How would you define an International "Best on Best" tournament?

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I drew the line at six teams because I feel there have never been more than 6 teams in contention to win the tournament. I think Slovakia is good enough to contend for a medal, but not to win the whole thing.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

They never did worse than 5th when they had its best players, but somehow they are behind the top 6 teams according to you? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. They are undefeated against both Russia and Sweden (two matches vs both) when they had their best players. They defeated USA once out of one try. Slovakia has shown it can defeat anyone on any given day (when able to ice best players like in Torino and Vancouver), just like any other of the top 7 countries. It's not like they fluked out one win against a top team and that got them the 4th place.

That's not true, they finished 7th in both the '96 and '04 WCup and I don't put that much weight on the OG preliminary round games since they are more or less warm up games (ie everyone makes the playoffs).

 

[jcbio11]

I drew the line at six teams because I feel there have never been more than 6 teams in contention to win the tournament. I think Slovakia is good enough to contend for a medal, but not to win the whole thing.

Sure. But I will still never consider 98 or 02 as true best on best. I am sorry but Slovakia wasn't given a chance to compete at those tourneys and has shown that it is a big player in 06 and 10. Like I said before imagine if Canada (or Finland or whoever for that matter) had to ice some sorry ass team in 98 and 02. I don't know if you'd consider it a best on best tourney if your country was royally screwed out of competing.

 

[jcbio11]

That's not true, they finished 7th in the '04 WCup and I don't put that much weight on the OG preliminary round games since they are more or less warm up games (ie everyone makes the playoffs).

Wrong. In Torino, only top 4 of the preliminary group advanced.

Oh and don't get me started about WCup Also not best on best IMO. Many reasons why. Too lazy to type em up. But I am sure you've read them on HFboards a few times at least.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Sure. But I will still never consider 98 or 02 as true best on best. I am sorry but Slovakia wasn't given a chance to compete at those tourneys and has shown that it is a big player in 06 and 10. Like I said before imagine if Canada (or Finland or whoever for that matter) had to ice some sorry ass team in 98 and 02. I don't know if you'd consider it a best on best tourney if your country was royally screwed out of competing.

I feel for you, but all I can say is that the OG format in '98 and '02 was known well before hand and Slovakia could have helped themselves by obtaining a higher ranking and avoiding the preliminary rounds all together.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Wrong. In Torino, only top 4 of the preliminary group advanced.

Oh and don't get me started about WCup Also not best on best IMO. Many reasons why. Too lazy to type em up. But I am sure you've read them on HFboards a few times at least.

The criteria are laid out in the first post. If you think you've got better ones then please share them with us.

Techinically you are right about Torino, but the truth is that the drop off in talent after the top 7 teams is so steep that to qualify for the QF the top teams only needed their skates and a pulse.

 

[jcbio11]

The criteria are laid out in the first post. If you think you've got better ones then please share them with us.

Techinically you are right about Torino, but the truth is that the drop off in talent after the top 7 teams is so steep that to qualify for the QF the top teams only needed their skates and a pulse.

So you acknowledge there's a top 7? Good to hear that, cause from previous posts I got the opposite feeling.

Well my criteria would be:

1. Must have involved the top 7 hockey nations.
2. All the teams were free to select their top players without intereference from any leagues or clubs.
3. The majority of the players invited participated in the tournament.
4. Can't be sanctioned by one the hockey leagues, must be sanctioned by the official governing body of ice hockey (IIHF)

I say top 7 so this obviously only refers to tourneys after 1993. My criteria is fulfilled by two tourneys - 06 and 10 (again out of only tourneys after 1993, I have too little knowledge of the tourneys before that to be able to judge them)

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

So you acknowledge there's a top 7? Good to hear that, cause from previous posts I got the opposite feeling.

Well my criteria would be:

1. Must have involved the top 7 hockey nations.
2. All the teams were free to select their top players without intereference from any leagues or clubs.
3. The majority of the players invited participated in the tournament.
4. Can't be sanctioned by one the hockey leagues, must be sanctioned by the official governing body of ice hockey (IIHF)

I say top 7 so this obviously only refers to tourneys after 1993. My criteria is fulfilled by two tourneys - 06 and 10 (again out of only tourneys after 1993, I have too little knowledge of the tourneys before that to be able to judge them)

My feeling is that Slovakia is a solid 7th, well ahead of any of the nations 8th or lower, but there is still quite a gap between Slovakia and the top 6. In my opinion league stats are probably the best measure of a nations depth and in that Slovakia is clearly behind the other 6.

