Potential 2020 World Cup: a changing of the guard?
- Thread starter UpGoesRupp
- Start date
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,145
As long as they do the tournament right, it should be epic. None of this gimmick team garbage. Just 8 countries facing off with one another. Maybe 10. Have the final a best of 3.
Canada's team isn't going to be a whole lot different right now than in 2020. The difference being is that if a guy like Thomas Chabot keeps scoring he'd be hard to keep off of the defense. Especially a left shooting one. Guys like Getzlaf and Perry and Carter and such are long gone, if not already. We'll see what life is like for Benn by the time 2020 rolls around and even Stamkos. The honest "problem" with this team is that someone such as Giroux, Stamkos, Scheifele, Seguin or Toews won't make the team. Or maybe more than one of them. That's not a bad problem to have of course.
Canada's team isn't going to be a whole lot different right now than in 2020. The difference being is that if a guy like Thomas Chabot keeps scoring he'd be hard to keep off of the defense. Especially a left shooting one. Guys like Getzlaf and Perry and Carter and such are long gone, if not already. We'll see what life is like for Benn by the time 2020 rolls around and even Stamkos. The honest "problem" with this team is that someone such as Giroux, Stamkos, Scheifele, Seguin or Toews won't make the team. Or maybe more than one of them. That's not a bad problem to have of course.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,067
- 12,717
I don't know how much a potential 2020 World Cup impacts Olympic participation. The NHL seems to want to go to China in 2022. If (big if) Calgary gets the 2026 Olympics then that one has a good chance. Daly did say before the 2016 World Cup that a successful World Cup reduces the chances of NHL participation at the Olympics, but who knows really. It will likely come down to the next CBA as the owners have now made their intentions pretty clear.
I do think that a lot of teams will look quite different. Assuming that the idiotic gimmicks are out, you would see at least big changes in teams like USA and Finland, which would have their most offensively skilled teams ever. Canada and Russia would have a mix of the old guard and the new guys. Could be interesting provided the NHL doesn't go with an incredibly stupid format again.
I do think that a lot of teams will look quite different. Assuming that the idiotic gimmicks are out, you would see at least big changes in teams like USA and Finland, which would have their most offensively skilled teams ever. Canada and Russia would have a mix of the old guard and the new guys. Could be interesting provided the NHL doesn't go with an incredibly stupid format again.
JETZZZ
Registered User
Best case scenario is a real World Cup ( real nations) and Olympic hockey every 2nd February.
We most likely wont get either.
On the bright side, the All Star game and Winter Classic will be every year...just the best...
We most likely wont get either.
On the bright side, the All Star game and Winter Classic will be every year...just the best...
As long as the NHL sabotages the Olympics they are in the doghouse together with their Fake Cup.
Gold Standard
Registered User
- Sep 7, 2018
- 2,385
- 2,285
lose the gimmicks, commit to the Olympics and I'll tune in. fail to do 1 or both and I'll ignore this tournament. And find a different sucker to host it. put it in Arizona you are so committed to hockey in the sunbelt.
I read some months ago that Bettman were sceptical on NHL participation in the Olympics 2022. Hopefully the PA will save us this time. With the 2026 Olympics in Calgary, Stockholm or Milano, NHL:ers seem more likely to take part again.
Gary Bettman doesn't believe NHL players will go to 2022 Beijing Games
Otherwise I really hope for a World Cup in 2020. Best thing would be returning to the traditional Canada Cup format with a round-robin. 6 teams is enough and is obviously much better than 8 teams. 8 teams with a round-robin would probably be too much and increase the risk of having dead rubbers in the end.
Having Team Europe as a seventh team would be an option. I know all your whining, moaning and predictable criticism about the "gimmick teams" but it is clearly better than having a helpless Germany filling out a spot again. This is the World Cup and it is supposed to be for the best players facing each other. Minor teams have their chance at the Olympics.
Just think about how good this could be with more best-vs-best tournaments on a regular basis the next decade:
2020: World Cup
2022: Olympics in Beijing
2024: World Cup
2026: Olympics in Stockholm (hopefully)
2028: World Cup
Last edited:
IceHockeyDude
Registered User
World Cup every 4 years would be ideal. Then we could forget about worrying about the Olympics and will the NHL participate or not. 8-10 teams without the stupid gimmick-teams
Last edited by a moderator:
cg98
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2017
- 2,790
- 3,681
Again with the whole pro-gimmick team thing? Maybe you had a case to make when you brought it up in the other thread but at this point youre just being petty.
JETZZZ
Registered User
Is it though? A lot of people had a big problem with this. Imagine if the NHL's playoffs changed. Instead of the top 16 teams in the league (After-all, only a handful of them have a realistic chance of winning the cup), they should make it the top 6 teams in the league, and the final 2 playoff teams should be Team Eastern Conference and Team Western Conference. These 2 teams will be made of the best players from each conference who didn't make the playoffs on their own teams.
Right now, Germany is ranked 8th in the world in ice hockey and Switzerland is 7th. If they dont want them there, then just make it the top 6 teams I guess.
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
But it's not true that only a team in the top 6 has ever won the Stanley Cup; teams near the bottom (Kings in 2012 were 14th and won the Cup)
Teams in 7th/8th haven't even been in a final before
6 teams & a round robin where everyone plays everyone once would be the best..if losing whoever's in 7th and 8th place is the best way to make that happen I'm all for it. I certainly prefer it over 8 teams and two groups
JETZZZ
Registered User
That's true, but to be fair the Canada/World Cups have only ever let 8 nations compete twice in its 42 year history. At this point, I think its fair to say that the top 8 nations today are closer in talent than the top 6 ever were in the late 70s. And in such a short tournament where slipping up in 1 game can cost the title, who knows.
Belarus made it to the semi finals by beating Sweden in 2002, the Swiss also beat Canada in 2006. Slovakia made it to the semis in 2010, losing to Canada 3-2. Upsets can and have happened in best-on-best.
If its all about keeping that round robin, its still doable with 8 teams, each team playing 7 games. That adds 2 whole games. No big deal.
I may bring it up every time since it is right among all the critics.
No, you can't mix a team in the season. Team Europe raises the quality and may spread the interest in countries like Slovenia, Norway and Austria.
JETZZZ
Registered User
Why not? Team Eastern and Western Conference would raise the quality and may spread the interest in both conferences in the NHL.
If the people of Slovenia wants to watch Kopitar play for another team than team Slovenia, all they have to do is watch the Kings. They have 82 chances to do that every season.
Last edited:
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
And the Olympics in 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014 (so 0 for 7)
I think teams #7 and #8 are just as unlikely to win it all as they were 40 years ago & while the US/Finland are better than they were in the 70s Russia and the Czechs are not...so I see the same teams at the top (with some shuffling around) and the same gap between them and the next best
For me these are all good reasons not to involve these teams...the incredibly boring/defensive shell hockey such teams play isn't worth watching (on the big ice even talented teams play the boring/defensive hockey). If your team's tournament is a huge success based on a single game upset of a top team, or winning a "playoff game" (when all teams make the playoffs) then maybe you aren't the best fit for the World Cup? The Worlds (which occur every year) and Olympics will continue with the abundance of teams so teams aren't being excluded. It's worth noting that going back to 1976 38 of the last 39 Worlds were held in Europe (i.e. maybe it's OK if the World Cup are held in NA/NA focused)
In the 6 team 1984 Canada Cup West Germany replaced Finland in the tournament thanks to their 5th place finish in the 1983 Worlds) - I'd hope such thinking would continue, and if Belarus or the Swiss or Slovakia are among the top teams they'd be involved in the World Cup
And for me big ice hockey is so boring/unwatchable I'm totally OK if the NHL remains out of the Olympics; the 2014 Olympics wasn't worth watching...the hockey was supposed to mean more, but it was as uninteresting as the 2016 World Cup & I expect 2022 in China will be just as boring if the NHL's involved
I'd be OK with it myself, but I just don't see it happening; I think the best chance of a round robin where everyone plays everyone is with 6 teams....and if I'm going to add games, first it'll be having the semis (and final) as best 2 of 3
Of course YMMV applies
Last edited:
cg98
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2017
- 2,790
- 3,681
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,067
- 12,717
There is no way that's true. It's basically a comparison of West Germany in the 70s (or some other similarly hopeless country) and Switzerland today. Switzerland is obviously unlikely to win at the best on best level but it at least has several NHL level players and even a star, a far cry from an equivalently ranked team in 1978. That doesn't necessarily mean that such a team should be in the tournament, but it's a long way from forty years ago in terms of competitiveness.
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
My whole (starting) point was based on being in a final/winning so to me the fact that teams 7 and 8 have improved from where they were 40 years ago doesn't really change that
Do you think teams 7 and 8 are any more likely to win? I didn't say teams 7 and 8 were better back then (so referencing several NHL players/a star doesn't really change there chance of winning it all IMO) - it is true they're just as unlikely to win it all IMO (especially in a 6 team round robin with best 2/3 playoffs), maybe you think differently
You think Russia and the Czechs are better now then they were in 70s? I don't, but it's debatable I suppose
You think the US/Finland were better in the 70s? I don't (and suspect you don't either)
You have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm a big proponent of a round robin where everyone plays everyone...so with only 6 teams (or perhaps 7 or 8) it doesn't matter how "improved" lower tier teams are, they're not anymore competitive than they were decades ago in the sense they've never won it all (which was my point). If it was easy to add these extra teams and still have a round robin/playoffs as I've described I'd be 100% fine with adding them
You seem to agree that teams like Switzerland are unlikely to win in a best-on-best...that was my point.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,067
- 12,717
Yes, it is obvious that the seventh best team now for instance has a better chance to win an actual best on best tournament than would have been the case 40 years ago. The team, almost certainly Switzerland now, has a small chance... but a chance. The seventh best team in 1978 had essentially no chance. That you are a supporter of the format you describe is well established after repetitive posts and has nothing to do with what I said.
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
I said "I think teams #7 and #8 are just as unlikely to win it all as they were 40 years ago" - I don't see the relevant difference between "small chance" and "no chance"
To you the improved chance is unlikely but relevant, and to me it's unlikely and not relevant (and has never happened before...not even losing in a final). We disagree, that's OK
Have a nice night
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,067
- 12,717
Just as unlikely means that the chance is equal. Small chance and no chance are not equal. It's a pretty simple concept to understand. That the seventh or eighth best team today has the same chance to win as the same teams 40 years ago is not accurate. As already noted that does not necessitate the inclusion of those teams, or a larger or smaller number of teams.
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
Semantics. Yes I think there's likely a tiny percentage more chance that what has never ever happened before could happen, but it's not relevant to me, it doesn't ultimately change my opinion that it's "just as unlikely"
1 in 999,999 is better odds than 1 in 1,000,00 but such a mathematical difference isn't really relevant to me in regards to the word "unlikely" and is more semantics than anything (unless you're in a math/science class) - that's the idea, sorry if it's a hard concept for you to understand
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,067
- 12,717
I understand - it isn't "as unlikely". It's more likely now that such a team would win than was the case 40 years ago, which is fairly obvious to anyone who has followed international hockey. Words have meaning and you picked yours poorly. Again, it doesn't mean that such a team is necessary for the tournament though.
Last edited:
Switzerland winning the 2020 World Cup would be A LOT less surprising than USA's gold in Lake Placid.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Post-Game Talk: Gorton & Hughes End of Season Media Avail 9:30Am EST- Latest: Bobby Holik agent
-
