The quality of WC

Roamin

Registered User
Jul 31, 2009
1,413
0
There was a lot of sloppy play, but that had nothing to do with the quality of the players that played.

More so they just had no chemistry.

Watching Russia play was a pain sometimes, they just kept trying to throw the long bomb pass or make a cute back pass or deke through 2 defenders all the time.

with very little success. I can only recall the one shorthanded goal by Russia vs Canada where any of that actually worked.

And I was screaming for the guy just to dump it the whole time until he was on that breakaway.

So if you think the quality was poor due to personal, I disagee.
if you think it was poor due to coaching and lack of chemistry, I agree.
 

PeacEnforcer

Registered User
May 6, 2011
63
0
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.


This is an extremely lame and pathetic statement, which basically serves two purposes: 1) blow the importance of NHL participation in a competition to make it worthy out of all proportions 2)downplay failure of the swedish team to win the tourney .

You are wrong on both counts, young man, 'cause on the one hand,
it's not the names on the roster but the quality, consistence and impressiveness of performance that defines the level of a tournament and on the other, the Swedish team seemed to play a very high quality, team play-based, fast and smart hockey at the Euro Tour stage in Sweden - and it's up to your coaching staff to explain what happened to your national team over that short time period.

I'm really sick and tired of this crap that it's only when the so-called "best of the best" play in a competition that it's worth anything?! I say BS, no f.cking way ever! A substantial part of why hockey is played is for fans to HAVE FUN - it's one of the key purposes of any competition. And from this point of you, the recent WC was a gem - the quality, intensity, passion, skills, speed, mastery was all there to see. Team Russia performance aside, I rate this WC second best in quality over the past five years - right next to the one in Quebec, the final game being a more than fitting cherry on the top:handclap::handclap: :handclap:

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.

What?????????? I mean, from your point of u, the sole purpose of the SECOND most important competition in the hockey world is to "give prospects great experience" and to "get some swan songs from liked h as beens"????????????? I'm afraid u clearly have some kind of inferiority complex towards the NHL and u need to address it, cause it seems to cloud your vision and clarity of thinking and u don't seem able to see the obvious truth: athletes around the world, competing in differnt sports, do it not for money, but first and foremost, FOR GLORY, FAME,CHANCE TO GO DOWN IN HISTORY and BE REMEMBERED FOREVER. In hockey, world championships are one of the best and most obvious means of achieving that very goal which the best hockey players around the world are anxious to exploit year after year, until that goal is achieved. But even then they keep going at, because the title of world champion is a proud one, among other things, serving to show (at the personal level) that it's not in vain that u went into this sport and that u actually have made the right choices in your life as far as your occupation is concerned and that you do mean somthing professionally, and no less importantly (at a higher level), brings glory to your country and joy and pride to your countrymen.

However, if u seriously believe that hockey is worth watching only once every four years during the Olympics or during the Nhl season, well then I guess u are one of those many who treasure labels not substance and for whom a notebook is a good one only if it's an Apple, a TV screen - if it's a Sony, a handbag - if it's a Louis Vuitton, etc.
As far as I'm concerned it's very sad, 'cause such people can never enjoy life to the full, unless the "right label":laugh: is in place. I say it simply doesn't get more pathetic than that. Never :thumbd:
 

talenttracer

Registered User
Nov 7, 2007
233
10
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.

Wow a canadian swede :)
 

talenttracer

Registered User
Nov 7, 2007
233
10
:handclap:
This is an extremely lame and pathetic statement, which basically serves two purposes: 1) blow the importance of NHL participation in a competition to make it worthy out of all proportions 2)downplay failure of the swedish team to win the tourney .

You are wrong on both counts, young man, 'cause on the one hand,
it's not the names on the roster but the quality, consistence and impressiveness of performance that defines the level of a tournament and on the other, the Swedish team seemed to play a very high quality, team play-based, fast and smart hockey at the Euro Tour stage in Sweden - and it's up to your coaching staff to explain what happened to your national team over that short time period.

I'm really sick and tired of this crap that it's only when the so-called "best of the best" play in a competition that it's worth anything?! I say BS, no f.cking way ever! A substantial part of why hockey is played is for fans to HAVE FUN - it's one of the key purposes of any competition. And from this point of you, the recent WC was a gem - the quality, intensity, passion, skills, speed, mastery was all there to see. Team Russia performance aside, I rate this WC second best in quality over the past five years - right next to the one in Quebec, the final game being a more than fitting cherry on the top:handclap::handclap: :handclap:



What?????????? I mean, from your point of u, the sole purpose of the SECOND most important competition in the hockey world is to "give prospects great experience" and to "get some swan songs from liked h as beens"????????????? I'm afraid u clearly have some kind of inferiority complex towards the NHL and u need to address it, cause it seems to cloud your vision and clarity of thinking and u don't seem able to see the obvious truth: athletes around the world, competing in differnt sports, do it not for money, but first and foremost, FOR GLORY, FAME,CHANCE TO GO DOWN IN HISTORY and BE REMEMBERED FOREVER. In hockey, world championships are one of the best and most obvious means of achieving that very goal which the best hockey players around the world are anxious to exploit year after year, until that goal is achieved. But even then they keep going at, because the title of world champion is a proud one, among other things, serving to show (at the personal level) that it's not in vain that u went into this sport and that u actually have made the right choices in your life as far as your occupation is concerned and that you do mean somthing professionally, and no less importantly (at a higher level), brings glory to your country and joy and pride to your countrymen.

However, if u seriously believe that hockey is worth watching only once every four years during the Olympics or during the Nhl season, well then I guess u are one of those many who treasure labels not substance and for whom a notebook is a good one only if it's an Apple, a TV screen - if it's a Sony, a handbag - if it's a Louis Vuitton, etc.
As far as I'm concerned it's very sad, 'cause such people can never enjoy life to the full, unless the "right label":laugh: is in place. I say it simply doesn't get more pathetic than that. Never :thumbd:

:handclap:
 

Pellegrino

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
912
18
Sweden
This is an extremely lame and pathetic statement, which basically serves two purposes: 1) blow the importance of NHL participation in a competition to make it worthy out of all proportions 2)downplay failure of the swedish team to win the tourney .

You are wrong on both counts, young man, 'cause on the one hand,
it's not the names on the roster but the quality, consistence and impressiveness of performance that defines the level of a tournament and on the other, the Swedish team seemed to play a very high quality, team play-based, fast and smart hockey at the Euro Tour stage in Sweden - and it's up to your coaching staff to explain what happened to your national team over that short time period.
I'm very much aware that ice hockey is a team sport. This is also very often demonstrated on the highest level (the NHL).

1) Of course it's important to have NHL-players in WC. The best players play in the NHL and a tournament without the best players can't be categorized as top level. WC without the NHL-players is no better than Euro Hockey Tour.

2) As I said, I've equal sympathy for Sweden and Finland. But as I said, I think the best thing with WC is to give prospects experience and legends swan songs. Sweden gave plenty of prospects great experience so the tournament definitely fullfilled its purpose.

I'm really sick and tired of this crap that it's only when the so-called "best of the best" play in a competition that it's worth anything?! I say BS, no f.cking way ever! A substantial part of why hockey is played is for fans to HAVE FUN - it's one of the key purposes of any competition. And from this point of you, the recent WC was a gem - the quality, intensity, passion, skills, speed, mastery was all there to see. Team Russia performance aside, I rate this WC second best in quality over the past five years - right next to the one in Quebec, the final game being a more than fitting cherry on the top:handclap::handclap: :handclap:
I can't really comment on your statement that this is the second best WC in the past five years, but if it is, I'm even more afraid of the tournament's quality. However, I've seen swedish players such as Davidsson, Weinhandl and MÃ¥rtensson, who aren't NHL-class, play very good in some WC:s, so obviously the quality wasn't exactly top notch previously either.



What?????????? I mean, from your point of u, the sole purpose of the SECOND most important competition in the hockey world is to "give prospects great experience" and to "get some swan songs from liked h as beens"????????????? I'm afraid u clearly have some kind of inferiority complex towards the NHL and u need to address it, cause it seems to cloud your vision and clarity of thinking and u don't seem able to see the obvious truth: athletes around the world, competing in differnt sports, do it not for money, but first and foremost, FOR GLORY, FAME,CHANCE TO GO DOWN IN HISTORY and BE REMEMBERED FOREVER. In hockey, world championships are one of the best and most obvious means of achieving that very goal which the best hockey players around the world are anxious to exploit year after year, until that goal is achieved. But even then they keep going at, because the title of world champion is a proud one, among other things, serving to show (at the personal level) that it's not in vain that u went into this sport and that u actually have made the right choices in your life as far as your occupation is concerned and that you do mean somthing professionally, and no less importantly (at a higher level), brings glory to your country and joy and pride to your countrymen.

However, if u seriously believe that hockey is worth watching only once every four years during the Olympics or during the Nhl season, well then I guess u are one of those many who treasure labels not substance and for whom a notebook is a good one only if it's an Apple, a TV screen - if it's a Sony, a handbag - if it's a Louis Vuitton, etc.
As far as I'm concerned it's very sad, 'cause such people can never enjoy life to the full, unless the "right label":laugh: is in place. I say it simply doesn't get more pathetic than that. Never :thumbd:
Well, you're obviously very subjective when talking about glory, fame, write history and be remebered. That's a very european way of thinking about WC: do you seriously think the canadian or american winners get glory and fame, write histrory and get remembered in Canada & USA if they win WC?

I think WC is worth watching. It's nice to see the prospects (future greats) and the legendary has-beens. To see a guy like Jagr play, is like seeing an old relative - every time you see him/her, it might be the last time.

As for the tournaments, overall, I think the north american audience is alot more excited about WJC than WC, a view which I share, as WJC is very exciting for me as it's often the very first time I get the chance to see future stars from other countries.
 

Nakawick

Minty Fresh
Apr 5, 2010
11,291
2,796
The Range
Well, you're obviously very subjective when talking about glory, fame, write history and be remebered. That's a very european way of thinking about WC: do you seriously think the canadian or american winners get glory and fame, write histrory and get remembered in Canada & USA if they win WC?

I think WC is worth watching. It's nice to see the prospects (future greats) and the legendary has-beens. To see a guy like Jagr play, is like seeing an old relative - every time you see him/her, it might be the last time.

As for the tournaments, overall, I think the north american audience is alot more excited about WJC than WC, a view which I share, as WJC is very exciting for me as it's often the very first time I get the chance to see future stars from other countries.

This. Especially the part where the NA players will not be remembered even if they win. On the east coast (Atlantic time zone) the games started at 11:15am and 3:15pm. Everyone in North American is at work or school. The only real lasting memory of a victory at the World Championships I have is the pretty goal that Nash scored in 2007, which was more about the goal than the victory. That was likely the only game of the tournament I watched.

I attended 4 games in Halifax in 2008, the first time this championship was ever held in Canada (I remember the Latvians quite fondly, they where cheering loud even after they were losing 7-0 :)). For whatever reason in that tournament, the schedule makers had Canada playing in the afternoon games (hello, people have jobs and ****) they did not sell out one game in Halifax, the same city that set a new attendance record for the world juniors in 2003. This year I only saw Canada play twice, both on the weekend, once against France and once against Norway. I fully understand the opposite as well, games starting at 7:30 in NA when it is bed time in Europe.

That doesn't mean that the tournament is not good or important for the European fans, it is just not on the same level in NA. It isn't even the most talked about hockey tournament at the moment in NA. I know this topic has been beaten to death, but I really feel that no one has taken the time to know why other than calling names like sore losers and excuse makers. Come on man.

Regardless, full marks to Finland on a well deserved Championship. Beating the Russians twice who take this tournament very seriously has to feel good, as does a gold medal game victory over your rivals.
 

QnebO

Wheel, snipe, celly
Feb 11, 2010
9,763
644
World Championship games are at their best how they are now. I dont think best on best would work every year, olympics are good for it. Its fun to see new players raise and see what kind of material every country has when they cant get their absolutely best team. World Championships are all about teams changing every year, seeing different players raising there and teams leaded by few star players... Thats what makes it so interesting. I dont see best on best working every year, and I dont see that there was year when no international hockey was played.
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
I think that because Finland won, people are just trashing the quality because a traditional power house team like Canada or Russia didn't even make it to the finals.

If Canada or Russia had won, you wouldn't really see this type of thread...

Sad really.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
it's not the names on the roster but the quality, consistence and impressiveness of performance that defines the level of a tournament

Let Team Sweden 2011 play against the 2010 Olympic team or the 2006 Olympic team and see what happens.

u don't seem able to see the obvious truth: athletes around the world, competing in differnt sports, do it not for money, but first and foremost, FOR GLORY, FAME,CHANCE TO GO DOWN IN HISTORY and BE REMEMBERED FOREVER.

Obviously the line between idealism and naivity is very fine...

In hockey, world championships are one of the best and most obvious means of achieving that very goal which the best hockey players around the world are anxious to exploit year after year, until that goal is achieved. But even then they keep going at, because the title of world champion is a proud one, among other things, serving to show (at the personal level) that it's not in vain that u went into this sport and that u actually have made the right choices in your life as far as your occupation is concerned and that you do mean somthing professionally, and no less importantly (at a higher level), brings glory to your country and joy and pride to your countrymen.

Warm words. How many players (Europeans too!) declined to participate in the World Championship this year? Too many to count.
 

QnebO

Wheel, snipe, celly
Feb 11, 2010
9,763
644
I think that because Finland won, people are just trashing the quality because a traditional power house team like Canada or Russia didn't even make it to the finals.

If Canada or Russia had won, you wouldn't really see this type of thread...

Sad really.

Its kinda hilariouse to see thought. Swede starting this topic suprisingly :sarcasm:

Been talking to swedes recently and their bitternes makes this victory feel even better. They've been even whining about Mikko Koivu lifting the cup so high and dancing with it too much, they have been saying its classless :laugh: Lets just enjoy to see them whine nor cry and lets do not really care about it as we have learned from our north american fellows! They might think they can get the best joy away from us with that whining, but we have been having a great fun partying here and enjoying, and their whining has just added extra for it! :nod: After all, all kinds of bashing trashing and if they loose then whining can allways be expected from specially swedish hilarioise media, and bitternes is going to be shown by some people, you can count on it. Thats why they also are so fun to beat.
 
Last edited:

teme

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,137
0
Helsinki, Finland
Visit site
Look, I don't want to get into politics of this. But I watch both Stanley Cup play-offs and WCs, and IMHO you could take any NHL team, enter it into the competition, and they probably wouldn't win it.

And as for quality of players, it is relative to the game played. And international hockey is a different game. Some really big NHL names have done nothing particullary impressive in international play, Pronger for example comes to mind, and some average or marginal NHL players OTOH have shone in them.
 

Panopticon

Registered User
Apr 20, 2004
4,940
0
Helsinki
I believe its a requirement from Euro leagues and KHL.

It's not a requirement. Usually the Euro leagues are just filled with people who really want to play in the national team, but sometimes people do turn the national team down from Euro leagues as well. Reasons ranging from being tired or having nagging injuries to family reasons. Same reasons that the NHL players give, but just in smaller numbers. Probably mostly because the NHL season is much longer than most Euro seasons.
 

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,385
3,412
38° N 77° W
The WC has always been like this, the level of the NHL reinforcements is very down to luck i.e. who makes the playoffs, who is injured, who feels up to it, other externals like what is the host country, is it an Olympic year..

I mean hey it gave Corey Hirsch a chance to be a star for a few weeks.
 

NJDevilsZG

I'll drive team bus
Nov 3, 2010
1,247
0
Zagreb, Croatia
The WC has always been like this, the level of the NHL reinforcements is very down to luck i.e. who makes the playoffs, who is injured, who feels up to it, other externals like what is the host country, is it an Olympic year..

IMO it does not wash away a lot from fans. What matters to me is that players that do come, show that they wanted to be there. And they do. Elias fighting and barking at refs, Kovy getting angry at linemate cause they could not read each others play, Gaborik getting frustrated while playing against second tire NTs, and so on ... Then getting to see local goalie shutting down bona fide NHLer on a breakaway ... that is WHC to me as a fan ... and it is not low-quality to me.
 

Pellegrino

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
912
18
Sweden
That has nothing to do with the discussion though. It was about the quality. Many people in Sweden care a great deal about the swedish football league, despite the obvious poor quality. So fans and quality have no connection. Think of it as "off ice" and "on ice". Entirely different matters.

Yes, a few stars wanted to be there. Quality boost. Enough? I don't think so.
 

Kuhta

Registered User
Dec 8, 2006
1,237
347
Helsinki
That has nothing to do with the discussion though. It was about the quality. Many people in Sweden care a great deal about the swedish football league, despite the obvious poor quality. So fans and quality have no connection. Think of it as "off ice" and "on ice". Entirely different matters.

Yes, a few stars wanted to be there. Quality boost. Enough? I don't think so.

What the hell is your point? Who defines what is quality? Fans vote by their remote controls and money to buy tickets and they said YES big time again for the WHC.
 

Bakayoko Ono

Registered User
Aug 12, 2007
4,659
713
Helsinki
Most of the games I saw were extremely exciting and entertaining. Sure, the WHC isn't a best-against-best tournament like the Olympics are, but it's still quality hockey and great entertainment.

It's always a lot of fun to support the national team for few weeks after the end of Finnish SM-liiga/European hockey season.
 

Drake1588

UNATCO
Sponsor
Jul 2, 2002
30,083
2,432
Northern Virginia
I agree. It's always a lot of fun to support the national team at the end of the NHL sea-- er... wait. What?

I don't think the WCs are a bad tournament or a useless tournament. Fans clearly enjoy it in many countries, and that's the whole point. Yet it's undeniable that they are not a World Championships but rather a European Championships, put on by Europeans, for Europeans. The fact that the organizers can't be bothered to have it in North America very often, will not wait for the North American NHL, AHL, or CHL hockey seasons to even conclude, coupled with top North American players' refusal to attend, hammers the point home. It's a money-making event for the IIHF, an organization with which the North American hockey federations have always had a cool relationship. I know the feeling in both Canada and the US has always been that it's first and foremost a European tourney.

The quality of the rosters is certainly an issue.

Here is one idea. Every other year, schedule this event to begin after the Stanley Cup playoffs end. In the other years, schedule it in accordance with the European seasons. Increase the frequency with which the tournament is played in the US or Canada. Heavier NHL participation will be the result. Show the North American leagues a little respect, IIHF. It's a slap in the face to start this tournament in early May. Otherwise... yeah. It's a European tournament.
 
Last edited:

Random Oracle

Registered User
Aug 3, 2005
2,112
51
Do people seriously think the world championships should be played after the NHL season is over, in June? Am I the only who thinks this is just not realistic at all?
 

roto

Registered User
Oct 26, 2009
612
11
It may be a bit difficult for NA people to understand why IIHF tries to make money and why it's needed. Ice hockey is a marginal sport (at maximum) in 96% of the countries in the world. IIHF tries to promote the sport, arrange international competition on all levels and it supports national ice hockey organizations. It's extremely important in countries where babies don't born with skates on like in Canada. Maybe NA people just don't care whether ice hockey is played outside NA or not? NHL does not give a ***t about what happens outside NHL. It cares only about itself (basically owners' wallets). If it's so difficult/impossible for NHL to let players participate in olympics every four years for few weeks, it tells enough about attitude of NHL towards rest of the world.
 

Sanderson

Registered User
Sep 10, 2002
5,676
240
Hamburg, Germany
I agree. It's always a lot of fun to support the national team at the end of the NHL sea-- er... wait. What?

I don't think the WCs are a bad tournament or a useless tournament. Fans clearly enjoy it in many countries, and that's the whole point. Yet it's undeniable that they are not a World Championships but rather a European Championships, put on by Europeans, for Europeans. The fact that the organizers can't be bothered to have it in North America very often, will not wait for the North American NHL, AHL, or CHL hockey seasons to even conclude, coupled with top North American players' refusal to attend, hammers the point home. It's a money-making event for the IIHF, an organization with which the North American hockey federations have always had a cool relationship. I know the feeling in both Canada and the US has always been that it's first and foremost a European tourney.

The quality of the rosters is certainly an issue.

Here is one idea. Every other year, schedule this event to begin after the Stanley Cup playoffs end. In the other years, schedule it in accordance with the European seasons. Increase the frequency with which the tournament is played in the US or Canada. Heavier NHL participation will be the result. Show the North American leagues a little respect, IIHF. It's a slap in the face to start this tournament in early May. Otherwise... yeah. It's a European tournament.

Ah yes, the old 99% of the member-nations should cater to two just two members for no good reason at all...

Do you know why the tournament is so rarely in North America?
It's because neither the USA nor Canada are applying to host it. Why should two nations get every second tournament when the IIHF has 70 member-nations?
It takes a country an average of almost 10 years to get the tournament again, but somehow two nations are supposed to get it every second year, how does that make sense?

The IIHF is already gift-wrapping the WJC to North America all the time. You want to see the IIHF hold the WC more often in North America, tell your federations to apply for it. :shakehead

It's s slap to the face to start this tournament in May, really?
How about it's a slap in the face to make your seasons longer and longer until there is no place to hold the World Championship at a time that makes sense for all nations, see, I can do that to.

The World Championships aren't something that popped up five years ago, they are pretty much as old as the NHL. The IIHF has zero reason to throw away decades of history just because a handful of fans are whining and making unreasonable demands that don't even make sense.

Showing ignorance on all matters that involve the IIHF or its member-nations isn't exactly a good argument to change things.

Everyone knows why the NHL does what it does, maybe you should start and see why the IIHF does what it does, instead of telling the IIHF to accomodate North America with absolutely no return whatsoever.
 

Drake1588

UNATCO
Sponsor
Jul 2, 2002
30,083
2,432
Northern Virginia
It is indeed unfortunate that the schedules are not aligned. The result is that the tournament occurs either at a time when the NHL is still playing, or after the European season has come and a month or two has passed. Either way, there will be national teams that are adversely affected. As it is, the North American leagues that are all playing (NHL, AHL and all the CHL leagues) are all forced to divide their attention when the World Championships begin, because the most important point of their seasons are in full swing. Among the North American hockey community, only the US colleges have finished their seasons when the World Championships begin.

I am not suggesting that starting in June would be convenient for Europeans. I am suggesting that the schedule be inconvenient in even and odd years. Spread around the inconvenience, rather than making it problematic for one side every year, which is what the current system has done.

I get that the European sentiment is that the NHL thumbs its nose at the IIHF and the WCs, and I get that the WJCs are far too often held in Canada, and that if they make it to the US, they are invariably held within short distance of the Canadian border so as to enable Canadians to attend in droves. I get that Europeans perceive the World Championships as the one tournament that is still theirs, that still caters to their leagues and their fans.

That is the whole point, though. The result is that the North American hockey community essentially passes on what it sees as a European tourney. That is the unfortunate fallout of a decision to make the World Championships wholly about giving back to European fans. There is nothing wrong with giving back to the European hockey fan, mind you. It simply results in non-participation of the top North American players. The tournament's quality isn't bad, but it isn't where it could be either.
 

Random Oracle

Registered User
Aug 3, 2005
2,112
51
I am not suggesting that starting in June would be convenient for Europeans. I am suggesting that the schedule be inconvenient in even and odd years. Spread around the inconvenience, rather than making it problematic for one side every year, which is what the current system has done.

By spreading around the inconvenience, you mean making it inconvenient for everyone? Do you think NHL players would be happy to go the WC in June after the NHL season is finished? Many players would have played their last games about two months earlier while others would be out of gas after a long playoff run.
 

FinnswissX

Registered User
May 20, 2005
521
0
Do people seriously think the world championships should be played after the NHL season is over, in June? Am I the only who thinks this is just not realistic at all?

No you are not the only one. I also am the opinion that it doesn't work. You probably had even less NHL players than now because they were too tired to play a WC after a long NHL season.

Additionally almost nobody in Europe would watch hockey games when the outside temperatures are more than 30 degrees.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->