great britain national team

[crobro]

great britain is firmly in group div 1 in the world championships

to make that next step and compete with the top 16 why doesnt the british iuce hockey federation not try and get top canadian players(nhlèrs) not usually chosen for national team duty to play for them internationally.

there are a lot of canadian pro hockey players with at least a british grandparent who would qualify to rep gb internationally.

Click to read more...

 

[kaiser matias]

First of all they would have to play a minimum of 2 years in the UK to qualify for their national team, as well as having British citizenship (4 years if they have played for a different country before).

Secondly, the British tried this strategy back in the 1990's, granting citizenship to the top Canadians playing in the British league, which included some former AHL players with spot NHL duty. The result was that the Canadian-British players took all the top lines for the national team, and the British players gained no experience and the overall skill of the country declined as a result.

The British hockey federation realised that this was killing hockey in the country, and decided to stop using Canadians on the national team, going for an entire homegrown team, even if it meant they were not so good; in the long run (really long as it seems) it would help improve the quality of the team and skill level in the country.

To summarise, the British tried this as much as they could (can't just use NHLers who've never even been to the UK) and it weakened British hockey and didn't help improve the team. Went back to an all-British team, similar results, improved quality of hockey in the country.

 

[Peter9]

The British did this back in the 1930s when they won Olympic Gold in hockey.

 

[crobro]

good point

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hockey in Britain plays way down on the sports list, kinda like water polo in Canada.

That they are top 16 in the world only means that hockey is only played at a high competitive level in so few countries in the world.

 

[Stray Wasp]

First of all they would have to play a minimum of 2 years in the UK to qualify for their national team, as well as having British citizenship (4 years if they have played for a different country before).

Secondly, the British tried this strategy back in the 1990's, granting citizenship to the top Canadians playing in the British league, which included some former AHL players with spot NHL duty. The result was that the Canadian-British players took all the top lines for the national team, and the British players gained no experience and the overall skill of the country declined as a result.

The British hockey federation realised that this was killing hockey in the country, and decided to stop using Canadians on the national team, going for an entire homegrown team, even if it meant they were not so good; in the long run (really long as it seems) it would help improve the quality of the team and skill level in the country.

To summarise, the British tried this as much as they could (can't just use NHLers who've never even been to the UK) and it weakened British hockey and didn't help improve the team. Went back to an all-British team, similar results, improved quality of hockey in the country.

Is the bolded part an IIHF rule? Last time I knew, anyone with one British parent was immediately eligible for a British passport, whether they've ever lived in the country or not, as is anyone born in the country. (Not that I avidly keep up to speed with these things).

You're right about the shift in policy towards "dual nationals" in the 90s. Playing such players got GB into Pool A of the worlds, but only for one year. Many of these players came to Britain after college. They needed to play seven years in the country to become eligible for citizenship, so most were at least 27 by the time they qualified.

At the time, most British clubs only used two lines, so the players really struggled to cope with stepping up to international hockey. Seven years of playing 40 to 50 minutes per game in a semi-professional league where teams practice twice a week isn't the best preparation for playing Canada, Russia and the rest.

Everyone knew the only way to get a stronger GB team involved improving the standard of local players so that every domestic team could consistenly roll three lines.

Inevitably, the dual national policy created tensions between Brits and Canadian-born players, which harmed team spirit. It didn't help matters that when Canada played GB, several GB players sang along to the Canadian national anthem. In the end, Tony Hand, Britain's best native player, became utterly disillusioned with the GB setup, withdrawing from the team for a few years.

 

[Franck]

Is the bolded part an IIHF rule? Last time I knew, anyone with one British parent was immediately eligible for a British passport, whether they've ever lived in the country or not, as is anyone born in the country. (Not that I avidly keep up to speed with these things).

Yes, it is.

It's useful as it prevents countries with generous right of return laws (Like Italy, Germany and the Republic of Ireland) from abusing them to artificially make their national teams better.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Thanks for the clarification.

After the nineties use of dual nationals, I wouldn't want to see a GB team stacked with North-American born players. It would be hugely regressive for hockey in this country.

If we could just produce a Kopitar or a Vanek...

 

[kaiser matias]

Is the bolded part an IIHF rule? Last time I knew, anyone with one British parent was immediately eligible for a British passport, whether they've ever lived in the country or not, as is anyone born in the country. (Not that I avidly keep up to speed with these things).

The IIHF has two requirements for eligibility on national teams. Players have to have citizenship of the country (doesn't matter how they got that), and they need to play at least two seasons in that country, four if they have played for another national team before. They do this to stop the practise used in other sports (notably track), where countries weak in a sport will grant citizenship to a good athlete, even if they have never been there before.

Personally, I think its a great idea. It forces countries to try and develop their own players, although some countries (Italy and Germany are two notable top-level nations) that use Canadians playing in the local national league.

 

[jkrx]

Hockey in the Uk is a really really unpopular sport. There is no money in it in the UK so they wouldnt be able to afford the insurances for "quality" players. Unless they were actually really really wanting to promote the sport. Hockey is still a rich mans sport.

 

[Rob Brown]

I'm a Canadian/British dual citizen, I'll play on your team.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Hockey in the Uk is a really really unpopular sport. There is no money in it in the UK so they wouldnt be able to afford the insurances for "quality" players. Unless they were actually really really wanting to promote the sport. Hockey is still a rich mans sport.

I wouldn't say its a rich man's sport. Traditionally hockey in GB has been played by people from quite ordinary backgrounds. Although manifestly it isn't cheap to play.

You'e right that salaries are paltry and insurance is a nightmare. These factors hinder the careers of players in the British top flight, but if a Brit was really special, they'd be going to North America to improve their game before they hit their twenties anyway. (Several Brit prospects have followed this route).

The main problem is the lack of a big hockey culture. Before they've reached school age, most British kids will be kicking a ball around, rather than lacing up skates. Lack of opportunity to get on the ice even to learn to skate to a decent standard is a problem, let alone learning to play hockey.