Incredible parity since 2010
- Thread starter daver
- Start date
Jussi
Registered User
TheBeastCoast
Registered User
I mean for about 25 years it was the same 2 countries....So yes that is a pretty significant growth.
Jussi
Registered User
But it's still the same 5 countries. It doesn't speak well for the development of the sport. There are no Cinderella stories like Switzerland and Germany making it to the final of the World Championships.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Parity is a lot easier when it's not an age-restricted tournament.
Consider soccer, which pretty much every country in the world plays, and yet it's been dominated by 5 or 6 countries.
There have been 82 World Championships held to this point. 81 of those wins were by just five teams, though it depends how you do the accounting on Czechoslovakia (6 wins), Czech Republic (6 wins), and Slovakia (1 Win). The one other team that isn't a modern hockey power was Great Britain in 1936 (which was probably a bunch of Canadians
). The recent good runs by Switzerland and Germany are basically a new thing as even the bronze and silvers have been won by the same few traditional hockey powers over the last hundred years.
theVladiator
Registered User
- May 26, 2018
- 1,090
- 1,183
Disagree on both counts.
Age restriction shrinks the talent pool, so junior team strength is subject to larger year to year fluctuations. In hockey this is somewhat masked because top countries are handicapped by unavailable NHL talent during World Championships.
As for soccer, I think there is way more parity. When you only look at gold, it may seem close, with 6 countries claiming WC gold in soccer against 5 in junior hockey over the last 10 years. But sample of just 10 is pretty small. If you expand to considering silver and bronze, hockey adds just 1 country for total 6 having been on the podium over last 10 contests. In soccer, the list expands from 6 to 12. And this is no age restriction (which as I mentioned gives advantage to consistent talent producers). If you look at soccer U20, recent championships were won by countries like Ghana and Serbia.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
The fluctuations benefit those teams that produce more quality players on an annual basis, e.g. the larger hockey nations.
By contrast, a country that has a very good crop of players within a year or two can rely upon that crop for a decade or more at the senior level.
A hockey team can only have 18 players on it, so depth isn't as much of an advantage when you can draw from a 15-20 year pool of hockey players.
This is why there is more parity at the senior level, which I believe is borne out by the larger number of upsets and typically more competitive performances from the "smaller' hockey nations. A player like Anze Kopitar does not graduate out of the team.
At the junior level, those countries that produce many players year after year are competitive on the basis of brute player population numbers, decreasing the parity of the competition IMO beyond the 6 or 7 major nations.
I still think there would be more considering that there are likely ten times or more countries that take soccer seriously compared with hockey.
If you look at the World Cup, including finalists to the list of champions only adds 5 additional countries to the 8 champion countries.
13 countries in the world account for the top two spots in 21 World Cup competitions.
Last edited:
I made them up and decided what they were worth. It was exhilarating.
For reference, the previous ten years looked like this:
Gold Medals
1. Canada - 5
3. Russia - 2
3. Czech Rep. - 2
4. US - 1
Points (3 for Gold, 2 for Silver, 1 for Bronze)
1. Canada - 23
1. Russia - 16
3. Czech Rep. - 7
4. Finland - 6
5. US - 4
5. Sweden - 4
Gold Medals
1. Canada - 5
3. Russia - 2
3. Czech Rep. - 2
4. US - 1
Points (3 for Gold, 2 for Silver, 1 for Bronze)
1. Canada - 23
1. Russia - 16
3. Czech Rep. - 7
4. Finland - 6
5. US - 4
5. Sweden - 4
theVladiator
Registered User
- May 26, 2018
- 1,090
- 1,183
Ha. Looks like you haven't gone through the mental exercise of assembling Team Slovakia or Team Switzerland with 15-20 year pool of talent.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Ha. Looks like you haven't gone through the exercise of comparing results of the World Junior teams vs. the Senior teams.
theVladiator
Registered User
- May 26, 2018
- 1,090
- 1,183
Well, if you actually read my post you'd see that I am attributing senior WC parity to NHL still playing during that time. Those who aren't playing are injured/fatugued etc. Huge portion of the top talent is removed, disproportionately from the strongest countries. Senior WC picture would be quite different I imagine if it were, as they say, "best on best".
