Hockey in Europe and growth

[Eidyia]

Finnish basketball and volleyball have been relatively succesfull in Europe lately so I wouldn't be surprised if these two global sports would challenge hockey in the near future in this land of gloryhunters.

And as already mentioned, one qualification for Euro/World Cup in football for us and nobody cares about hockey anymore.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 10-20 years Germany, Switzerland and Latvia are all at least equal with Finland in hockey.

 

[Vicente]

And as already mentioned, one qualification for Euro/World Cup in football for us and nobody cares about hockey anymore.

This year Finish clubs were beaten by teams from Poland, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Luxembourg, Faroe Islands in the very first round of European qualification they played in. How should popularity of football grow in Finland when in fact they are probably the worst of all football nations in Europe?!

 

[Muuri]

This year Finish clubs were beaten by teams from Poland, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Luxembourg, Faroe Islands in the very first round of European qualification they played in. How should popularity of football grow in Finland when in fact they are probably the worst of all football nations in Europe?!

Exaggerating much? It wasn't too long ago that Finland played a draw against Spain. Hell, even the draws against Germany weren't that long ago.

 

[Vicente]

Exaggerating much? It wasn't too long ago that Finland played a draw against Spain. Hell, even the draws against Germany weren't that long ago.

Every national team can surprise another national team when they have a great day and the others a bad one. I also wasn't refering to your national team (off course Finland has good players in foreign leagues) but to the club football in Finland which you have to admit is rather at the level of Iceland than at the level of Portugal or Holland.

 

[wings5]

seems hockey is on the rise :

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/recap/8086.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=955&cHash=d932073e8e

 

[ForumNamePending]

Sweden has a real shot at Handball finals now, let's see how the ratings will be compared to 2006 hockey final (if we make it that is).

I know this is an old post but since the thread has recently been bumped I figured I would ask since I am a bit curious... What kind of veiwership did the handball final end up pulling? Were the numbers comparable to Sweden's games in the Euro soccer tournament held earlier that summer?

seems hockey is on the rise :

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/recap/8086.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=955&cHash=d932073e8e

Not sure how much faith I would put in the survey though. The numbers tend to take significant (impossible) swings from year to year.

Discussed a bit here.

With that said I think it is fair to say that despite everything working against the sport hockey is growing/expanding.

 

[Jonimaus]

I know this is an old post but since the thread has recently been bumped I figured I would ask since I am a bit curious... What kind of veiwership did the handball final end up pulling? Were the numbers comparable to Sweden's games in the Euro soccer tournament held earlier that summer?

Not sure what the euro championship drew, but most everyone watches it. Handball finals drew 2 mil, out of a country with 9 mil people.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Not sure what the euro championship drew, but most everyone watches it. Handball finals drew 2 mil, out of a country with 9 mil people.

So well short of the '06 Olympic hockey final or even this past WC final.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Jonimaus]

So well short of the '06 Olympic hockey final or even this past WC final.

Thanks for the info.

Where did you find that info? I googled for the 06 olympics but came up with nothing.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Where did you find that info? I googled for the 06 olympics but came up with nothing.

Per this wikipedia article referencing Nielsen data, it appears in Sweden the Olympic Hockey final, with over 3.5 million people watching, had the highest viewership for any single sporting broadcast in 2006.

There was actually a second link that listed the top drawing broadcasts for both 'over the air' and pay channels for 2006 but unfortunately it is no longer active.

 

[bobbeaver]

As for croatia we have 4 ice rinks, 1 new in last couple of yours. how ever this is only the regulation sizes, of theses 2 are in zuagreb and covered, one is half covered , but its in an area where heat is not a big deal but the hockey club is in its infancy still. other than that there are alot of ice rinks in croatia, but they are of not hockey sizes (decent size though) the 8 or so clubs playing are pure amature. not to mention of late (ever since EBEL and KHL) the seting up of non permanent ice rings of relative size in all cities from the south to north. they used to put in a few cities and were small. so that is a step forward. especially as KHL will require a farm team from medvescak so young CRO talent will have somewhere to go.

Btw what u guys of sinthetic ice? i dont know much about it. i mean croatian coast is really a warm mediteranian climate i would think the sinthetic ice might be better for upkeep than regular ice? it might ease the development of hockey here perhaps. any thoughts

 

[bobbeaver]

As for the devolpment of hockey, all i can say is look a basketball, as a group sports its worlds no. 2. some 10-15 years ago it was played by only a few countries in Europe and the US at top level, and rest were way bellow. And now so many countries are competitive now, temas unimaginable 15 years ago like brazil, czech republic, china and australia and especially (as shown in last EU championships) Finland, non traditional basketball nations. why not hockey, why a bleak view from some. Sure infrastructure is more expensive and IIHF is conservative rigide and inapt, especially in promotion of the game and schooling of coaches and refs, and should do way more and be less tight fisted. But its not up to them but different nations, and some are catching up the big nations, as for others there is a huge possibility of growth as there is a market for the sport (look at croatia). Because it can only get better with every rink built, and they cant be worse than they are lol.

 

[ficohok*]

As for croatia we have 4 ice rinks, 1 new

I would like to know about that "new" ice rink ?

 

[bobbeaver]

Ice rink in Delnice, its actually a beaut. It was made i dn 2 years ago? Its olympic size and a hockey club started their called Mamut. as far as i know they have young kids and veterans there. Although i think they should have closed it, but since it has a roof i dont think it would be that hard to do it.

http://www.uhrvatskoj.com/upload/tbl_oglasi/klizaliste_nocu_172834.jpg

 

[ficohok*]

Ice rink in Delnice, its actually a beaut. It was made i dn 2 years ago? Its olympic size and a hockey club started their called Mamut. as far as i know they have young kids and veterans there. Although i think they should have closed it, but since it has a roof i dont think it would be that hard to do it.

http://www.uhrvatskoj.com/upload/tbl_oglasi/klizaliste_nocu_172834.jpg

Delnice ice rink was built in early spring of 2009., I was at opening ceremony. Rink is nice but that "Mamut" club is almost non-existant and "exists" only on paper. It is too bad that such rink was built in little bigger village where there is no perspective for ice hockey. You can't expect that there will be a senior team ever. Delnice simply doesn't have enough kids for ice hockey team. You need at least 30-40 kids in U8 category so you could have senior team with three lines (enough for croatian/slohokej requirements) one day. Rinks such were built there we need in towns like Karlovac, Rijeka, Koprivnica, Varazdin, but that is old and 100 times repeated story.

 

[bobbeaver]

sure i agree defeniively. BUT they do have the climate for it and Rijeka is not that far nor crikvenica( some 30 min drive?).Well where IS it gona start if not on paper first? you cant create a team and have all the divisions and plenty of kids he first year and organization up and runing. I just read currently they have 15 -20 kids. but with such a small history (2 years is nothing) and they are probably not yet well known, so 15- 20 kids is plenty in a place where there is absolutely no hockey culture. And im sure they will grow.

In a town of 6 k people (not counting other villages around) where there is not much else to do this might pick up as smtn to do in winter snowy months and people might get into it (Kinda like small towns in Canada lol or Metkovic with handball). you never know. plus marketing would help (like when they played in Rijeka vs Medvescak and some slovenian club)

Besides ANY new rink is a good rink, same as for clubs. They decided to build one and not other big towns so kudos to them. THEY decided to spend the money. So dont diss them. You dont see other towns makeing the leap except the semi permanent not regulation size ones in those big cities (which IS a big step forward from lets say 10 years ago when we didnt have even that). i mean Sisak only needs to cover the damn thing.

 

[bobbeaver]

God damn it its 5 ice rinks regulation size lol i compleatly forgot Salata lol That one would be easy to roof too but it wount be i think. what about Karlovac ice rink? is it regulation size? i know its not permanent but put in winter only.

 

[Jussi]

As for the devolpment of hockey, all i can say is look a basketball, as a group sports its worlds no. 2. some 10-15 years ago it was played by only a few countries in Europe and the US at top level, and rest were way bellow. And now so many countries are competitive now, temas unimaginable 15 years ago like brazil, czech republic, china and australia and especially (as shown in last EU championships) Finland, non traditional basketball nations. why not hockey, why a bleak view from some. Sure infrastructure is more expensive and IIHF is conservative rigide and inapt, especially in promotion of the game and schooling of coaches and refs, and should do way more and be less tight fisted. But its not up to them but different nations, and some are catching up the big nations, as for others there is a huge possibility of growth as there is a market for the sport (look at croatia). Because it can only get better with every rink built, and they cant be worse than they are lol.

