'm not sure why some here don't get that.

 

[bbud]

They developed their games as youngsters in the United States. How is what Cherry said at all true?

If their development were mostly in Canada and they spent most of their life playing in Canada, don't you think they would want to represent Canada? What is with the USA sweaters they are wearing? Wierd since apparently they were bred to play hockey in Canada.


You lost Canada. You are still better than us in hockey, overall. Chill. It was a junior tournament. And the US is improving. Deal with it.

You know it gets tired but we dont have 9 team canada kids playing in a US league ?
we also had 6-8 more eligible who made the NHL we have way more developed young players in fact they outdeveloped anyone in their age ranges very fast so keep it in perspective and no disrespect to team USA as stated before but if you want to pick at issues do some homework.

 

[New User Name]

I agree completely.



Like the overreaction of Don Cherry being pissed off that Canada didn't win a stupid little tournament?


I think Cherry meant to say that while the US is improving in general, Canada is still ahead, and by a good margin. If that is what he meant to say, he is completely accurate.

But the way he went about it made him seem almost scared that the US is gaining a little ground....Or that he is outraged that Canada actually lost for once.

He should take a page from the book of the Canadien fans at the championship game who stayed and politely applauded the Americans during the presentation afterwards. Classy people there.

Unbelievable.....He wasn't pissed off that Canada lost the gold...he was pissed at some in the Canadian media.
God all mighty people, you have pre conceived opinions of Cherry, the guy isn't Bill O'Reilly you know.

BTW Cherry's wife was American, so are his kids.

 

[canucksfan]

Um, the Ivan Hlinka Memorial Tournament says hi!

It's not an official IIHF tournament, the under 18 tournament is.

 

[trickster]

Most of you probably didn't hear it yourself - so you shouldn't be so quick to judge what was said.

I watched it. What I took from it was - Hey Canada, before you get freaked out that the American hockey program is getting a lot of attention right now, remember that Tavares, Stamkos, Kane, Duchene, O'Reilly, Myers, and Del Zotto were all eligible to play in this tournament but are playing key roles with their NHL teams...

He wasn't taking anything away from the American win - but rather wanted to ensure that Canada's program gets the respect it deserves.

 

[New User Name]

yeah but its Canada's game so they should have won gold right?

Yep, like baseball and apple pie are American well maybe not apple pie.

 

[#66]

Not a Cherry fan but I totally agree with him on this. Besides I didn't take it as being anti American... it was more anti media.

 

[New User Name]

Not a Cherry fan but I totally agree with him on this. Besides I didn't take it as being anti American... it was more anti media.

That's what it was.... he was going after a few idiots in the Canadian media.