The Juniors tournament will always have less parity for the reasons mentioned above; developing hockey nations just do not have the output on a year by year basis to throw out a competitive mix of 17-20 year olds compared to the top five countries which have thousands of players competing for spots every year. Switzerland's senior results are much better than their junior ones.
The World Juniors has become a more competitive tournament over time though, and I am enjoying the high level of the five teams more than the usual Canada/Russia punching their GMG ticket year after year in the previous decade.
The World Juniors has become a more competitive tournament over time though, and I am enjoying the high level of the five teams more than the usual Canada/Russia punching their GMG ticket year after year in the previous decade.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
At the 2002 Olympics, "best on best", Belarus knocked Sweden out of the Olympics in the quarterfinal, while Canada barely beat Germany in the round robin 3-2.
At the 2006 Olympics, "best on best", Canada lost to Switzerland 2-0 and the Czechs also lost to Switzerland 3-2. Slovakia beat the Russians 5-3, Sweden 3-0 (who may have lost on purpose) and the US 2-1.
At the 2010 Olympics, "best on best", Canada squeaked by Slovakia 3-2 in the semi-finals after romping over Russia 7-3 in the quarter finals and Germany 8-2 in the opening playoff game. This after Slovakia beat Sweden 4-3 to make it into the semi finals.
At the 2014 Olympics, "best on best", Slovenia beat Slovakia 3-1, while the host Russians needed a shootout to beat Slovakia 1-0. The Swedes edged the Swiss 1-0 while the Swiss beat the Czechs 1-0.
If you actually read this post, you will see that upsets and competitive games are the norm when it comes to "best on best" tournaments and teams like Slovakia and Switzerland.
theVladiator
Registered User
- May 26, 2018
- 1,090
- 1,183
Are you trying to show that scoring individual game upsets is easier and more likely than getting on the podium? Isn't it kind of obvious?
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
No, clearly you are reading incorrectly.
Where is your evidence that there is more parity at the WJC level?
theVladiator
Registered User
- May 26, 2018
- 1,090
- 1,183
For evidence just look at the first post. Think carefully if this is the medal distributions you'd expect in senior best on best tourney. We are sort of limited to such mental exercise because over the same period of time there was what, 1 senior best on best (OG 2014)? Just too little data from senior level to have a reasonable comparison.
Other than that, I am just trying to point out that I think you interpreting WC championship results incorrectly. It's not talent parity, it's "talent outside NHL" parity.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
To be fair, my comment around parity and "small countries" and "big countries" is a comment on the Big 6/7 and everyone else.
But if we are using the point distribution in the 1st post as a a benchmark for parity, and apply it to Olympic best on best tournaments, we are left with:
Points
1. Canada 9
2. Sweden 5
2. Finland 5
4. Czech Republic 4
4. USA 4
6. Russia 3
There has been a fair amount of sharing of podium placements and it even includes an additional country.
I wasn't counting the World Championships, so there's no interpretation there at all.
They aren't "best on best" so in essence I leave them out of my analysis. It's still an exhibition tourney in my mind.
theVladiator
Registered User
- May 26, 2018
- 1,090
- 1,183
Personally I would not have used data of 98 and 02, and 06 - it really was a different world. Regardless, you've compiled data over 5 tourneys. How about comparing the seniors data you've compiled with the first post? I will do my (easier) part - to compare data summed over 5 tourneys to data summed over 10 tourneys you gotta put them on the same scale. So, multiplying your list by 2 (i.e. 10/5) puts them on the same scale:
1. Canada 18
2. Sweden 10
2. Finland 10
4. Czech Republic 8
4. USA 8
6. Russia 6
Here is question for you. Do you think this list represents more parity, same parity, or less parity than the one in post 1?
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
It’s less parity if you are going by medal finishes - owing mainly to Canada, however there is an additional country involved. Naturally, the situation involving the Czechs has changed significantly since 1998, as you pointed out.
Again, my interpretation of parity goes beyond the traditional 6 or 7 nations, as opposed to parity among those nations.
I consider those to be the “large hockey nations” that are capable of producing adequate talent year in and year out to compete for a medal.
Slovakia, Germany, Belarus, Switzerland, Slovenia, Kazakhstan, Denmark, I would argue that these countries are more competitive at the senior level than the junior level.
It may not be reflected in medals, but I believe it is reflected in the game results.