Unfortunately refs are a big problem as e.g. in Finland the quality of refs is so low that basically everyone gets to officiate. Considering the crap they face in the media and from fans these days, there's very few people who want to be hockey refs.

By the way, if you want to know what exactly are the IIHF's functions, read through this: http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/The_IIHF/2012-2014_IIHF_Statutes_and_Bylaws.pdf

 

[bobbeaver]

yeh welll exactly! as i see they arent doing much of what they say they would (promotion primarily and education). I dont like FIFA or UEFA (with those 2 clowns running them) but they do promote the sport and they give money, lots of money to develope the sport, from camps to (some countries) with bigger infrastructure. They do seminars for refs (alot of em) and coaches, even academies. They made champions league. Promotion in visual media, alot of it and so on. i mean they are investing into the sport so they get massive money back with the development of it.
What does IIHF do? where is the help to smaller (croatia rumania hungary) or in development (hockey wise) countries like Holland or Italy or Denmark? They should if not help moneywise with the expensive infrastructure atleast help with guidance how to get the money, where to look for it how to draft all the necesary papers (for EU funds for example), how to market the product. How are they promoting the sport? They are only arbiters, they are so inapt that they cant make a proper working Champions leauge. At very least they should teach and have seminars for the refs, and education for coaches of the underdeveloped countries. we had no real coach for 20 years atleast mostly cause noone could teach them things. only when Medvescak went to EBEL did a good Canadian coach come and he taught 2 assistants how to coach, one is canadian and is both our national team coach and assistant to French, second one is croatian, who is now very succesfuly leading our (almost could say national team without kids in foreign clubs) u18. And there is a huge difference in the results and traiing and coaching. Now he is teaching another cro coach (as his asistant) and French has one more cro assistant who will learn. But this is a fluke. why should have we waited 20 years to get into EBEL out of the blue to get 2 coaches?! IIHF could have raised the standard of our coaches easily with academies, seminares and workshops (or mentoring programs), and with that raised the quality of the produced players promoting the game in that way. Blah

 

[jekoh]

As for the devolpment of hockey, all i can say is look a basketball, as a group sports its worlds no. 2. some 10-15 years ago it was played by only a few countries in Europe and the US at top level, and rest were way bellow. And now so many countries are competitive now, temas unimaginable 15 years ago like brazil, czech republic, china and australia and especially (as shown in last EU championships) Finland, non traditional basketball nations.

If anything Brazil was better 15 years ago. Australia as well. And 30 years ago Czechoslovakia was a perennial contender at the Eurobasket. All 3 are most certainly tradional basketball nations.

 

[bobbeaver]

you are nitpicking lmao but ok ur right about Brazil and Czechoslovakia (although that is generation gap), Australia... it was a generation spark of talent that created a continuity with still very good players (Bogut example). plus i could add many more examples of nations that really play the game now at a competitive lvl compared to lets say 1990. U cant say the same for hockey and IIHF. well anyhow you do get my drift.

 

[stv11]

you are nitpicking lmao but ok ur right about Brazil and Czechoslovakia (although that is generation gap), Australia... it was a generation spark of talent that created a continuity with still very good players (Bogut example). plus i could add many more examples of nations that really play the game now at a competitive lvl compared to lets say 1990. U cant say the same for hockey and IIHF. well anyhow you do get my drift.

How aren't there more competitive hockey nations than in 1990? Without even considering "new" countries like Slovakia, Latvia or Belarus, I can name Finland, USA, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, France or Hungary.

Quite a big change from the 80's and their four medal contenders and the same top 7 every year.

 

[bobbeaver]

How aren't there more competitive hockey nations than in 1990? Without even considering "new" countries like Slovakia, Latvia or Belarus, I can name Finland, USA, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, France or Hungary.

