J.Jokinen wasn't selected into the team even though for every other coach he'd been an obvious choice. Jalonen wouldn't have selected Barkov into the team if e.g. Filppula would have been healthy at the time. That would have turned the question into Immonen/Kontiola or Barkov? Knowing Jalonen, he wouldn't have traded one his one own boys that have absorbed his doctrines for the past years for an unknown player that has no knowledge of his masterful tactics whatsoever. I think you have one 'em "force of circumstance"-cards coming up to to this one as well. And I'll tell you what... I guess I have to take your word for it.
Straw man argument. Ever heard the term? I don't have to play a single card with this line of reasoning because all you've done here is build your very own "what if" scenario and have proceeded to assault Jalonen based on that. Like I said, you're praising one man for what he did and mocking another for what he possibly would have done. That's as far from an even comparison as can be. I'm not calling it a mistaken assumption though, simply because there is not a way for anyone to know. Perhaps in an alternate reality where Jalonen signed an extension and was still coaching the team this past season people know the answer. But in this reality, this line of reasoning is nothing more than a personal fantasy you choose to believe in. It has no place in this debate.
So "whatever NHL player" falls under the category of "established NHL player"... err, okay. I don't think any player who fringes the NHL, passes as an established NHL player. If the "Grinders should have no business in top six when there are skill players available. If you're unable to comprehend that, this exchange is over 'til you go take that hockey 101 course." and "... Shafting them in favor of another pair of grinders with no shortage of them to begin with was a move that should not be passed over with a simple footnote."- logic pans out also vice versa, then who were the grinders on the 2010 OG team besides J.Ruutu? E.g. Korpikoski, Nokelainen and Philström would've been part of the team if the selection was truly made on the basis of roles and, especially, if it cannot be lopsided even an inch an one way or another? If Erkka got his roster selection was screwed up big time then there is no words to describe the team that JJ put together in 2010 OGs, which resulted in a quite a memorable meltdown in the semis. Well, J.Jokinen should have been selected and later on Jalonen admitted he'd made a mistake regarding his case. Although, one single player doesn't make an entire team. And both coaches were highly inconsistent in their selection process as they came. Even though Jalonen was supposedly known for player selection according to role but no evidence of that in 2010 OG.
The Vancouver team actually had more grinders than J.Ruutu. It had Peltonen, Kapanen, Miettinen... and to some extent, Hagman and Filppula. Because, you see, while those guys may not be known as grinders, their skillsets perfectly allow conversion into such roles, resulting in a properly roled hockey team.
Rather a simple concept, actually. Hockey 101 material certainly. You can take a more skilled player with the necessary toolset and use them in a role that requires less skill of them. Hypothetically, if one had nine players more skilled than Crosby, one could still take Crosby and put him in the 4th line and he'd probably do a job equal, if not better, than your run-of-the-mill grinder.
Jalonen was very lucky in 2010 to have the luxury where he could take a player like Ville Peltonen and put him in the 4th line and know he delivers. However, you naturally can't do it the other way around. Trying to take a bunch of grinders and turn them into top-six guys with a snap of one's fingers is pure lottery. I'm not saying it's not possible - some career grinders could actually flourish when given the chance, but it still involves a gamble one shouldn't take if there are more suitable players available. I wish someone would have told Erkka that last spring.
Haven't said his record was dazzling.
Way to downplay players own contributions to their success. Like Kontiola, Immonen and co. wouldn't amount to s**t in the NT if it weren't for Jalonen to scout and redeem them from the oblivion.
I wasn't downplaying anybody. Simply pointing out that in my defense of Jalonen, I could actually recite major tournament performers. Your defense of Erkka mainly consisted of guys who were merely EHT level back then. And yet you have the gall to imply that Jalonen didn't do a good job with what he had. He took plenty more stabs in the dark than Erkka ever did.
Not that I'm sated with Jalonen on that account. There's plenty more room for improvement in that sector, and I do hope that Jalonen vol.2 veers over there eventually. However, his current minimum level was without question set by J.Jalonen, not E.Westerlund.