Last edited:
theVladiator
Registered User
- May 26, 2018
- 1,090
- 1,183
What you are describing doesn't seem like any sort of objective metric. Off the top of my head I would say it would probably be more likely to happen with more teams admitted into Olympics (5 vs 3 non "top 7" teams). In WJC Kazakhstan also just relegated Denmark, but next year Denmark might have a strong team and Kazakhstan and Germany might have a down year. The system doesn't favour having the strongest lower tier teams. If you want upsets, 12 teams at WJC might be the way to go, with top 4 teams from the lower division *in the same year* joining the group. Upsets are also a more susceptible to random factors such as team/goalie having a good/bad game (looking at you, Tommy Salo). Nevertheless, it's fair enough. You are entitled to your own ways.
I would also like you to think again about an overarching statement that you have made ("Parity is a lot easier when it's not an age-restricted tournament."). Do not want to discuss it further, this has been going on too long as it is.
alko
Registered User
I've calculated the parity for the top 8 nations as well as for the two best non-top 8 nations in both the WJC and WHC over the period 2010-2019 (-2018 for the WHC). The methodology is the average placement of that team and in parentheses the standard deviation from that placement. Did not include olympics due to the small sample size. This has a negative effect on Canada's and especially USA's ranking, but this isn't meant to create a ranking, just display parity.
WJC:
1. RUS 3.00 (1.49)
2. SWE 3.10 (1.12)
2. CAN 3.10 (1.58)
2. USA 3.10 (1.99)
5. FIN 4.70 (2.59)
6. CZE 5.80 (0.95)
7. SUI 6.70 (1.66)
8. SVK 7.10 (1.57)
Other1 8.40 (1.24)
Other2 10.00 (0.00)
Other1+2: 9.16 (0.62)
WHC:
1. RUS 3.11 (1.79)
1. SWE 3.11 (1.97)
3. FIN 3.78 (1.69)
4. CAN 3.89 (1.97)
5. CZE 4.56 (2.01)
6. USA 5.78 (3.08)
7. SUI 7.11 (3.35)
8. SVK 9.11 (3.07)
Other1 7.56 (0.83)
Other2 8.88 (1.00)
Other1+2 8.22 (0.85)
What this tells me is that at the WJC level:
1) There's incredible parity at the top.
2) Finland is very boom or bust.
3) There's a clear top 4 who are very even (Finland joins them in a good year).
4) There's a clear order to the rest of the top 8.
5. Beyond the top 8 there's no real challenger (Denmark is the only team to finish better than 9th (twice 8th and once 5th).
What this tells me on the WHC level:
1) USA clearly underperforms their talent level.
2) Again, clear, even top 4 followed by an equally clear 5, 6 and 7.
3) The performance of USA, SUI and SVK varies wildly.
4) Slovakia has fallen to become "Best of the rest" rather than being firmly in a top 7 or 8.
WJC:
1. RUS 3.00 (1.49)
2. SWE 3.10 (1.12)
2. CAN 3.10 (1.58)
2. USA 3.10 (1.99)
5. FIN 4.70 (2.59)
6. CZE 5.80 (0.95)
7. SUI 6.70 (1.66)
8. SVK 7.10 (1.57)
Other1 8.40 (1.24)
Other2 10.00 (0.00)
Other1+2: 9.16 (0.62)
WHC:
1. RUS 3.11 (1.79)
1. SWE 3.11 (1.97)
3. FIN 3.78 (1.69)
4. CAN 3.89 (1.97)
5. CZE 4.56 (2.01)
6. USA 5.78 (3.08)
7. SUI 7.11 (3.35)
8. SVK 9.11 (3.07)
Other1 7.56 (0.83)
Other2 8.88 (1.00)
Other1+2 8.22 (0.85)
What this tells me is that at the WJC level:
1) There's incredible parity at the top.
2) Finland is very boom or bust.
3) There's a clear top 4 who are very even (Finland joins them in a good year).
4) There's a clear order to the rest of the top 8.
5. Beyond the top 8 there's no real challenger (Denmark is the only team to finish better than 9th (twice 8th and once 5th).
What this tells me on the WHC level:
1) USA clearly underperforms their talent level.
2) Again, clear, even top 4 followed by an equally clear 5, 6 and 7.
3) The performance of USA, SUI and SVK varies wildly.
4) Slovakia has fallen to become "Best of the rest" rather than being firmly in a top 7 or 8.
Last edited:
