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

[Zine]

One issue at a time.

1.) Trace the roots of the "inside" compliance, provide names.

2.) Present the accounting. From majority of the profits we have gone to simply profits.

Point is that retained monies that went to hockey would be accounted as expenses not profits( standard accounting ).
If hockey equipment was bought it would show up as an expense not as a profit.Likewise various hockey related funding. Likewise salaries would be expenses not profit. Were salaries at accepted percentages of revenues? Let's see the numbers before accepting accusations at face value.

Now you’re reduced to questioning small specifics (on 1 particular issue none the less) because your agenda doesn’t hold up holistically.
One does not need to provide accounting records to prove corruption existed in Russian hockey, especially when sports figures were murdered, millions of dollars went missing, the mafia was prevalent, funds were pilfered and players were extorted.....all verified by reputable individuals in the links I gave.
You’re splitting hairs because, well, that’s all you can do.


BTW, what exactly is your point?...apart from contradicting everything I say that is? Are the 4-5 articles sited not good enough evidence?
Or do you simply not want to ‘give in’ so you just refute anything I put forth…no matter how factual the documentation.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Yes if we want to look at the origins,cause and responsibilities.

Handy knowledge if you don't want to repeat the mistakes.

Like the Alan Eagelson situation, unless you get to the bottom and eliminate the roots, the problem will keep coming back to haunt you. See the NHLPA and the chaos when some of Eagelson's associates happened to re-surface.

On the other hand if the objective is for your cronies to get back in power and grab more money then you bury the situation.

Your choice.

First you acted like accusing Russia of being corrupt in the 90's was a libellous statement. When in reality it is common knowledge that doesn't require sourcing.

Now your saying we, two Canadians posting at a message board most famous for almost getting Rory Fitzpatrick into the all-star game, should try and end corruption in Russia?

Seriously?

Do I need to list the reasons that's just madness?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oh Well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

First you acted like accusing Russia of being corrupt in the 90's was a libellous statement. When in reality it is common knowledge that doesn't require sourcing.

Now your saying we, two Canadians posting at a message board most famous for almost getting Rory Fitzpatrick into the all-star game, should try and end corruption in Russia?

Seriously?

Do I need to list the reasons that's just madness?

Basic point is that the Russians should be as vigilant as possible and not allow cronies of corrupt to re-surface. They should learn from our mistakes with the Alan Eagelsons, Bruce McNalls, Harold Ballards, etc and be even more vigilant instead of running away from the slightest mention of accounting or cold hard numbers like they are doing here.

 

[YMB29]

Looks like Canadiens1958 is self-destructing again...

Given the state of Russia today I completely understand why so many Russian hockey fans desperately cling to their memories of USSR hockey and what they were told was total domination by their team.

Canadians are the ones still being told this, as evidenced by you.

It must have been a horrendous shock for Soviet sports fans when the iron curtain fell and given how tough things have been since then I can see why people don't want to let go of what they once thought to be true.

What was thought to be true and is not now? Or did the past change?

I know it must be tough to see your former arch rivals winning again and again

Two out of four Olympics is again and again?
I don't care if Canada is winning; the only problem is annoying fans like you talking too much and trying to manipulate the past.

but at some point I think all of you are going to have to come to grips with reality. I realize that you have a well scripted excuse for every loss, but in some place you must have a deep desire to actually win.

So Soviet/Russian fans = Russian players and coaches?
What scripted excuses are you talking about? You mean not accepting of your reality?

Here's some free advice, stop with all the excuses, get some more skates on the ice and maybe one day you'll have something real to cheer about.

So I guess the problem is not with the Russian players, coaches, and state of hockey in Russia, but with fans who think that the USSR was great in hockey?

 

[Zine]

Basic point is that the Russians should be as vigilant as possible and not allow cronies of corrupt to re-surface. They should learn from our mistakes with the Alan Eagelsons, Bruce McNalls, Harold Ballards, etc and be even more vigilant instead of running away from the slightest mention of accounting or cold hard numbers like they are doing here.

Ha Ha!!!! After initially claiming it potentially libellous, you are no longer questioning whether corruption existed, but are now accusing certain posters *ahem* of not being vigilant enough about the return of possible corruption?

Thanks for your concern.

YMB29 is right, your self-destructing again....you're all over the place man.

 

[God Bless Canada]

To me, the best-on-best tournaments are the ones that give the best players from the best countries in the world a legitimate and realistic chance to play in the tournament. The World Championships, with the exception of 2005, never did that. I don't know if the 2005 Worlds should be considered a true best-on-best, I'd need to see who was there, and contrast it with who wasn't there. I know Canada iced about half of their top line-up. Don't know whether it was the same with the other countries. It's the one year in which the Worlds had the chance to be a best-on-best.

But the best-on-bests have been the Canada Cup, the World Cup and the Olympics starting in 1998.

To be honest on a couple fronts:

1) The World Cup and the Canada Cup haven't meant as much since 1987. 87 was magnificent. The pinnacle of 80s run-and-gun hockey. But the arrival of Soviet players really took away the significance of the Canada Cup for me. My fondest international hockey memory from 1991 was John Slaney scoring with six minutes left in the third period of the 1991 WJC game between Canada and the USSR. It's not from the 1991 Canada Cup. The 2004 World Cup is fairly low on my list of memorable Team Canada moments. The 2004-05 WJC in Grand Forks means more to me than the 2004 World Cup.

The best hockey from the NHL-run best-on-best tournaments since 87 is the 96 World Cup. That tournament had a lot more emotion, a lot more intensity, and better hockey, than the 91 and the 04 tournaments. Good tournaments. Not great tournaments.

2) I don't put as much emphasis on results from best-on-best tournaments as I used to. I've come to realize that these are short tournaments, It's about which team comes together the fastest as a team. Team Canada fans found that out in Turin. Sweden and Russia found that out this year. Is there anyone out there who honestly thinks that Slovakia is a better hockey nation than Sweden or Russia? Does anyone honestly think that Sweden is the fifth best hockey nation, or Russia is the sixth? I would hope not. Go watch a different sport if you do. Sweden didn't come together. Russia was a train wreck. The Americans came together almost instantly. And they rode team play and chemistry all the way to overtime in the gold medal game.

I'm thrilled Canada won gold in Vancouver. I was thrilled they won gold in Salt Lake. Celebratory beverage and cigar time, boys. I'll never forget where I was when Crosby scored to beat the Americans. For the post 72 generations, it's our "where were you when x happened" hockey moment. But I base my opinions on hockey powers on far more information than just the results of the last best-on-best.

If it was played out over a month, or six weeks, with best-of-five or best-of-seven playoffs, then I'd probably put greater emphasis on the results. (Unfortunately for Russia, nothing short of a massive overhaul would have helped their team. Same thing for Canada in 2006). But it's a two-week tournament with six or seven games, and a bunch of best-of-ones to determine the champion.

It was different in the 70s and 80s. Canada and the Soviets were the clear-cut two best teams. The Czechs and the Swedes might sneak up and surprise somebody. Canada had time for our team could come together, to get ready for the inevitable showdown with the Soviets.

We don't have that luxury anymore. There are eight legitimately strong hockey countries out there. And every one of those eight countries has a goalie who can steal a game - the biggest nightmare, especially for the favourite, in a best-of-one. If we don't come together, we lose in the quarters or the semis. If we take he Swiss lightly, we'll lose. We found that out the hard way in Turin. And even a country like Germany or Belarus or Latvia can sneak up and surprise a Switzerland, a Slovakia or the Czechs. I don't know if that parity will continue - there might be some separation coming between the top four or five teams and the other teams - but right now, there's a lot of parity in international hockey. And it makes best-on-best tournaments very unpredictable.

 

[God Bless Canada]

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




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).



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).



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...

And the Soviets had the biggest advantages of all in the Canada Cups: continuity and chemistry. Canada had to hope that their talent would come together in the span of a few weeks. It was a little different back then - we had a selection camp in August and then we played the tournament. But you still had a few weeks to assemble a team, and make adjustments, in an effort to win the tournament. Chemistry's a funny thing. Sometimes it happens instantly. And sometimes it takes weeks. The problem is, in the Canada Cup, the World Cup, the Olympics and other short tournaments, you don't have weeks.

The Soviets played together. Most of them played together year-round. They knew each other. They knew where they would be on the ice. They had chemistry. They had a great team concept. It's the biggest advantage of all, entering a short tournament, to have those elements in your game.

 

[YMB29]

So that justifies Canada having the advantages it did in the Canada Cups, especially the biased officiating?

Again, the practice/playing time or chemistry argument is exaggerated and used too often as an excuse by Canadians. The national team did not play together year round...

And it is not like Canada's game relied on chemistry as much as the Soviet game did (in the NHL there were/are no five men units, lines and defensive pairings were/are commonly changed up).

 

[BSHH]

To me, the best-on-best tournaments are the ones that give the best players from the best countries in the world a legitimate and realistic chance to play in the tournament. (...)

I second that criteria. Therefore the Olympics in 1998 and 2002 cannot be deemed as "best-on-best", as the best Slovakian players were not granted that chance to participate. Nonetheless, the final was impressive! Is it just nostalgia or really be questionable, whether so many legends and HHOF-candidates will ever compete in one Olympic final again?

Gruß,
BSHH

 

[Seanconn*]

I think international hockey is about the greatest thing there is, I love the NHL, but there's just something awesome about international competition that brings out the inner hockey fan in almost anyone.

It would be really great for the sport of hockey if they switched up the IIHF world championship between winter Olympic games years, so that the World Championship would not take place during the NHL playoffs. + no all star game, but we would get a hockey tournament of equal caliber to what we see at the Olympics every four years, which is soooooo much better than the Allstar game.

So for example: 2010 Olympics, 2011 World Cup of Hockey, 2013 World Championship during when the allstar game would be, 2014 back to the Olympics. 2016 World Championship during all star game... 2017? World Cup? 2018 back to the olympics. these are just random dates, but i figure it would make sense to not have these special world championships happen during the same year as a world cup tournament...

I don't see how the NHL and IIHF can't coordinate something a long the lines of this. International hockey at a level we see at the Olympics and World Cup is something special. I'd take a world championship with stacked teams over an all star game any day. and it doesn't even have to be every year... just in between winter games years. All Star games are quickly forgotten... these odd years with World Championships teams stacked with NHLers would be hard to forget.

If popularizing hockey in the USA is as important to the NHL as Bettman goes on and on about, then what better way to do that ten give Americans more reasons to cheer on team USA USA USA USA!!! like come on did you see how many Americans became overnight hockey fans during the Olympics this year?

Asking both the IIHF and NHL to accommodate schedules for just one year in between winter Olympic games shouldn't be too much to ask, but when you have idiots like Bettman as commisioner be thankful we even see NHL'ers in the Olympics.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

So that justifies Canada having the advantages it did in the Canada Cups, especially the biased officiating?

Again, the practice/playing time or chemistry argument is exaggerated and used too often as an excuse by Canadians. The national team did not play together year round...

And it is not like Canada's game relied on chemistry as much as the Soviet game did (in the NHL there were/are no five men units, lines and defensive pairings were/are commonly changed up).

So to summarize the following tournaments don't count to you and most Russian fans on these boards:

'72 because Russia lost and because Clark slashed Kharlamov
'76 because Russia lost and because the Soviet hockey officials didn't select the right players
'84 because Russia lost and because Canada cheated and conspired to fix the officiating
'87 because Russia lost and because Canada cheated and conspired to fix the officiating
'91 because Russia lost and because the Soviet hockey officials didn't select the right players
'96 because Russia lost and because some of Russia's players didn't want to play
'98 because Russia lost and because Slovakia was not in the final round
'02 because Russia lost and because some of Russia's players didn't want to play
'04 because Russia lost and because Slovakia was not in the final round
'06 because Russia lost and because ? (give it a few more years, you'll think of something)
'10 because Russia lost and because your dream team was utterly annihilated in the QF

Sad, just sad, do you not have any self respect?

 

[Seanconn*]

and guys all this talk about corruption in russian hockey....


i think it was just more so corruption in Russia.. I can only imagine how thuggish it could have been in the late 80's early nineties. this is starting to sound like political historical discussions not hockey!! haha

 

[thomasincanada]

So that justifies Canada having the advantages it did in the Canada Cups, especially the biased officiating?

Ok.. so the Canada/World Cups are out.. The World Championships obviously don't count, the pre-1998 olympics don't count.. and the 1998/2002 olympics apparently don't count either.

So that makes a grand total of only 2 best on best tournaments ever.. one won by Sweden and one won by Canada. Nobody else has ever won a best on best. Russia has never been top 3 in a true best on best.

I can live with that - I'll go to Ikea after work and grab some Swedish guys to go out and celebrate with.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

So to summarize the following tournaments don't count to you and most Russian fans on these boards:

'72 because Russia lost and because Clark slashed Kharlamov
'76 because Russia lost and because the Soviet hockey officials didn't select the right players
'84 because Russia lost and because Canada cheated and conspired to fix the officiating
'87 because Russia lost and because Canada cheated and conspired to fix the officiating
'91 because Russia lost and because the Soviet hockey officials didn't select the right players
'96 because Russia lost and because some of Russia's players didn't want to play
'98 because Russia lost and because Slovakia was not in the final round
'02 because Russia lost and because some of Russia's players didn't want to play
'04 because Russia lost and because Slovakia was not in the final round
'06 because Russia lost and because ? (give it a few more years, you'll think of something)
'10 because Russia lost and because your dream team was utterly annihilated in the QF

Sad, just sad, do you not have any self respect?

In his world it only counts if Russia is allowed to send it's absolute best, the US and Canada send college kids and juniors, and Josef Kampala refs every game.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Ok.. so the Canada/World Cups are out.. The World Championships obviously don't count, the pre-1998 olympics don't count.. and the 1998/2002 olympics apparently don't count either.

So that makes a grand total of only 2 best on best tournaments ever.. one won by Sweden and one won by Canada. Nobody else has ever won a best on best. Russia has never been top 3 in a true best on best.

I can live with that - I'll go to Ikea after work and grab some Swedish guys to go out and celebrate with.

I'm afraid not. 2010 doesn't count because we had home ice/crowd advantage and the game was on small ice. I guess only Sweden has any bragging rights at all.

Congratulations to Sweden, the only country to ever win a legitimate best-on-best hockey tournament in the game's history!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Referees

In his world it only counts if Russia is allowed to send it's absolute best, the US and Canada send college kids and juniors, and Josef Kampala refs every game.

Viktor Dombrowski and Yuri Karandin would have to refereee every game. Travel, eat and skate with the Soviet / Russian team.

 

[thomasincanada]

I'm afraid not. 2010 doesn't count because we had home ice/crowd advantage and the game was on small ice. I guess only Sweden has any bragging rights at all.

Congratulations to Sweden, the only country to ever win a legitimate best-on-best hockey tournament in the game's history!

son of a *****... Surely we can think of a reason to conclude that 2006 wasn't a best on best.

I propose we use one of Russia's excuses and say that Team Canada didn't pick it's best players therefore it wasn't a true best on best.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sidney Crosby in 2006

son of a *****... Surely we can think of a reason to conclude that 2006 wasn't a best on best.

I propose we use one of Russia's excuses and say that Team Canada didn't pick it's best players therefore it wasn't a true best on best.

Sidney Crosby missed the 2006 Olympics. Sweden is out of luck.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

son of a *****... Surely we can think of a reason to conclude that 2006 wasn't a best on best.

I propose we use one of Russia's excuses and say that Team Canada didn't pick it's best players therefore it wasn't a true best on best.

I thought of that too, but I thought that only Russia was allowed to use this excuse.

 

[YMB29]

Look at all the clowns here...

So to summarize the following tournaments don't count to you and most Russian fans on these boards:

'72 because Russia lost and because Clark slashed Kharlamov
'76 because Russia lost and because the Soviet hockey officials didn't select the right players
'84 because Russia lost and because Canada cheated and conspired to fix the officiating
'87 because Russia lost and because Canada cheated and conspired to fix the officiating
'91 because Russia lost and because the Soviet hockey officials didn't select the right players
'96 because Russia lost and because some of Russia's players didn't want to play
'98 because Russia lost and because Slovakia was not in the final round
'02 because Russia lost and because some of Russia's players didn't want to play
'04 because Russia lost and because Slovakia was not in the final round
'06 because Russia lost and because ? (give it a few more years, you'll think of something)
'10 because Russia lost and because your dream team was utterly annihilated in the QF

Sad, just sad, do you not have any self respect?

Do you?
The only tournaments I talked about were the Canada Cups in 76, 87, and 91.
And for 76 and 91 it is not "because the Soviet hockey officials didn't select the right players", silly. How many times must I explain it to you?

