IIHF World Rankings

[Frank the Tank]

It is pretty funny that the winner of a lower quality post-Olympic World Championships (NHL playoffs running late combined with post-Olympic waning player interest means turnout of NHL players will be low) will receive the same amount of points that Canada received for winning the best-on-best Olympics. But hey, it is in the IIHFs best interest to set things up this way to make sure their tournament remains relevant and profitable, especially in Europe.

 

[novisor]

Nobody but the IIHF cares about this thing.
Last 6 best on best tournaments:
O98: Czech Republic
O02: Canada
WC04: Canada
O06: Sweden
O10:Canada
O14: Canada
^ that is all that matters, with importance placed on NHL draft numbers.
World Championships are good but are worthless.

 

[RobertR]

hey sweden congrats you are actually better than canada, somebody forgot to tell the boys a few hours ago tho.

Yeyy. I agree with that. Lets decide the standing by one game. We should be ahead of Swiss for sure then. And of course, we played most decent game against Canada, so we should be right under them. 2nd place it is.

 

[SirKillalot]

Nobody but the IIHF cares about this thing.
Last 6 best on best tournaments:
O98: Czech Republic
O02: Canada
WC04: Canada
O06: Sweden
O10:Canada
O14: Canada
^ that is all that matters, with importance placed on NHL draft numbers.
World Championships are good but are worthless.

Nobody except Canada and USA cares about the WC04. If you're going to degrade World Championships, there is no reason to not do the same about WC. Nobody cares about it. The players actually don't care, because there is no reputation in that tournament except for in NA.

 

[Reds4Life]

Nobody except Canada and USA cares about the WC04. If you're going to degrade World Championships, there is no reason to not do the same about WC. Nobody cares about it. The players actually don't care, because there is no reputation in that tournament except for in NA.

Exactly.

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

Nobody except Canada and USA cares about the WC04. If you're going to degrade World Championships, there is no reason to not do the same about WC. Nobody cares about it. The players actually don't care, because there is no reputation in that tournament except for in NA.

There's a difference - the World Championship goes on during the NHL playoffs so it's essentially a roster of players that either didn't make the playoffs or got knocked out in the first round. A lot of players decline their invitation to the World Championship as well - for Canada it's essentially an U-25 tournament with maybe a few veterans thrown in and usually a junior or two a year.

For the World Cup, at least it's a best-on-best tournament with the best players from each nation playing. I don't really recall any major invitation declines for the WC04, so the players do actually care to an extent.

 

[rogu]

No one takes the IIHF rankings seriously. Canada is indisputably #1, no question.

Well its not like the other nations have their best players available either. So its a tournament showcasing depth. Canada has the best depth I keep on hearing so Canada should win it every year. Canada's B team would have taken the silver in the 2014 Olympics and the C team would have taken the Bronze I read somewhere on here. Based on the results in World Championships that is a laughable statement.

Or is it that Canadian players don't have heart and don't put in effort to win?

The World Championships are an International tournament, great for growing the game internationally. If the Canadian B team doesn't care to win tournaments they participate in then more power to them. I just do not buy it one bit.

What the results show me is that Canada has the best top end talent to field one team, not more.

 

[RobertR]

Too bad Finland and Swedes missed their best players in best of the best tournament.

 

[SirKillalot]

There's a difference - the World Championship goes on during the NHL playoffs so it's essentially a roster of players that either didn't make the playoffs or got knocked out in the first round. A lot of players decline their invitation to the World Championship as well - for Canada it's essentially an U-25 tournament with maybe a few veterans thrown in and usually a junior or two a year.

For the World Cup, at least it's a best-on-best tournament with the best players from each nation playing. I don't really recall any major invitation declines for the WC04, so the players do actually care to an extent.

Call it whatever you want, but in the end it's a pre-season tournament. Sure people are going to play if they get invited. But, players are not it game-shape, not in the correct mental state or physical form. Of course as in everything they play to win, but then it's finished, it's just...meh. Now the real season starts.

Too bad Finland and Swedes missed their best players in best of the best tournament.

Well. According to Canadian mentality. Olympics 2014 was not a best on best tournament. Because Finland lacked their 4 best centers and Sweden lacked their 3 best centers.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Call it whatever you want, but in the end it's a pre-season tournament. Sure people are going to play if they get invited. But, players are not it game-shape, not in the correct mental state or physical form. Of course as in everything they play to win, but then it's finished, it's just...meh. Now the real season starts.

better than wrecking the NHL schedule with condensed scheduling and an absurd break 3/4 of the way through right when playoff races are getting tighter and the NFL ends.

 

[Davebo*]

But since, according to some here, Canada controls the IIHF, we can rank ourselves as we see fit.

 

[StittsvilleJames]

I just hope Canada doesn't run into Sweden in hockey anytime soon, we'd be toast!

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

Call it whatever you want, but in the end it's a pre-season tournament. Sure people are going to play if they get invited. But, players are not it game-shape, not in the correct mental state or physical form. Of course as in everything they play to win, but then it's finished, it's just...meh. Now the real season starts.




Well. According to Canadian mentality. Olympics 2014 was not a best on best tournament. Because Finland lacked their 4 best centers and Sweden lacked their 3 best centers.

It's a best-on-best tournament in the sense that all players could've potentially played (not stuck in playoffs or preoccupied with other events). Injuries happen in every tournament. Sakic and Kariya missed the 1998 tournament, Stamkos and Tavares, 2 top-5 forwards missed 2014 for Canada. Injuries happen in the Stanley Cup playoffs as well, I believe the Buffalo Sabres missed half their regular defense in 2006 playoffs but you don't claim it's not a best-on-best because a few players got injured. As for the bolded, that's all your own speculation; just because you fans don't care doesn't mean the players don't care as well. I watched the Czechs play with plenty of heart and passion, way more than 2014 in the 2004 WC as they took Canada to overtime in the semi-final.

