For years the IIHF did everything they could to keep the top North Americans out of their tournaments. It's hardly a surprise that to this day their showcase tournament, the "World" Championships, has no respect on this side of the Atlantic (where 70% of the world's hockey players reside).
How do you rate the international tournaments?
- Thread starter Nordic*
- Start date
For years the IIHF did everything they could to keep the top North Americans out of their tournaments. It's hardly a surprise that to this day their showcase tournament, the "World" Championships, has no respect on this side of the Atlantic (where 70% of the world's hockey players reside).
Yes, I agree. But at least the IIHF has tried to correct past wrong doings. The same can't be said for the World Cup in which every meaningful game is played in North America regardless.
Both lack credibility from the other side of the ocean. However, one is the result of past biases.....the other due to a current and continuing one.
i don't understand some people mention the World Cup/Canada Cup, tournament has been helt once in the last 15 years and is basically and NHL-invitational tournament not an official IIHF-tournament, to me its slightly more important than the Euro Hockey Tour for example
The IIHF's hand was forced to allow professionals as more Europeans started to play in North America, I don't necessarily see that as proof that the IIHF was ending its discrimination against Canada and the US.
Ironically the NHL has hosted more international tournaments with games played in Europe than the IIHF has World Championships with games played in NA. To this day I can't think of an example where the IIHF has done anything to encourage holding the World Championships outside of Europe. Pretty sad for an international governing body.
Europe isn't one country, it is many different countries. Norway is very different from Bulgaria. When the tournament is held in Germany, the fans love the Germans, and hate the Russians and Canadians alike. Referees are from all over the world, instead of one country.
The reason that the WC hasn't been in Canada or the U.S. is that, until 2008, those countries haven't bid for the rights. That is different from the Canada Cup, where you can safely trust that you will never see a Canada Cup final in front of the Moscow fans, assuming there is another Canada Cup at some point.
You make good points, and I, for one, appreciate your willingness to consider a wide world of different options. It is not in the full sense a best on best tournament, but it should be noted that this year, as of the opening games of the World Championships, 22 of 30 NHL teams had been eliminated from Stanley Cup contention. That means that roughly 3 out of every 4 NHL players was available to participate in the tournament, if they were selected and agreed to play. So it is fair to say that a majority of the world's best players were available for the tournament. What was interesting this year was the balance and depth of the tournament, where non-hockey powers like Norway and Slovenia were able to challenge star-laden teams.
Your point is well made. Being as objective as I can be, I think that the World Championships are clearly much more international in scope than the Canada Cup. Keep in mind, 75% of NHL players are eliminated from the Stanley Cup by the time the World Championships start. But, in the end, if Canadians want to tune out on the WC, I have no problem with it, just like I tune out on the Stanley Cup unless there are some good Russian players still in contention. I like the style and pace of the game much in the WC than the SC. In the Stanley Cup, there is no puck possession for more than 2 or 3 seconds before it is unloaded and dumped into the offensive zone (in effect, a continuous exchange of turnovers), followed by the obligatory forechecking. For me, its a matter of preference.
I totally agree! By my count, it has only been held 3 times in the last 24 years. Why are we still talking about ancient history?
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
The US and Canada are not the same country. There was a World Cup final game in front of US fans in 1996.
You say it has to be called "Canada Cup" because it's only held in Canada (though it isn't).
The World Championships are (aside from 2008) only held in Europe.
If we called them the "North America Cup" instead of the World Cup, and the "European Championships" instead of the World Championships, at least we'd be precise.
Zine said:
An oft forgotten fact is that Canada and the US negotiated away the rights with Dr. Sabetzki to host an IIHF in return for their sanctioning of the Canada Cup and the allowance of professionals to participate at the IWHC.
http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/history/the-iihf/epochs/1975-1989.html
"The long, tenacious negotiations between Dr. Sabetzki and the top officials of the professional ice hockey resulted in a solution which was satisfactory for both parties: the Canadians and the Americans were allowed to enhance their world championship teams with professional players; in order to be able to achieve that most effectively, the world championships should in future take place as late as possible thus ensuring that a suitable player selection from among the NHL teams eliminated from the Stanley Cup would be available.
In their turn, the Canadians and Americans undertook to participate regularly in the world championships. In addition, they relinquished their application to host any world championship tournaments.
In return, a competition for the "Canada Cup" should be played every four years on North American territory with the participation of Canada, the United States and the four strongest European national teams according to the last preceding world championship with the understanding that all the teams would be allowed to use their NHL professional players."
Last edited:
With the two biggest hockey nations completely disengaged from the World Championships and by always holding the tournament on European sized ice, with European styled rules and officiating it gives the Europeans a much better chance of being successful than they would be in Best on Best tournaments or in the NHL.
I understand that a lot of Europeans are huge fans of the WC, and good for them, no one should tell them what to like and dislike. Just don't try to tell me that WC results somehow measure the quality and depth of the players from the world's major hockey nations.
I understand that a lot of Europeans are huge fans of the WC, and good for them, no one should tell them what to like and dislike. Just don't try to tell me that WC results somehow measure the quality and depth of the players from the world's major hockey nations.
