jekoh
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 4,416
- 4
WC: WC a bang to the cocky NHL
- Thread starter fredrikstad
- Start date
- Status
Hennessy
Ye Jacobites, by name
The Baltic states are part of Northern Europe. The only reason they are ever classified as Eastern is confusion based upon the Soviet occupation and a compulsion to put them in that category as a result. Doing away with North/South Europe altogether, the Baltics are considered Western European.
Nonsense, I am based in Western Europe and the media here officially calls all Baltic states, Poland and other ex Eastern bloc nations 'Eastern Europeans' and there is nothing wrong with it.
Latvia, Liettua, Viro are eastern european countries.. How you classify them as northern europe i dont understand..
jekoh
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 4,416
- 4
They're not any further east than Finland, while being further north than Denmark (at least Latvia and Estonia are).
Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Central Europe etc. are all very ill-defined.
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
It's a combination of population + participation that matters. The former is what puts Canada ahead of Sweden and Finland, while the latter prevents Russia and the US from dominating everyone.
Yes, and they are still eastern european countries?
A lot (vocal part?) of Estonians apparently want to be rather known as northern europeans ( When i come across msg boards topics about Viro )..
Last edited:
jekoh
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 4,416
- 4
You asked how they can be classified as Northern Europe. That's how.
There is no one official definition of what is or is not Northern or Eastern or Western Europe, nor are these regions mutually exclusive.
Philly85*
I Ain't Even Mad
- Mar 28, 2009
- 15,845
- 3
Well I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and several other countries are all factually, historically, geographically considered "central European" states i.e. "Central Europe".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe
And before you or anyone else says "big deal, it's a wikipedia link" and continue to call it "nonsense"... Well, that is just ignorant. There are 10's, 100's more links of information/confirmation as to what constitutes central European tagging, and the historical, geographical boundaries of Central Europe.
Anyone with a decent education will know and tell you this.
Then the Western media and society doesn't have a decent education.
Check the Bloomberg market news and you will see who they classify as Eastern Europe. Same with the BBC.
Hennessy
Ye Jacobites, by name
Holden Caulfield
Eternal Skeptic
Exactly. The thing is the participation, infrastructure etc can usually be increased (maybe not in Canada, it's pretty much as high as it can go) but population is a huge limiting factor, especially such a small country like Latvia. Latvia can get better, can maybe crack into the 2nd tier, but it will be tough as hell.
To give you an idea, if you combine Manitoba and Saskatchewan you have about the same population number as Latvia, but with a fully saturated hockey market. Here is a potential roster.
Marleau - Getzlaf - Eberle
Zajac - Toews - Sharp
Kunitz - Helm - Hartnell
Morrow - B. Schenn - Glencross
Stoll/Tootoo/Laich/Moen
Cowen - Keith
Hamonic - White
Falk - Schultz
L. Schenn/Sarich
Ward
Holtby
Reimer
IDK, that roster was better than I expected, but still think they would struggle alot against Sweden and Russia, maybe on the level with Finland/USA.
Last edited:
Don't underestimate the Americans. They had a very good team in Vancouver - Canada played against them twice on home ice and failed to beat them in the regulation both times. I wouldn't rate Sweden or Russia above the US (if we're talking about best-on-best)
Last edited by a moderator:
Novak Djokovic
#24 and counting... #GOAT
- Dec 10, 2006
- 23,106
- 1,357
That's because it's a one game elimination thing. Anything can happen. If this was a 7 game series, I bet you'd see different results... like it's in the NHL.
It's nice that you wouldn't, but everyone else who knows hockey would. What is this based on? Vancouver 2010 when they beat Swiss, Norway, and Canada in the prelims only to lose the gold medal game? That's what makes them better then Russia and Sweden? How about in 2006 when they lost to Russia, Sweden, Slovakia and tied Latvia? Or how about that the IIHF ranks the US in 7th place in the world?
The US made it to the finals of the '91CCup, won the '96 WCup and also the finals of the '02 and '06 OG. Like it or not they have proven themselves to be a step ahead of Sweden and quite a bit ahead of Russia at the elite level.
I have been to the Czech Republic. The person that I asked there about this said that they were European. I guess Central European is what she meant.
Back in WWI, the Central Powers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, (which included parts of about 12 modern day countries like Slovakia, Croatia and the Czech Republic) Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey).
Eastern European implies Iron Curtain Communism to many people. Since countries like Poland and Hungary are free, I am sure that they would prefer to be Central European, just like the Baltic states would prefer to be Northern European.
Some of the best NHL players were not at the WCs. I think the Olympics gives a better picture of relative strength of a countries hockey playing ability.
I couldn't care less about the IIHF ranking of the US, or any other country. Their opinions don't count for anything over here in North America. Their on ice officials are below the NHL and the AHL in ability. The ranking that counts is where you came in during the last international tournament, good or bad. The US lost in the last Olympic Finals to Canada. Joey Crabb won't be playing on the US Olympic team going to Sochi like he did in the WC. I expect that the US will be in the semi-finals.
Vlad,
the US has beaten Canada in the preliminary round and lost the final only in overtime. They played both games in Vancouver. Canada had a home ice advantage. Still, the US haven't lost to the hosts in the regulation.
Therefore I believe 5-3 and 2-3 (OT) at Canada + silver medals is much better than 3-7 at Canada in the quarterfinals. And certainly better than losing to Slovakia in the quarterfinals (Sweden).
the US has beaten Canada in the preliminary round and lost the final only in overtime. They played both games in Vancouver. Canada had a home ice advantage. Still, the US haven't lost to the hosts in the regulation.
Therefore I believe 5-3 and 2-3 (OT) at Canada + silver medals is much better than 3-7 at Canada in the quarterfinals. And certainly better than losing to Slovakia in the quarterfinals (Sweden).
They are Europeans (because their countries are situated in Europe) but are also called Eastern Europeans since geographically they are in the Eastern part of the European Union.
Currently I am living in London and I meet some Poles, Czechs, Latvians here. They call themselves Eastern Europeans.
Drawing conclusions from a single elimination format tournament is pretty useless.
Canada outplayed Slovakia quite handily in the game in which they were eliminated and had a few tough calls on them too (8mins PP for SVK, vs 3 for Canada).
Canada lost one game by a goal and they're out, it's not like they were humiliated. They could very well have won gold or at least gone to the finals with a bit of luck.
Canada outplayed Slovakia quite handily in the game in which they were eliminated and had a few tough calls on them too (8mins PP for SVK, vs 3 for Canada).
Canada lost one game by a goal and they're out, it's not like they were humiliated. They could very well have won gold or at least gone to the finals with a bit of luck.
Maybe you don't understand the US does not send it's best players to the WC therefor it is a bad example to use. 2006 was a transition year from the old aging players to the up comers, it wasn't a good team.
IIHF ranking means absolutely nothing. End of story.
jekoh
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 4,416
- 4
Surely you realize Latvia is also geographically in the Northern part of the European Union.
- Status