Quite a big change from the 80's and their four medal contenders and the same top 7 every year.

r

Not true. USA was always a contender, Swiss were always good but lately better but still a traditional hockey country, France has become better through recruting of quebeck players so dont really count. Italy has got to thank the olympics for their hockey expansion but cant beat top contenders. Hungary is way behind any of d nations named although getting better.
But ur right. Shinig stars are Norway, the rapid increase in quality of Danish and u forget Dutch hockey. But this all to few n far between compared to bball or football. I mean in last olympic or worlds costa ricka made some great wins vs traditional strong teams in bball. Can u imagine that in hockey? And the good parts in hockey develomeny its d resault of individual associations not IIHF. And its happening in wealthier countries. While somewhat less weathy r still at same lvl untouched where help would b neede most. Good example of lack of global systrmatic development is decline of japanese hockey n problems in s korean and lack of progres in chinas decline of polish, british hockey. British used to be strong. Its all to little n far between.

 

[ficohok*]

r

Not true. USA was always a contender, Swiss were always good but lately better but still a traditional hockey country, France has become better through recruting of quebeck players so dont really count. Italy has got to thank the olympics for their hockey expansion but cant beat top contenders. Hungary is way behind any of d nations named although getting better.
But ur right. Shinig stars are Norway, the rapid increase in quality of Danish and u forget Dutch hockey. But this all to few n far between compared to bball or football. I mean in last olympic or worlds costa ricka made some great wins vs traditional strong teams in bball. Can u imagine that in hockey? And the good parts in hockey develomeny its d resault of individual associations not IIHF. And its happening in wealthier countries. While somewhat less weathy r still at same lvl untouched where help would b neede most. Good example of lack of global systrmatic development is decline of japanese hockey n problems in s korean and lack of progres in chinas decline of polish, british hockey. British used to be strong. Its all to little n far between.

 

[stv11]

I normally wouldn't take time to answer to someone who doesn't even bother to write correctly, but this definitely deserves a point by point rebuttal.

Not true. USA was always a contender,

From the 50's to the 80's, hockey was USSR, Canada, Sweden and Czechoslovakia. The US, Finland and Germany were far behind and only managed the occasional upset. There is a reason why the US's 1980 Olympic gold is called a miracle.

Swiss were always good but lately better but still a traditional hockey country

Hockey was always popular in Switzerland, but it was amateur until the mid 80's. 1991 was the first time Switzerland managed to stay in the top pool. They missed the Olympics as recently as 1998.

France has become better through recruting of quebeck players so dont really count.

That was true during the 90's, but thanks to important changes in the structure of French hockey, they managed to return to the top pool and catch up with countries such as Belarus or Denmark with mostly home grown players.

Italy has got to thank the olympics for their hockey expansion but cant beat top contenders.

Italy was better in the 90's than now, the Olympics have nothing to do with their evolution. They counted too much on dual-citizen they could import from Canada and they were overtaken by better development programs.

Hungary is way behind any of d nations named although getting better.

They're usually third in division I, right behind the usual Austria, Slovenia, Italy and Kazakhstan. Not bad for a country that was below China or Bulgaria in 1990.

But ur right. Shinig stars are Norway, the rapid increase in quality of Danish and u forget Dutch hockey.

The Netherlands have been a divison I team for as long as I can remember, not sure what I forgot here.

But this all to few n far between compared to bball or football. I mean in last olympic or worlds costa ricka made some great wins vs traditional strong teams in bball. Can u imagine that in hockey?

I don't know much about basketball, but a quick research showed that Costa Rica has yet to play in any Olympic or WC. Anyway, no need to imagine that in hockey, it happend for real: the last two World Championships had a surprise finalist, France beat Russia and Slovenia took Canada to OT.

japanese hockey n problems in s korean and lack of progres in chinas

Asian hockey was heavily supported by the IIHF with an automatic World Championship birth from 1998 to 2004, but Japan couldn't take advantage of the opportunity despite being head and shoulders above the other teams. South Korea on the other hand has been improving since they got the 2018 Olympics.

decline of polish, british hockey. British used to be strong. Its all to little n far between.

I'll give you Poland. I guess you were due for a correct statement. Great Britain played only one year in the top pool, back when they could count on several canadian trained players. That's not "being strong".