The IIHF did sanction the Canada Cup tournaments.

http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/the-iihf/100-year-anniversary/100-top-stories/story-6.html

 

[jcbio11]

My feeling is that Slovakia is a solid 7th, well ahead of any of the nations 8th or lower, but there is still quite a gap between Slovakia and the top 6. In my opinion league stats are probably the best measure of a nations depth and in that Slovakia is clearly behind the other 6.

The IIHF did sanction the Canada Cup tournaments.

http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/the-iihf/100-year-anniversary/100-top-stories/story-6.html

Not the World Cups, it didn't. That was an NHL event, played on NHL ice with NHL referees and NHL rules. By no means do I question your selections of best on best tourneys before the year 1993, I don't know a lot about those tourneys anyway. I am just saying the only true best on best tourneys IMO after 1993 were 06 and 10. See my criteria.

As for the league stats do you mean some kind of ranking of its domestic leagues? Because if that's what you mean, I have to strongly disagree. Switzerland's league is way better than Slovakia's, yet when has ever Switzerland medaled? Like seriously I don't know. Also how many Swiss superstars in NHL? Mark Streit, sure and then who? And yet Swiss league is better than Slovakian. Or I guess you mean something else then? I really don't know.

 

[jcbio11]

My feeling is that Slovakia is a solid 7th, well ahead of any of the nations 8th or lower, but there is still quite a gap between Slovakia and the top 6. In my opinion league stats are probably the best measure of a nations depth and in that Slovakia is clearly behind the other 6.

The IIHF did sanction the Canada Cup tournaments.

http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/the-iihf/100-year-anniversary/100-top-stories/story-6.html

Depth this depth that. Whatever. Depth doesn't win anything. When Slovakia can ice its top players, they can beat any other top team with its top players on any given day. Once again, see last two olympics. If they like fluked out one win against a top team, like Switzerland last time around, you might have an argument. But they showed they can consistently beat other top teams. This makes them a top team as well. In fact, their record is actually 5W - 4L when playing top7 nations WHEN they ice their best players. A winning record. They are in the top 7. Period.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Not the World Cups, it didn't. That was an NHL event, played on NHL ice with NHL referees and NHL rules. By no means do I question your selections of best on best tourneys before the year 1993, I don't know a lot about those tourneys anyway. I am just saying the only true best on best tourneys IMO after 1993 were 06 and 10. See my criteria.

As for the league stats do you mean some kind of ranking of its domestic leagues? Because if that's what you mean, I have to strongly disagree. Switzerland's league is way better than Slovakia's, yet when has ever Switzerland medaled? Like seriously I don't know. Also how many Swiss superstars in NHL? Mark Streit, sure and then who? And yet Swiss league is better than Slovakian. Or I guess you mean something else then? I really don't know.

The World Cup teams, including Slovakia, were primarily made up of NHLers, so I don't have any issues with them using NHL ice, refs or rules.

As for stats I was refering to individual stats in the top leagues, primarily the NHL.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Depth this depth that. Whatever. Depth doesn't win anything. When Slovakia can ice its top players, they can beat any other top team with its top players on any given day. Once again, see last two olympics. If they like fluked out one win against a top team, like Switzerland last time around, you might have an argument. But they showed they can consistently beat other top teams. This makes them a top team as well. In fact, their record is actually 5W - 4L when playing top7 nations WHEN they ice their best players. A winning record. They are in the top 7. Period.

Like it or not they iced their best team in '96 and '04, which along with '06 and '10 puts their record vs the top 6 at 5W - 11L.

 

[Vladiator]

The World Cup teams, including Slovakia, were primarily made up of NHLers, so I don't have any issues with them using NHL ice, refs or rules.

As for stats I was refering to individual stats in the top leagues, primarily the NHL.

Of course you don't. I am sure you would if it was held in Russia, on Russian rinks, with Russian refs making calls in Russia's favour.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Of course you don't. I am sure you would if it was held in Russia, on Russian rinks, with Russian refs making calls in Russia's favour.

In Russia on Russian rinks would be fine, so long as the reffing was of the highest quality and fair. I think the Euro teams definitely have a bigger advantage on the large ice than the North Americans do on the small ice since so many of Europe's top players have played in NA leagues, but I think it is okay to have tournaments on the big ice.

 

[YMB29]

Well some people here are learning that the world does not revolve around Canada...

I thought you said it had to do with a disagreement within the Soviet hockey management team. I think the big difference here is that the Soviet hockey federation had complete control over who they brought, even if they could not agree internally who they brought.

Not in 91 when many players were in the NHL. In 91 it was mostly a problem between players and team management, while in 76 it was within team and league management (head coach not allowing another to take some of his best players).

Why do you keep refering to Canada? Except for the USSR and Czechoslovakia the WC and OG conflict with the NHL season effected all the big hockey nations.

Mostly Canada only, as the US was not a big factor back then, and Sweden only had a few NHL players, who often made it to the WCs (same for Finland also but they were like the US).

I still can't get over how evil we were to organize a tournament where all the best players had the opportunity to play. Bad Canada, bad, bad Canada.

Yes organized a tournament where Canada had all the advantages... When Canada lost it its officials even refused to give the Cup to the winners, which says a lot...

 

[jekoh]

You don't get it, do you? Other teams didn't have NHLers on the team because they didn't actually have NHLers. Their best teams possible were iced.

Not true, Germany also had NHLers and couldn't ice them, or not all of them.

No, my question is: why isn't the best six enough? Why does it have to be the best seven?

Who is to decide Slovakia is not part of "the best six"? They were when given the chance. Not every "top 7 team" can claim the same.

 

[finchster]

Yes organized a tournament where Canada had all the advantages... When Canada lost it its officials even refused to give the Cup to the winners, which says a lot...

Allan Eagleson was an a*s*o*e, hell fans in Canada made a replica trophy for the Soviet team so don’t cry too much. As for Canada having all the advantages in a Canada Cup, you are correct, but my rebuttal is, too damn bad.

Sport is a business, and it makes sense to place sports in a place where you will make the most money. Until fans in Europe are willing to pay what Canadians do and European TV companies are willing to throw down big money for TV rights because in Canada it will get a smaller amount because of time difference, then some country in Europe could host a World Cup of Hockey. I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHL was interested in this idea if the money was right, they want to grow their brand in Europe to fight off the KHL .

If hockey is a second tier sport in your nation, you will get second tier treatment. I am a fan of the Canadian National Soccer team, I know all about second tier treatment in the international scene .Hell, most member nations in the IIHF agreed to let Canada host the u20’s more so than anywhere else because it makes so much money . Let’s forget the U20’s exist because it is not fair?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Well some people here are learning that the world does not revolve around Canada...

It's funny that you say that, since every excuse you've made revolves around one team, your team, and when ever your team had problems you are trying to use that as an excuse to write off the whole tournament. Try to keep in mind that there were at least 5 other teams playing in these tournaments.

Not in 91 when many players were in the NHL. In 91 it was mostly a problem between players and team management, while in 76 it was within team and league management (head coach not allowing another to take some of his best players).

Both times these were problems that effected only the USSR. It's unfortunate that some players didn't want to participate, but it was a problem completely within the control of the USSR hockey officials and its players.

Mostly Canada only, as the US was not a big factor back then, and Sweden only had a few NHL players, who often made it to the WCs (same for Finland also but they were like the US).

I disagree, the US have had good players for a long time. In fact, if they had had the team preparation time that the Soviets had they would have been as good or better than them. As for Sweden and Finland, the numbers were initially small and steadily increased, and keep in mind that it always effected their top players.

Yes organized a tournament where Canada had all the advantages... When Canada lost it its officials even refused to give the Cup to the winners, which says a lot...

Keep in mind that the USSR had far and away the biggest advantage, which was almost unlimited team preparation time.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Who is to decide Slovakia is not part of "the best six"? They were when given the chance. Not every "top 7 team" can claim the same.

Who would you rank them ahead of out of the top 7 teams?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Slovakia

Basic issue with Slovakia is that after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Czechoslovakia was split in two. So two national teams, the Czech National Team and the Slovakian national team had to be accommodated on the international hockey scene.