Back in the '70's, European hockey wasn't financially viable enough to have teams travelling to North America for up to 2 weeks, so bargaining a deal that was good for Canada (every 4 years, a big infusion of cash to the NHL players association retirement fund) and for the European teams made sense. Now, European hockey is making money, so they can afford to travel to the US or Canada, as in 2008.
Last year, Canadian fans called their team "garbage" because they were too young with only future prospects like Steven Stamkos, Corey Perry, John Tavares, Jason Spezza, Matt Duchene, etc. This year, same thing - too young and not enough quality players (Rick Nash, Duchene, Skinner, Kane, Phaneuf, etc.) 75% of the NHL was available, so it is up to Canada to recruit competitive players to come over. Its not Europe's fault if they can't.
If hockey fans in Europe want to see the top NA players every year maybe they should pay them to come over.
I'm not sure why you are making this only about Canada, the US is even less interested in this tournament than we are. My take is that if Canada and the US aren't taking this tournament seriously then they shouldn't send teams. Besides what other professional team sport has a Best on Best World Championship every year? Every fours years seems just about right to me.
Nice catch...I stand corrected (albeit the only difference is a couple years).
However, it doesn't change anything. Your argument still relates to past biases....none of which exist today (unlike the bias in a World Cup).
Yes and no. We both know it's not that black and white....especially considering an influential third party had to be appeased (the IOC) and they, themselves, had ever changing regulations/definitions on 'professionalism'.
Regardless, you're arguing semantics. The fact of the matter is that North American teams are in the same boat as everybody else at the WC. The same can't be said for Europeans at the world Cup.
Until very recently the IIHF's policy was that men's tournaments hosted in NA had to be played on European sized ice, and to this day the IIHF's rules and style of officiating are still based on European hockey so I don't agree with your statement.
At least in the World Cup tournaments the vast majority of players had played a considerable amount of league hockey in NA and thus had had plenty of time to adjust to the NA game. The same is not true when NA players are forced to play in Euro style IIHF tournaments. As you know in these short tournaments prep time is everything and having to adjust to a different style of hockey as well as new teammates gives that team a considerable disadvantage.
Last edited:
1. Olympics
2. World Cup / Canada Cup
3. World Championships
4. WJC
5. NHL, KHL and all other national leagues. For me these are just training grounds for international tourneys.
Jussi
Registered User
That's because there really isn't that much interest to arrange it in North America.
Pajicz
Registered User
- Mar 22, 2011
- 4,012
- 0
That's a strange view. NHL a training ground for World Championships?
99,9% of hockey fans in North America disagree with you.
You make it sound like European hockey is a totally different game. The rink is 15 feet wider, but other than that, it is exactly the same game.
The Canada/World Cup is the same as if all seven games of the the Stanley Cup final were played in one city, say Vancouver, with all seven games referred by Canucks employees. Under those circumstances, the Bruins could rightfully complain that they didn't have an equal chance.
Hammer Time
Registered User
- May 3, 2011
- 3,957
- 10
For comparison's sake I put in league play at the level I consider it equivalent to ...
1. Olympics (<-- Stanley Cup Playoffs)
2. World Cup of Hockey
3. World Championships - would rank this higher if elite players stopped turning down invitations to play for their National Teams (<-- NHL regular season)
4. Anything else (WJCs, Spengler Cup, EHT, etc.) (<-- European leagues)
1. Olympics (<-- Stanley Cup Playoffs)
2. World Cup of Hockey
3. World Championships - would rank this higher if elite players stopped turning down invitations to play for their National Teams (<-- NHL regular season)
4. Anything else (WJCs, Spengler Cup, EHT, etc.) (<-- European leagues)
Your first point is not true, even you have said so on these boards. Although what you say below is also inaccurate, it at least shows that you are contradicting yourself. There is less of a difference now than there used to be, but please try to be honest.
Statistically speaking the "home" team has a slight advantage, however the "home" team is the team with last change, etc., which has nothing to do with where the game is played. In any tournament being the "home" team in the playoffs or medal round is something earned by regular season / round robin results.
What you are confusing is the "host" team and the "home" team because in league play they are always the same. I challenge you to find any statistics that indicate the "host" team in international tournaments have an advantage, I've checked and they don't. So in your example unless the Canucks employees cheated the Bruins would have nothing to complain about. However the Bruins fans would have lots to complain about.
One thing the IIHF missed out on was that if they wanted to have credibility in NA they should have alternated the WC host cities between NA and Europe every other year. That way the fans on each continent would have equal access to their tournaments. However the IIHF has always been Eurocentric, so things like this were never considered.
Last edited:
Your response is dishonest, because you know that the scenario that I outlined would be grossly prejudicial in favor of the Canucks. You are not going to admit that you are wrong here, so I'm going to stop beating a dead horse!
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: Battle of the Ratlantic | Round 2 Game 2 : Broonz @ Bobcats- Latest: Gentle Man
-
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Game 3 Texas Stars @ Milwaukee Admirals - Texas Stars leads series 2-0Wagers: 2Staked: $75.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Indiana Pacers @ New York Knicks - NY leads series 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $2,200.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Ontario Reign @ Abbotsford Canucks - Ontario Reign leads series 2-0Wagers: 3Staked: $794.00Event closes
- Updated: