Olympics: If the NHL players don't go in 2018, what happens to players in the KHL and etc?

[Jussi]

To answer the question YES the KHL, SHL, NLA etc would send their best players. The NHL dosent decide what other Leagues should or should not do.

In the future i Believe that the biggest KHL Clubs will Challenge the NHL. Dynamo, CSKA and SKA will all have great arenas (SKA ice palace, Legends arena and VTB arena)and big sponsors (Companies, Rich People etc) The rest of the KHL will never be even Close to the NHL. So the KHL as a League wont have much Power in international hockey. Only the NHL and IIHF.

Their advantage is going away as the KHL salary cap is going down (possibly to 22 million euros, as hinted by Medvedev) and the star player exemptions are going away as well.

 

[Macman]

I am not sure I'm understanding all the self-pity and lashing out at the unwashed masses of the World over the No.1 ranking. Other threads devoted to ranking hockey nations have given Canada full credit for having won in Sochi. I am not aware of one single poster who failed to rank Canada No. 1. I ranked Canada No. 1, followed by Sweden and Finland tied for No. 2, followed by the United States and Russia tied for No. 4. I think that's a fair assessment, based on performance in those tournaments that should rightfully factor into the national ranking (OG, WC, WJC).

I agree with JackSlater that a one-game tournament victory is not as impressive as winning a series of games, mainly because anything can happen in a one-game series that could cause the better team to lose a single game. While I believe that everyone will agree that Canada painted a defensive masterpiece in Sochi, they were far from being sufficiently dazzling on offense to merit being described as "dominant," which some posters seem to cry out for. Maybe its fair to say that, based on the scale of resources that Canada pours into hockey in comparison to other nations that you have a right to the expectation of dominance, but only if based on actual on-ice performance.

I don't understand the claim by you and some others that Canada was offensively deficient in Sochi. It makes me wonder if you saw many of their games. Sure, they were great defensively but it was a defence built on a quick counter attack and spending more time in the other teams zone than their own. They didn't give up just three goals in Sochi by playing a collapsing, trapping defence. They outshot and out chanced every team they played, often by a margin of two to one. The difference was the goaltending of their opponents. It was usually outstanding.

 

[TollefsenFan]

Their advantage is going away as the KHL salary cap is going down (possibly to 22 million euros, as hinted by Medvedev) and the star player exemptions are going away as well.

Im talking about the future. After the New arenas are built. The KHL will sooner or later become a more European sports League. A few strong teams and a bunch of weaker teams. Thats my point. The NHL will still be the biggest League and can do what they want.

 

[Yakushev72]

I don't understand the claim by you and some others that Canada was offensively deficient in Sochi. It makes me wonder if you saw many of their games. Sure, they were great defensively but it was a defence built on a quick counter attack and spending more time in the other teams zone than their own. They didn't give up just three goals in Sochi by playing a collapsing, trapping defence. They outshot and out chanced every team they played, often by a margin of two to one. The difference was the goaltending of their opponents. It was usually outstanding.

Its just a matter of the numbers. If you discount the 6 goals against Austria, the doormat of the Sochi tournament, Canada scored 11 goals in 5 games. That comes out to an average of 2.2 goals per game. That is not a dominant statistic. They scored 3 goals against Norway, 2 against Latvia, 1 against Finland in regulation time, and 1 against the US. Give Canada credit for a one-sided 3-0 shutout against a Sweden team that showed that they didn't really belong there, but overall, it was far less than a dominant tournament on offense for Canada. But the defense was truly worthy of a champion. When playing against competent teams like the US, where the shots on goal totals were 37-35, its really hard to say that they separated themselves from other established powers.

 

[JackSlater]

Its just a matter of the numbers. If you discount the 6 goals against Austria, the doormat of the Sochi tournament, Canada scored 11 goals in 5 games. That comes out to an average of 2.2 goals per game. That is not a dominant statistic. They scored 3 goals against Norway, 2 against Latvia, 1 against Finland in regulation time, and 1 against the US. Give Canada credit for a one-sided 3-0 shutout against a Sweden team that showed that they didn't really belong there, but overall, it was far less than a dominant tournament on offense for Canada. But the defense was truly worthy of a champion. When playing against competent teams like the US, where the shots on goal totals were 37-35, its really hard to say that they separated themselves from other established powers.

This would be a textbook example of the issue discussed upthread. Canada beating Sweden thoroughly in the final showed that Sweden didn't belong (despite being unbeaten up to that point and having a roster comparable to any nation other than Canada) instead of how strong Canada just might have been. Shot totals cited against USA instead of noting the quality of play, where in that one game Canada did separate themselves from at least that one opponent, at least according to fans, media and players at the time (many of whom were American). Sure it was only one tournament, and inherently limited if people try to draw conclusions based on it, but it was by any measure a great tournament for Canada and to paint it any other way is disingenuous at best.

 

[Macman]

Its just a matter of the numbers. If you discount the 6 goals against Austria, the doormat of the Sochi tournament, Canada scored 11 goals in 5 games. That comes out to an average of 2.2 goals per game. That is not a dominant statistic. They scored 3 goals against Norway, 2 against Latvia, 1 against Finland in regulation time, and 1 against the US. Give Canada credit for a one-sided 3-0 shutout against a Sweden team that showed that they didn't really belong there, but overall, it was far less than a dominant tournament on offense for Canada. But the defense was truly worthy of a champion. When playing against competent teams like the US, where the shots on goal totals were 37-35, its really hard to say that they separated themselves from other established powers.

Numbers can mislead. As Sports Illustrated wrote: "The final scores were like a fun-house mirror, distorting reality. The Canadians routed Team USA 1-0 in the semifinal. They toyed with Sweden 3-0 in the Olympic final ... Canada ate everybody's lunch."

 

[Yakushev72]

This would be a textbook example of the issue discussed upthread. Canada beating Sweden thoroughly in the final showed that Sweden didn't belong (despite being unbeaten up to that point and having a roster comparable to any nation other than Canada) instead of how strong Canada just might have been. Shot totals cited against USA instead of noting the quality of play, where in that one game Canada did separate themselves from at least that one opponent, at least according to fans, media and players at the time (many of whom were American). Sure it was only one tournament, and inherently limited if people try to draw conclusions based on it, but it was by any measure a great tournament for Canada and to paint it any other way is disingenuous at best.

We can agree that Canada had a great tournament and clearly deserved to win Gold. As for Sweden, I thought they benefitted from the weakest schedule among the bigs, and got thoroughly outplayed by the Finns, who lost in OT only because Lehtonen gave up weak goals in Rask's absence. I thought the Finns and Americans were better than Sweden, and if they had played, Russia may have gotten by them as well.

 

[Yakushev72]

Numbers can mislead. As Sports Illustrated wrote: "The final scores were like a fun-house mirror, distorting reality. The Canadians routed Team USA 1-0 in the semifinal. They toyed with Sweden 3-0 in the Olympic final ... Canada ate everybody's lunch."

I will concede that Sweden was beaten before the opening face off was dropped. Canada truly did toy with them, although, again, they couldn't find the back of the net much. The Canadians routed Team USA? That is ridiculous. I watched that game from end-to-end, and Team USA was with Canada every step. A 1-0 game is just that, one swing of the stick away from a draw!

 

[Corto]

Numbers can mislead. As Sports Illustrated wrote: "The final scores were like a fun-house mirror, distorting reality. The Canadians routed Team USA 1-0 in the semifinal. They toyed with Sweden 3-0 in the Olympic final ... Canada ate everybody's lunch."

No, distorting reality is calling the 1-0 win vs the US a rout.

Yes, Canada was better, but it was a one goal game, and the US boys certainly had their chances. One shot goes 2 inches to the left, deflects or something, Canada loses.

...

The amount of Canadian arrogance when it comes to hockey is unparaleld in the sports world. Even the English media is more grounded when it comes to football.

Shockingly, an Olympic gold matter to European countries.
NHL players being there or not makes it more of an achievement, but European guys grow up dreaming on the gold medal game, it still matters to them.

I don't get this apparent need for defending things noone is even questioning.
Everyone know that Canada is the biggest hockey nation with the deepest talent pool.
It would be sad otherwise, seeing as it's the only country in the world where hockey is the #1 sport.

But the 1994 Olympics, for example, weren't "meaningless" as some Canadian posters here put it.
They mattered in Sweden, they mattered in Europe.

...

Seriously.
The posters here are exactly why there's so much gloating and shadenfreude when Canada loses.
Not the players, not the staff, not Hockey Canada... Media and fans.
Arrogant and annoying on a spectacular level.

Best thing is, it's all pointless.
99% of people realize Canada is the best. There's no need to be defensive or belittle other nation's achievements etc.

 

[Macman]

No, distorting reality is calling the 1-0 win vs the US a rout.

Yes, Canada was better, but it was a one goal game, and the US boys certainly had their chances. One shot goes 2 inches to the left, deflects or something, Canada loses.

...

The amount of Canadian arrogance when it comes to hockey is unparaleld in the sports world. Even the English media is more grounded when it comes to football.

Shockingly, an Olympic gold matter to European countries.
NHL players being there or not makes it more of an achievement, but European guys grow up dreaming on the gold medal game, it still matters to them.

I don't get this apparent need for defending things noone is even questioning.
Everyone know that Canada is the biggest hockey nation with the deepest talent pool.
It would be sad otherwise, seeing as it's the only country in the world where hockey is the #1 sport.

But the 1994 Olympics, for example, weren't "meaningless" as some Canadian posters here put it.
They mattered in Sweden, they mattered in Europe.

...

Seriously.
The posters here are exactly why there's so much gloating and shadenfreude when Canada loses.
Not the players, not the staff, not Hockey Canada... Media and fans.
Arrogant and annoying on a spectacular level.

Best thing is, it's all pointless.
99% of people realize Canada is the best. There's no need to be defensive or belittle other nation's achievements etc.

Relax. A small debate about whether or not Canada was offensively challenged in Sochi becomes a rant against supposed hockey arrogance. There was nothing gloating or arrogant about what I said, and for the record, SI is American.

 

[Canuck21t]

No, distorting reality is calling the 1-0 win vs the US a rout.

Yes, Canada was better, but it was a one goal game, and the US boys certainly had their chances. One shot goes 2 inches to the left, deflects or something, Canada loses.

...

The amount of Canadian arrogance when it comes to hockey is unparaleld in the sports world. Even the English media is more grounded when it comes to football.

I could also say that you Europeans have your own bias and are refusing to see the dominance in the Canadian game in Sochi. Seeing that there are more European countries, there's an impression that everyone disagrees Canada, yet the American media agrees with Canadians that Canada dominated the USA in almost all facet of the game. You know that the score doesn't always represent the whole picture of a game. Even though Canada won against the Czech Republic a couple days ago, many Czechs thought they were slightly better despite the loss. How come no one deems that arrogance? It's because in normal circumstances, people understand that the score doesn't tell the whole picture. Yet some Europeans take issue when Canadians use the same reasoning about Sochi. Yes Canadians are often arrogant, but I truly believe we're not totally wrong when we say we really dominated in Sochi despite the low score.

Shockingly, an Olympic gold matter to European countries.
NHL players being there or not makes it more of an achievement, but European guys grow up dreaming on the gold medal game, it still matters to them.

I don't get this apparent need for defending things noone is even questioning.
Everyone know that Canada is the biggest hockey nation with the deepest talent pool.
It would be sad otherwise, seeing as it's the only country in the world where hockey is the #1 sport.

But the 1994 Olympics, for example, weren't "meaningless" as some Canadian posters here put it.
They mattered in Sweden, they mattered in Europe.

Sure all Olympic tournaments matter, but those consisting of all the best in the world matter a lot more.

...

Seriously.
The posters here are exactly why there's so much gloating and shadenfreude when Canada loses.
Not the players, not the staff, not Hockey Canada... Media and fans.
Arrogant and annoying on a spectacular level.

Best thing is, it's all pointless.
99% of people realize Canada is the best. There's no need to be defensive or belittle other nation's achievements etc.

So we're debating against the 1%. It's the point of these forums, to debate significant and less significant things. There lies the fun of it all because imagine if everyone agrees and all we do is concurring, boring.

