GDT: May 6 • Sweden vs. Canada

[missinthejets]

If you judge the quality of hockey by the number of goals scored, you're missing out on a lot.

NHL hockey showcases amazing skill, better than any other league in the world. What makes it even more impressive is that the players can do what they do in such tight confines.

I'm not against a slight increase in rink size, but Olympic sized rinks do take the wow factor out of the game a little bit. Just too much space.

I would have thought that the last Olympics would have put an end to this fallacy that bigger ice leads to more exciting games. The reason this game was higher scoring is pretty simple, poor goaltenders and a couple of defenses full of youthful inexperience which leads to mistakes which leads to scoring chances which when paired with shaky goaltending means goals. Big ice gives teams more room in non dangerous scoring areas to the outside, small ice in the NHL forces the play to go towards the net where goals are scored. Olympic sized ice with the best players in the world just means the play is forced to the perimeter. Look what Canada did in the olympics, they scored one goal and then played keep away with the puck for the rest of the game.

 

[NyQuil]

The reason this game was higher scoring is pretty simple, poor goaltenders and a couple of defenses full of youthful inexperience which leads to mistakes which leads to scoring chances which when paired with shaky goaltending means goals.

How many blatant turnovers leading to goals in this one?

You don't see that with world-class, experienced and prepared rosters.

 

[Gormo]

Yeah, and add puck-possesion and skill. But of course 1-0 is better for hockey than 6-4.

Not really, all that time and space is actually more advantageous for the defense if anything. Very accommodating for trap hockey.

What about inside the blue line? A larger ice surface means that the prime scoring areas take up less of the ice comparatively speaking, and become tougher to get at.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I don't think Canada really even trapped much at the Olympics.
Canada just had the puck the entire time.

:/


There's no need to set up a trap if the opposing team only has the puck for 5 mins a game.

 

[FDBluth]

Bigger ice might not lead to more scoring, but it makes for more interesting hockey. Rather than a war of attrition, which is what the NHL is these days, it's more like a chess match. There's a lot more interesting cycles, more east-west play, more passing plays, etc. It really rewards players and teams with good ice vision. The NHL is so fast now that it seems the entire game is just a big scramble and whoever scrambles slightly better or gets a few more bounces ends up winning.

Canada actually was a little bit snakebit in terms of goalscoring at the Olympics, despite their dominant play. If they had a bit more puck luck, they would have probably had goal totals more similar to what they've had here. But I also remember feeling that each of Canada's goals really felt earned, because it required a lot of buildup and momentum just to get a good look on net.

 

[NyQuil]

Bigger ice doesn't might not lead to more scoring, but it makes for more interesting hockey. Rather than a war of attrition, which is what the NHL is these days, it's more like a chess match. There's a lot more interesting cycles, more east-west play, more passing plays, etc. It really rewards players and teams with good ice vision. The NHL is so fast now that it seems the entire game is just a big scramble and whoever scrambles slightly better or gets a few more bounces ends up winning.

Canada actually was a little bit snakebit in terms of goalscoring at the Olympics, despite their dominant play. If they had a bit more puck luck, they would have probably had goal totals more similar to what they've had here. But I also remember feeling that each of Canada's goals really felt earned, because it required a lot of buildup and momentum just to get a good look on net.

I personally like bigger ice as well.

I just don't think it automatically leads to more scoring.

 

[Beau Knows]

Bigger ice doesn't might not lead to more scoring, but it makes for more interesting hockey. Rather than a war of attrition, which is what the NHL is these days, it's more like a chess match. There's a lot more interesting cycles, more east-west play, more passing plays, etc. It really rewards players and teams with good ice vision. The NHL is so fast now that it seems the entire game is just a big scramble and whoever scrambles slightly better or gets a few more bounces ends up winning.

Canada actually was a little bit snakebit in terms of goalscoring at the Olympics, despite their dominant play. If they had a bit more puck luck, they would have probably had goal totals more similar to what they've had here. But I also remember feeling that each of Canada's goals really felt earned, because it required a lot of buildup and momentum just to get a good look on net.

Every player on that team was so responsible in that tournament, they never took chances, they just kept playing their game thinking that they would eventually score and win the game if they did. I don't think I have ever seen a team buy-in as much as that team did, just an amazing defensive effort.

 

[xxxx]

Bigger ice might not lead to more scoring, but it makes for more interesting hockey. Rather than a war of attrition, which is what the NHL is these days, it's more like a chess match. There's a lot more interesting cycles, more east-west play, more passing plays, etc. It really rewards players and teams with good ice vision. The NHL is so fast now that it seems the entire game is just a big scramble and whoever scrambles slightly better or gets a few more bounces ends up winning.

Canada actually was a little bit snakebit in terms of goalscoring at the Olympics, despite their dominant play. If they had a bit more puck luck, they would have probably had goal totals more similar to what they've had here. But I also remember feeling that each of Canada's goals really felt earned, because it required a lot of buildup and momentum just to get a good look on net.

I definitely think it was much more interesting hockey in Vancouver (NHL ice), then in Sochi (larger ice). I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people who share that opinion.

 

[LiveeviL]

Large ice got virtues when it comes to safety. Any contemporary NHL team would destroy a team from the old days. The players are different animals today. Javelin for example had to change the balance of the javelins (being worse in this case) as people where able to throw it across the stadium.

Anyway a united standard would be good for the sport and if it happens the best thing would be hybrid or int. size.

 

[mobilus]

I'd love to see a hybrid size in the NHL, say 92' x 205' (expand the neutral zone with the extra length).