JJ's team was on the verge of being left outside of the semis due to being continuously on the deficit during games and winning 'em in the shootouts. If JJ's strategy was that much of a superior than that of the opponents, I'd think that we would have seen a much bigger goal differentials and not won games just by a pubic hair. Furthermore, I much rather judge a coach on the basis what I see on the ice rather than looking at the box scores. At their best performances, the latter option resulted into a world championship in 2011 through close calls; whereas the 2006 OG team won the silver by proceeding to the finals through a series of shutouts. The '11 championship was greatly needed after so many years of drought. But the way it was achieved, I'd rather not see that style again. I regard that the Turin games were the most dominant display of Finnish hockey prowess what I've seen so far. The silvers from the best-on-best tournaments are more valuable than the 2011/95 championships. Though, if you ain't first, you're last, eh?
From a purely academic perspective, any best-on-best medal carries more weight than anything achieved on those yearly Skoda Cups. However, when debating who's the better coach one actually shouldn't just say "olympic silver > WHC gold" and be done with it. Because getting to that medal consists of two parts: Player selection and actual tournament performance. General public usually only tends to remember the latter part while the former bears as great, if not greater weight on the end result.
In a country like Finland where we can barely scrape together a full team made of career NHLers, building a squad for best-on-best is surprisingly trivial matter. I actually explained the general formula earlier. Heck, based on that, any one of the usual suspects populating this section of HFBoards could put together a Finnish team for Olympics/World Cup that had medal winning potential. We'd of course still have healthy debates whose team's got the best odds, but they'd all have some - that would never be in question. Not that any of us would fare plenty good when it came to coaching said team in the second part, but that's beyond the point. It's fully acceptable to berate even a pro coach for botching the player selection but praise him for his in-tournament performance. Other way around is also possible, but far more rare.
However, player selection for a WHC is far more grueling process because one can't use the simple best-on-best formula. It requires a far keener eye to put together a winning team that mostly consists of your 2nd tier material. Jalonen pulled it off, once. Erkka never did.
And as far as saying you don't want ever to see us win in the manner Jalonen did... you are aware hockey is a sport where they don't award style points, right?
It'd be nice if they did though, as then Finnish hockey already would have an olympic gold on its record. Perhaps even more than one. But, alas, up to this day when I visit Wikipedia, all it says is that the 2006 olympic champion is Sweden. Nowhere does it say that Finland is the moral champion.
I'll acknowledge a superior opponent when the playing field is even for both sides. Easily the worst refereeing I've seen without, without the blue 'n white-glasses, conducted on an international stage with missed game misconducts, and over fifteen minutes of non-calls and successful diving by the Russians "accepted" by the beer league refs does change an outcome of a game just "a tiny bit" more than a few goals. However, due to my lack of comprehension of hockey you so well point out, a hockey team should endure about an entire period worth of non-calls and fishing expeditions by the opponent before it really starts to show on the score board. But hey, end of the day, whatta **** do I know, right?
With or without better reffing, it wasn't a particularly good game of hockey from Team Finland. That is a fact, clearly visible even from the portions of game the refs did not take part in. Eliminating the bad reffing from the equation does not create a result that gives Finland a win - that is another "what if" scenario. It's worth noting that my estimate of Finland losing the game regardless is not a guarantee either. But unlike that other scenario, this one is based on actual probability, not another personal fantasy.
Well, you tell me, buddy... it never ceases to amaze me how people have an inclination to wind themselves up for a heated debate over essentially subjective issues instead of accepting that people might have different opinions of certain things no matter much it is against their own opinion. Anyhoo, I'm hopeful that we'll see an increase in the amount of young guys in the NT jersey during the upcoming KJ-era, especially players from the AHL (which has been considered basically as a first rate minor league by every single previous head coach) if there's anything to believe in what J.Lehtinen has said in the media. The quote that you are looking for is 'what is past, is prologue'.
There is nothing wrong with subjectivity in principle, since pure objectivity or state where we'd know all the facts with no room for interpretation are both unattainable concepts. Subjectivity does become an issue however when we start forgetting the facts that
are known and replace 'em with our personal opinion. The human race is highly prone of that so I don't really see plenty shame in that. Recalling this fact, one should not get carried away when opinions clash, but it
would be a shame to see those known facts swept away to pave a road leading to ignorance.
I don't suppose there is a way to ever make you fully take these things into account the way I do, but at least we can both take solace in the fact that despite disagreeing on the past, we seem to very much be in agreement over what should be done in the future.