 

[LSnow]

I dont see any problems, all countries (including Canada) will always send the best possible roster they can put together, whether or not that includes NHL players. Nobody except Canada really gives a **** who wins WJC, yet its celebrated and respected tourney there. I dont think any Finn is arguing IIHF should stop organizing WJCS because majority dont care.

Also this absurd obsession Canadians have with "best on best" i never get. Finns interest in WHC is the same whether or not we get our few good NHL players, expectations are lower obviously, but they care either way. People dont cry that " it was meaningless ****** tournament because Minnesota Wild happened to get to second round"

 

[Yakushev72]

Relax. A small debate about whether or not Canada was offensively challenged in Sochi becomes a rant against supposed hockey arrogance. There was nothing gloating or arrogant about what I said, and for the record, SI is American.

I think his point was that many Canadian posters, but not necessarily you, showed what seems like arrogance in demanding accolades of superiority that were not warranted. As I said earlier, Canada painted a masterpiece defensively at Sochi, but they sacrificed offense to play defense, and it showed in the results. Canada won (the main goal), but not by much, because they didn't generate much noteworthy offense. They didn't need it, because their defensive system worked fine. But why should other fans around the world have to manufacture accolades that aren't earned? I don't know if he was saying it tongue-in-cheek or not, but to say that a 1-0 game, with 37-35 shots on goal totals is a "rout" is beyond ludicrous!

 

[Macman]

I think his point was that many Canadian posters, but not necessarily you, showed what seems like arrogance in demanding accolades of superiority that were not warranted. As I said earlier, Canada painted a masterpiece defensively at Sochi, but they sacrificed offense to play defense, and it showed in the results. Canada won (the main goal), but not by much, because they didn't generate much noteworthy offense. They didn't need it, because their defensive system worked fine. But why should other fans around the world have to manufacture accolades that aren't earned? I don't know if he was saying it tongue-in-cheek or not, but to say that a 1-0 game, with 37-35 shots on goal totals is a "rout" is beyond ludicrous!

I'm not sure anyone is demanding accolades that aren't earned. I'm certainly not. I just happen to think Canada played well offensively. You don't and that's fine. As for Canadian hockey arrogance, yup, it's there, but there's also plenty elsewhere whenever Russia, the States, Sweden or anyone else wins. It goes with fandom and nationalism, unfortunately. We don't hold the patent on that.

 

[Yakushev72]

I'm not sure anyone is demanding accolades that aren't earned. I'm certainly not. I just happen to think Canada played well offensively. You don't and that's fine. As for Canadian hockey arrogance, yup, it's there, but there's also plenty elsewhere whenever Russia, the States, Sweden or anyone else wins. It goes with fandom and nationalism, unfortunately. We don't hold the patent on that.

I agree with that.

 

[Corto]

I could also say that you Europeans have your own bias and are refusing to see the dominance in the Canadian game in Sochi.

Well, that's on them.
Canada were dominant, never looked like they were gonna get scored on, and - while offensively quiet - it's just a matter of time before they get one themselves.


The ONLY objective thing to say about the Sochi tournament...
The competition was the weakest ever. EVER.

Other countries simply have the depth if injuries occur.

Sweden and Finland were massacred by injuries.
Czechs have provided no elite players in 10 years. They seem to be adept at producing elite 3rd liners these days (Frolik, Sobotka) or two-way 2Cs (Plekanec, Hanzal, etc.)... but elite scorers?
This is a nation that was providing 3-5 top ten scorers in the NHL in late 90s/early 2000s. (Jagr, Nedved, Elias, Hejduk, Straka, Lang, etc.)
Russia is top-heavy and it showed. (and as much as I say some Canada fans are arrogant, I think the same percentage of Russian fans is delusional... the times of the Red Army are long gone, Russia is simply not the dominant force it once was)

The USA were Canada's only real threat IMO, and Canada contained them masterfully.
Personally, with those rosters in Sochi, I didn't see anyone beating Canada outside of the US or maaaaybe Finland if Rask stands on his head.

 

[stv11]

This thread went way off topic, and the original question was answered a long time ago. Time to close.