I can make the same for you:

ChC79 - does not count because it was just an allstar game with players who never played with each other vs. players who were playing together year round for years.
CC81 - does not count because it was only one game in the final, not best of three. Also Canada lost all because Liut was terrible, and the referee was a Euro too.
WCs77-91 - don't count because Canada had to use minor leaguers and amateurs since all of its NHL players were busy. Canada is a democracy and so private business is most important.
WCoH96 - does not count because Canada lost to little brother. It was just a fluke.
Oly98 - does not count because games are not supposed to be decided by a shootout. Idiot coach did not let Gretzky shoot.
Oly06 - does not count since that dumb guy Gretzky picked the wrong players for the team. Crosby did not play but Russia had Ovechkin.

Ok.. so the Canada/World Cups are out.. The World Championships obviously don't count, the pre-1998 olympics don't count.. and the 1998/2002 olympics apparently don't count either.

So that makes a grand total of only 2 best on best tournaments ever.. one won by Sweden and one won by Canada. Nobody else has ever won a best on best. Russia has never been top 3 in a true best on best.

I can live with that - I'll go to Ikea after work and grab some Swedish guys to go out and celebrate with.

You said this not me...

In his world it only counts if Russia is allowed to send it's absolute best, the US and Canada send college kids and juniors, and Josef Kampala refs every game.

Look who is talking... I am not ethnocentric like silly Canadian fans such as you.

Viktor Dombrowski and Yuri Karandin would have to refereee every game. Travel, eat and skate with the Soviet / Russian team.

They were never anywhere near the level of Koharski, Stewart, and Noeth - the true heroes of Canada in 1987.

son of a *****... Surely we can think of a reason to conclude that 2006 wasn't a best on best.

I propose we use one of Russia's excuses and say that Team Canada didn't pick it's best players therefore it wasn't a true best on best.

Well this is an actual excuse used by many in Canada for 2006... Gretzky picking the wrong players.
Also I never used this excuse silly.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I can make the same for you:

ChC79 - does not count because it was just an allstar game with players who never played with each other vs. players who were playing together year round for years.

It was an all-star series between two leagues, and billed as such from Day One. A team with three Swedes is not Team Canada.

CC81 - does not count because it was only one game in the final, not best of three. Also Canada lost all because Liut was terrible, and the referee was a Euro too.

Canada lost fair and square (and soundly) in '81, and I don't know anyone who disputes that the Russians were the better squad. Liut was terrible, but a goalie's part of the team.

WCs77-91 - don't count because Canada had to use minor leaguers and amateurs since all of its NHL players were busy. Canada is a democracy and so private business is most important.

Really? Really?

WCoH96 - does not count because Canada lost to little brother. It was just a fluke.

Again, I don't know anyone who writes that loss off. It hurt like hell, mostly because the Americans beat us at our own game.

Oly98 - does not count because games are not supposed to be decided by a shootout. Idiot coach did not let Gretzky shoot.

Another legitimate loss. Some questionable decisions made by Canada (Rob Zamuner?!), but a loss nonetheless.

Oly06 - does not count since that dumb guy Gretzky picked the wrong players for the team. Crosby did not play but Russia had Ovechkin.

There were some stupid personnel choices, no doubt. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it was a best-on-best.

So yeah. '81, '96, '98, '06, all valid best-on-best failures for Canada. '79 was, and always has been regarded as a match between leagues, not countries, and the Soviet league triumphed.

The world championships suggestion really doesn't even deserve a response. Call them best-on-bests and get laughed out of any self-respecting hockey fan's house.

 

[Zine]

It was an all-star game between two leagues, and billed as such from Day One. A team with three Swedes is not Team Canada.

C'mon. For all intents and purposes it was a Soviet/Canada game. Even Bobby Orr kept calling them 'the Canadians' during the broadcast.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

C'mon. For all intents and purposes it was a Soviet/Canada game. Even Bobby Orr kept calling them 'the Canadians' during the broadcast.

There was an overwhelming Canadian contingent, but it's no more Team Canada than the Soviet league team would've been Team USSR if they had imported Novy, Bubla, and Martinek.

At any rate, the Soviet league won, so it could certainly be called a victory for Soviet hockey.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Look who is talking... I am not ethnocentric like silly Canadian fans such as you.

LOL!

Never has the pot ever called the kettle so black.

 

[Vladiator]

There was an overwhelming Canadian contingent, but it's no more Team Canada than the Soviet league team would've been Team USSR if they had imported Novy, Bubla, and Martinek.

At any rate, the Soviet league won, so it could certainly be called a victory for Soviet hockey.

Russia had Zubrus, a Lithuanian, in its 2004 World Cup's team. So, it was not team Russia that got beat, right?