 

[SirKillalot]

better than wrecking the NHL schedule with condensed scheduling and an absurd break 3/4 of the way through right when playoff races are getting tighter and the NFL ends.

Well. No. Most of us like tournements at times were players have played for a while and everybody from every nation who is participating are in game shape, then it becomes a best on best.

And, I also have a different mentality on what a best on best tournament is. One could say that the Olympics is the best on best. But to me also the World Championships are a best of best tournament, because on can't always control what players are available. That's just how National Team-play work. You take the best you got from what you have available at the time.

 

[RobertR]

Yeah, its nice that Canadians put it that way. Best of the best, from available players. Its not like they have by far more depth than any other team. If they play without two of their top5 centers, its not the big deal. If that happens to Fins or Swedes, its another story.

 

[SirKillalot]

It's a best-on-best tournament in the sense that all players could've potentially played (not stuck in playoffs or preoccupied with other events). Injuries happen in every tournament. Sakic and Kariya missed the 1998 tournament, Stamkos and Tavares, 2 top-5 forwards missed 2014 for Canada. Injuries happen in the Stanley Cup playoffs as well, I believe the Buffalo Sabres missed half their regular defense in 2006 playoffs but you don't claim it's not a best-on-best because a few players got injured. As for the bolded, that's all your own speculation; just because you fans don't care doesn't mean the players don't care as well. I watched the Czechs play with plenty of heart and passion, way more than 2014 in the 2004 WC as they took Canada to overtime in the semi-final.

No, it's just how the way of training works. You train for a peak performance. There is actually impossible to gain a peak performance in pre-season training. That's just physics.

There is a reason for why pundits, players and fans are not to worried early in the season if the start is bad. Because they have just started, it will improve.

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

No, it's just how the way of training works. You train for a peak performance. There is actually impossible to gain a peak performance in pre-season training. That's just physics.

Sorry, I meant to bold just the mental state part. But these guys are professionals, this isn't 1960 where players smoke and drink in the offseason. The constantly train and the difference between their "peak" shape and their shape with a couple weeks of preparation isn't that great. Besides everyone is starting from the same spot so it's irrevelant. One could then argue that players are not in "peak" shape at the World Championships either because they just played through an 82-game season + potential early playoff games with no time to rest or heal. I remember the 2004 WC fondly and I don't think there was any complaint about the conditioning of the players.

 

[Rob]

The IIHF list is more important to the lower ranking countries. No Swede or Finn is going to be bragging that they are above Canada on the IIHF ranking. So relax!

 

[deckercky]

World Cup wasn't even IIHF, so obviously has no bearing on the rankings.

World Championships aren't really best on best, but they're the annual championship and need to be given weight accordingly. Still, Olympics need more weight. I think the suggestion of it being roughly double are fair - that leaves a lot of points in the World Championships while still respecting Olympics as the top tournament.

If NHL players can't play in the Olympics, then World Championships should be weighed higher than Olympics.

 

[Lempo]

So, it's the IIHF ranking mainly purposed for seeding the IIHF Tournament, which the Canadians consider to be not much anything and services mainly for the purpose of giving a two week European drinking holiday for some of their playoff dropouts and yet they expect they should be ranked #1 when going to it?

It's a scramble-together-a-team tournament for everyone and exactly that should be reflected in the rankings, just in case there may be someone less interested in scrambling and sends in a U25 team.

 

[psycho_dad*]

The IIHF list is more important to the lower ranking countries. No Swede or Finn is going to be bragging that they are above Canada on the IIHF ranking. So relax!

Exactly.

It's more like a ranking about who takes the next places after Canada.

 

[ChickenBurrito]

Why do Canadians always talk about how they don't have the best players for their world champs teams? Neither does any other team.

 

[jekoh]

Yeyy. I agree with that. Lets decide the standing by one game. We should be ahead of Swiss for sure then. And of course, we played most decent game against Canada, so we should be right under them. 2nd place it is.

The same people that say the Olympics is all that matters dismissed it as irrelevant when their favourite team didn't medal.

Nobody but the IIHF cares about this thing.

The knee-jerk reactions in this thread and countless other threads prove that a lot of people do care about it.

 

[SirKillalot]

Sorry, I meant to bold just the mental state part. But these guys are professionals, this isn't 1960 where players smoke and drink in the offseason. The constantly train and the difference between their "peak" shape and their shape with a couple weeks of preparation isn't that great. Besides everyone is starting from the same spot so it's irrevelant. One could then argue that players are not in "peak" shape at the World Championships either because they just played through an 82-game season + potential early playoff games with no time to rest or heal. I remember the 2004 WC fondly and I don't think there was any complaint about the conditioning of the players.

1. When do you think they actually drink and smoke? Of course in the off-season (and sometimes in the season as well, a lot of players with different personalities).

2. Just as in other sports, the difference is huge. A Chicago-team in early September is horrible compared to a team in the Playoffs in April-May. That is because they train to be in the best shap as individuals and as a team for that given period of time. That is why the best teams are in their best form from sometime after New Years Eve and to the end of the season.

3. Yes, everyone is in equal **** form. Therefore I really don't care for the outcome, cause it don't mean anything because none were in great shape or form. That doesn't mean they won't try, but won't really care all that about the outcome.

4. No, it's actually impossible for me to argue that way. Sure it's a tough schedule, but at that time most players are in good shape and used to the schedule, if they were not, there would be more complaining about it from the NHLPA.

 

[jekoh]

World Championships aren't really best on best,[/quote)
They were in 2005.