The quality of WC

[Pellegrino]

After watching the final game in WC, I just can't help to think that this was a tournament of poor quality. Yeah, well done by Finland, congratulations and all that, but let's face the facts; Finland won with a highly mediocre team, with plenty of players who aren't good enough for the NHL, and Sweden mainly used prospects and combined those with a few SEL/KHL veterans.

WC used to be a tournanent with NHL hall of famers in their prime, now it's really just a place where the established-not-good-enough-for-NHL and the prospects compete for medals nobody really cares about.

I still see a purpose with the tournament though, as it gives prospects great experience which help them to develop their game, and the hockey audience also get some swan songs from liked has-beens such as Jagr.

Click to read more...

 

[ZemgsG]

Are you serious? Jagr, Hossa, Ovetchkin, Nash, Kovalchuk, Koivu, Havlat, Zidlicky, Elias, Phaneuf, Skinner, Spezza, Visnovsky, Gaborik. Those were just few names that came to mind right now. Have u been living in a barrel? Those names should ring some bells. Last time we won (-95) there were no NHL players due lockout etc.

If you have to make excuses please make it better next time

 

[Jussi]

The best description for this tournament would be that the best coached team won. All other teams had either roster issues (goalie, defense etc.) or were poorly coached (Canada and Russia).

 

[Phenomenon]

WC used to be a tournanent with NHL hall of famers in their prime, now it's really just a place where the established-not-good-enough-for-NHL and the prospects compete for medals nobody really cares about.

I don´t agree. It has been similar every time. Some teams have got better reinforcements from NHL and some teams have been built on European players.

 

[adolfz]

Way to go downplaying Finland's achievement. Russia had everybody except for Malkin and Datsyuk, Slovakia had Gaborik, Hossa, Visnevsky, basically everybody but Chara, Czechs had Plekanec, Elias, Havlat, Jagr, Canada had a very good team that underachieved. Finland had a loads of classy players including their best player - Koivu. Maybe they don't have game's superstars right now, but they played great tactical game, a proper team effort. In my opinion it was one of the most stacked tournaments recently. Sweden came through significantly easier draw this time, beating Denmark in 1/4 is under question 98 times out of 100. Czechs were the most suitable opponents for Sweden, they can't really play physical game and Sweden outskated them. But you lost to Canada, Finland, and I'm pretty sure you would have lost to Russia. So Sweden's silver is down to easier draw imho. You were the 4-5 team in the tournament. Anyhow, Sweden has great hockey system with excellently developed and schooled young players which can make such an achievement.

 

[QnebO]

I think what you say is true only for those years, when Sweden won.

 

[Lugaid]

Look at Canada's and Russia's lineups. /thread

Maybe you could argue that the two best teams on paper weren't in the final, but did Russia or Canada really deserve to be in the final? The games say no.

Edit: And even if there's a shed of truth in it, a swede is not the right person to say it at this stage.

 

[hirawl]

The quality of WC?

Dunno, but this one's got Grani Granlund's airhook appreciation stamp on it.

 

[Keeptdos]

Such a bad loser

 

[Hockeynomad]

I someone has the time and desire, perhaps he/she can list the no-shows from each nation?

Interesting to see the list.

Probably the NHLrs don't heed the call the join, I believe its a requirement from Euro leagues and KHL.

 

[His Beardliness*]

The tournament was so good that all-star defenseman Brent Burns looked like a piece of ****. European hockey is quite superior.

 

[Stanleyjub]

Yay Finland has the best nationalteam atm

 

[Sanderson]

Ah yes, the good old days, like in 1998 when Sweden won gold with a grand total of eight NHL-players, Forsberg and Sundin being th only ones you would call stars at that stage.

And it's not like the rest was much better. Finland winning silver with a whoppin two NHL-players, while the Czechs got bronze with five. None of them among the elite at that point. Clearly the WC was full of future hall of famers


Some years you have excellent rosters, some years they are a bit weaker, that's only natural. The amount of NHL-players, especially of high caliber, is still much higher than it was in the past. Just take a look at what Canada is bringing to the WC and compare it to the end of the 90s / early 00s, the difference is like night and day.

 

[Hockeynomad]

Canada has such a depth of talent, doesn't really factor. But the goaltending pool was weak this year.

Canada could field almost 3 equal competing National teams.

 

[Reynys]

WC used to be a tournanent with NHL hall of famers in their prime, now it's really just a place where the established-not-good-enough-for-NHL and the prospects compete for medals nobody really cares about.

umm... what?

 

[Mara]

If I think that the world championship is for the Americans what the Euro hockey tour is for Finns, Swedes, Czech, Russians, then I can understand it a bit better. I guess it's a cultural thing.

 

[QnebO]

Thank you for this thread. Its spreading on internet. Finns feel good to see jealouse / bittersweet swedes somewhere, when they have been mainly pretty classy when losing.

 

[Pellegrino]

Thank you for this thread. Its spreading on internet. Finns feel good to see jealouse / bittersweet swedes somewhere, when they have been mainly pretty classy when losing.

You totally misunderstand it though. I'm living in Sweden, but I have equal sympathy for Sweden and Finland.

 

[Pellegrino]

The best description for this tournament would be that the best coached team won. All other teams had either roster issues (goalie, defense etc.) or were poorly coached (Canada and Russia).

That might be the case, as it can always be a major factor when you play one single game instead of best of 5/7.

Way to go downplaying Finland's achievement. Russia had everybody except for Malkin and Datsyuk, Slovakia had Gaborik, Hossa, Visnevsky, basically everybody but Chara, Czechs had Plekanec, Elias, Havlat, Jagr, Canada had a very good team that underachieved. Finland had a loads of classy players including their best player - Koivu. Maybe they don't have game's superstars right now, but they played great tactical game, a proper team effort. In my opinion it was one of the most stacked tournaments recently. Sweden came through significantly easier draw this time, beating Denmark in 1/4 is under question 98 times out of 100. Czechs were the most suitable opponents for Sweden, they can't really play physical game and Sweden outskated them. But you lost to Canada, Finland, and I'm pretty sure you would have lost to Russia. So Sweden's silver is down to easier draw imho. You were the 4-5 team in the tournament. Anyhow, Sweden has great hockey system with excellently developed and schooled young players which can make such an achievement.

That's a paradox. You're kinda proving my point. I totally agree that Sweden weren't really good. Sweden only had to beat one qualified team to reach the final and that was Czech republic with the swan-singing Jagr as the main man. If WC was a high quality tournament, then it wouldn't be possible to reach the final by just beating one qualified (which can also be questioned if they actually were) team.

Look at Canada's and Russia's lineups. /thread

Maybe you could argue that the two best teams on paper weren't in the final, but did Russia or Canada really deserve to be in the final? The games say no.

Edit: And even if there's a shed of truth in it, a swede is not the right person to say it at this stage.

Did Sweden deserve to be in the final?

 

[Mathradio]

Canada could use a better coach than Hitchcock... their roster was just fine.

 

[cheerupmurray]

The quality was pretty ok this year. Russia had a very good team on paper with plenty of stars, Canada had quite a few up and coming guys like Tavares and a star in Nash (with very few scrubs). Czechs and slovaks had great teams with a lot of stars. Sweden had Loui Eriksson and Patrik Berglund + some no-name NHL-players (we should have sent a better roster). Finland had Koivu and Ruutu which is their best players since Selänne retired from the national team (Finland had very few NHL-players though). USA sent a no-name team.

Overall the quality wasn't that bad for a WC, it better than last year for sure.

I hope for better swedish and finnish teams next year since we host the WC, plus it would be really fun if Canada and USA decided to take the tournament a bit more serious and send better teams (especially USA that had a awful roster this year).

I think your just nostalgic and think things used to be so much better, in 2007 Sweden sent a team with just one NHL-player. 11 of the top-50 scorers in NHL was here this year which is ok for a WC.

 

[jkrdevil]

I hope for better swedish and finnish teams next year since we host the WC, plus it would be really fun if Canada and USA decided to take the tournament a bit more serious and send better teams (especially USA that had a awful roster this year).

It isn't that Hockey Canada and USA Hockey don't take the tournament seriously, it is that they have trouble getting players to play becuase of the presitge of the tournament in North America. This is especially the case for the US. Trust me I don't think the US wanted to send a team filled with bottom-6 NHL guys, rookies, and college players. They can't get the top non-playoff team players to come because it has the perception here of being a 'losers tournament." US Hockey then says after the fact they like to give younger players a shot to prepare them for furture Olympics and World Cups, but that is to save face. Only a couple of those guys are ever going to get picked for a tournament of that level.

Canada does a bit better job because they have more depth in their pool and the tournament has a bit higher profile there. They sent a good team this year, just they lost to Russia in a playoff. Hardly a disaster. Really only the Russians can get their top players year after year and that is due to a cultural thing with them and the tournament.

I mentioned in the ranking thread I wonder how much money the IIHF is not getting by holding the tournament in May instead of September. You are basically having over half your potential audience ignore you by holding it in May during the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

 

[Everlasting]

Its not that hard to fix USAs rosterproblem. Just put up som demands. If you say no too the WC you are not allowed to play in the next Olympics or the national team at all. Unless you have a good excuse like a broken leg.

 

[adolfz]

That's a paradox. You're kinda proving my point. I totally agree that Sweden weren't really good. Sweden only had to beat one qualified team to reach the final and that was Czech republic with the swan-singing Jagr as the main man. If WC was a high quality tournament, then it wouldn't be possible to reach the final by just beating one qualified (which can also be questioned if they actually were) team.

If your point in fact was that Sweden has a great development system, than yes. If your point is that the tournament hadn't got quality teams, than no. The possibility of reaching finals by just playing one quality team was down to format and few unexpected flukes by Russia, not to the lack of quality of rosters. You should have played Russia or Finland already in 1/4, I strongly doubt you would have played final than. But it's only ifs and thans, you had a lucky draw this time and you didn't miss until the last game

 

[Sanderson]

It isn't that Hockey Canada and USA Hockey don't take the tournament seriously, it is that they have trouble getting players to play becuase of the presitge of the tournament in North America. This is especially the case for the US. Trust me I don't think the US wanted to send a team filled with bottom-6 NHL guys, rookies, and college players. They can't get the top non-playoff team players to come because it has the perception here of being a 'losers tournament." US Hockey then says after the fact they like to give younger players a shot to prepare them for furture Olympics and World Cups, but that is to save face. Only a couple of those guys are ever going to get picked for a tournament of that level.

I don't think that's really the case. Look at the lineups for 2008 or 2009, while those weren't exactly Olympic rosters either, they had a lot of NHL-stars and were much better than what they brought this year. If they thought of this tournament as being for losers, they wouldn't have played back then. Some players may not play because of that reason, but that doesn't explain the difference in roster-strength over the years.

Simply put, the US doesn't have the depth to replace players still in the playoffs, those who are injured and the selected few who reject to play for other reasons with players of equal skill. European nations have the advantage of having at least some highly skilled players in their home-leagues, something the US doesn't have, because the NHL already is their home-league.

Apart from that, Canada and USA are hurt a bit by not playing international games during the season. One week of training can't compare to having a whole set of players playing multiple tournaments throughout the year. Even if the big teams still replace many of those players with NHL-players later on, the ones who stay have played together and know what the coach expects from them.