The Slovakian National team drew the proverbial short straw in terms of Olympic and other hockey seedings, perhaps they could have negotiated the issue better, but they were quite content with their lot having achieved long hoped for independence and having their own national team. More power to them.

However ................... stop the whining. Stop trying to adjust the results or downplay the achievements of the other nations after the fact. Move on and show the world that you can build an elite program. Of course this takes money, effort, dedication, etc. Somewhat harder to do than complaining.

 

[jekoh]

If they like fluked out one win against a top team, like Switzerland last time around,

Not only did Switzerland win one game against a top team, but they also won a game against Canada as well.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

The sad thing is that player participation is way down in Slovakia and their prospects / young players over the last decade have really started to decline. In a few years I think we will be talking about how good Slovakia used to be.

 

[YMB29]

Allan Eagleson was an a*s*o*e, hell fans in Canada made a replica trophy for the Soviet team so don’t cry too much. As for Canada having all the advantages in a Canada Cup, you are correct, but my rebuttal is, too damn bad.

Sport is a business, and it makes sense to place sports in a place where you will make the most money. Until fans in Europe are willing to pay what Canadians do and European TV companies are willing to throw down big money for TV rights because in Canada it will get a smaller amount because of time difference, then some country in Europe could host a World Cup of Hockey.

The point here is a fair tournament to judge the best team, not making money...

It's funny that you say that, since every excuse you've made revolves around one team, your team, and when ever your team had problems you are trying to use that as an excuse to write off the whole tournament. Try to keep in mind that there were at least 5 other teams playing in these tournaments.

Everyone knows the problems of their team best and will give arguments from their team's perspective. However the difference with you and many Canadian fans is that you only consider Canada's problems and disregard the problems of others.

Both times these were problems that effected only the USSR. It's unfortunate that some players didn't want to participate, but it was a problem completely within the control of the USSR hockey officials and its players.

Again the same can be said about Canada and the WCs.

I disagree, the US have had good players for a long time. In fact, if they had had the team preparation time that the Soviets had they would have been as good or better than them.

Yes of course...
The US in the 70's and 80's had little chance against the USSR. The win in 1980 was the only exception. Same for Finland.

As for Sweden and Finland, the numbers were initially small and steadily increased, and keep in mind that it always effected their top players.

How much, 1 to 3 players?

Keep in mind that the USSR had far and away the biggest advantage, which was almost unlimited team preparation time.

I did not know that unlimited preparation time was possible...
So I guess it was an unfair advantage...
It is not like the whole national team practiced for months...
What if someone started complaining that team Canada's management and coaches had better preparation for the Olympics because they had the advantage of working in the NHL where most players from the top teams play?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Everyone knows the problems of their team best and will give arguments from their team's perspective. However the difference with you and many Canadian fans is that you only consider Canada's problems and disregard the problems of others.

Actually in this case you have shown quite the opposite to be true.

Again the same can be said about Canada and the WCs.

As we have shown, none of the national hockey programs, be it Canada, US, Sweden, Finland or otherwise had any control over the NHL, so sorry that argument just doesn't wash.

Yes of course...
The US in the 70's and 80's had little chance against the USSR. The win in 1980 was the only exception. Same for Finland.

Sorry bud, the truth hurts.

I did not know that unlimited preparation time was possible...
So I guess it was an unfair advantage...
It is not like the whole national team practiced for months...
What if someone started complaining that team Canada's management and coaches had better preparation for the Olympics because they had the advantage of working in the NHL where most players from the top teams play?

Then I'd say be the best and the NHL will hire you.


These arguments are all pretty weak, are you serious or are you just bitter because you team doesn't look very good under this type of scrutiny? Twenty nine years must feel like an eternity to you, at least it has given you lots of time to think of excuses.

 

[Zine]

I drew the line at six teams because I feel there have never been more than 6 teams in contention to win the tournament. I think Slovakia is good enough to contend for a medal, but not to win the whole thing.

It doesn’t matter if Slovakia is a favourite to win or not. The question is whether they have the ability to greatly influence the outcome of a tournament on a regular basis. The answer to that is yes they do (just like every top 7 does).

In this instance, you can’t have a legitimate tournament if a team with the realistic and regular ability to skew results is not participating.