What If, They Held The World Cup Every 4 Years

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

As a soccer fan major international competitions are held every 2 years ex 2018 World Cup, 2020 Euros, Copa America ETC ETC. After looking art this it had me wondering why hockey doesn't do an international tournament every 2 years as well. Obviously we had the pros in the Olympics every 4 years since 98, except for the previous one obviously. But I also wondered what if starting in 96 they adopted the every 2 year model and from 96 to 2016 we saw a World Cup every 4 years, my other question is, who would have won it. Obviously we know Canada took it in 2004 and 2016. But I wonder how 2000,2008, and 2012 would have turned out?

Click to read more...

 

[Big Phil]

I'd love a more regular World Cup. They have GOT to get rid of that silly format though. It just cast a dark shadow over the 2016 tournament. Yeah we won, and all, but it felt like an exhibition tournament. Compare that to 1996 or the Canada Cup years vs. the Russians and you saw a lot of hate.

Hmmm...........good questions though. Hard to say about 2000. Obviously you say Canada first, but this was a very tough time for Canadian hockey. There was a bit of an inferiority complex with us back then and it didn't change until 2002. A tournament in the fall of 2000 might have a roster similar to this:

Kariya-Sakic-Nolan
Shanahan-Yzerman-Fleury
BrindAmour-Allison-Recchi
Madden-Oates-Peca
Arnott

Pronger-MacInnis
Bourque-Stevens
Niedermayer-Blake
Desjardins

Roy
Brodeur
Joseph/Belfour

Honestly, I'm not kidding, that forward corps is weak. Maybe add Francis instead of Oates, I don't know, I was just thinking of a defensive centre who can score on the 4th line. Arnott as a sub because of the Cup win perhaps? Man that's weak. Lindros is still probably hurt at this time. Lemieux hasn't made his comeback yet and Iginla and co. aren't "there" yet. Great defense and goaltending though. I guess we'd win, but I wouldn't bet my house on it either.

2008 and 2012 we win for sure. Lots of talent by then. 2008 would have a similar team as 2010 and 2012 would too.

 

[JackSlater]

I think that 2000 and 2008 would be pretty much as wide open as international hockey really gets. 2000 would see good odds for any of Canada, Russia, Czechs or Sweden. From a Canadian perspective they were both transitional periods, and the talented period in between wasn't all that strong. I'm very confident that Canada would have by far the best team in 2012 but in hockey that doesn't always mean a win.

 

[Dingo]

There should be a real one every four years, its been 14 years already, time to start it up.

The period of international hockey from about 95-2008 sported really even lineups on paper, and the results matched. Canada’s junior team took over in the mid 2000s, and as that core aged, they have become dominant, as we were once the Russians faded in the later 80s. Anyone could have won those tourneys, really depends on injuries and goaltending, and puck luck in one game eliminations.

 

[bobholly39]

I'd love to see it. Any international tournament is always a ton of fun when it's best on best.

It'll never be like Soccer though. At almost any point in hockey history (and certainly today in 2018) you can assemble a roster of Team Canada vs Team World and still have Canada as favorites somehow. It's less like soccer and much more like Basketball (american dream team).

I still enjoy it a ton (i'm canadian) - and i'm sure other countries do too. But without more parity it won't ever really compare to soccer. There are also so much fewer teams involved.

 

[Orange Dragon]

2000 - This is imho the most interesting one. Obviously there is Canada, Sweden, and Czech republic tearing up international competition during those year. I don't know how I feel about Russian chances. Because in spring Russia hosted WHC with many NHL superstars on the roster and the tournament turned to a complete disaster for them, finished at 11th place and even lost to Belarus, Latvia and the Swiss. Maybe Russian team comes together after such humiliation and wins it all. Finland, Slovakia and USA would also had a good chance. My money would go on Czechs.

2008 - Anyone of Canada, Sweden, Russia, USA. Outside chance for Finland and Czechs. Slovaks still had some great NHLers but overall they began to decline a lot, they still gave a good fight against Canada in Vancouver though.

2012 - Probably Canada. International hockey got a bit boring lately, Canada is too good and Czechs and Slovaks fell of the cliff.

 

[tony d]

Be nice to see but only if it's a true World Cup. Feature the lower seeded teams, have 24 teams in it and run it every 4 yrs. Have qualification rounds as well.

 

[Pominville Knows]

I'd love to see it. Any international tournament is always a ton of fun when it's best on best.

It'll never be like Soccer though. At almost any point in hockey history (and certainly today in 2018) you can assemble a roster of Team Canada vs Team World and still have Canada as favorites somehow. It's less like soccer and much more like Basketball (american dream team).

I still enjoy it a ton (i'm canadian) - and i'm sure other countries do too. But without more parity it won't ever really compare to soccer. There are also so much fewer teams involved.

Yeah, but i find the lesser pool of nations tolerable becouse this means us smaller nations have a good shot at going far in it.
To top it off we also got the US competing good(But not dominant as in basketball), and throw in Russia as well. All we need now is China i guess and we have it all, even though i also covet Germany closing the gap to the top.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

2000 - This is imho the most interesting one. Obviously there is Canada, Sweden, and Czech republic tearing up international competition during those year. I don't know how I feel about Russian chances. Because in spring Russia hosted WHC with many NHL superstars on the roster and the tournament turned to a complete disaster for them, finished at 11th place and even lost to Belarus, Latvia and the Swiss. Maybe Russian team comes together after such humiliation and wins it all. Finland, Slovakia and USA would also had a good chance. My money would go on Czechs.

2008 - Anyone of Canada, Sweden, Russia, USA. Outside chance for Finland and Czechs. Slovaks still had some great NHLers but overall they began to decline a lot, they still gave a good fight against Canada in Vancouver though.

2012 - Probably Canada. International hockey got a bit boring lately, Canada is too good and Czechs and Slovaks fell of the cliff.

Agreed with 2000 being wide open. Imho the Czechs do probably win. However in 98 many players said they used the big ice to their advantage. On the smaller ice who knows but I still think they're the best.

I could see the Americans making noise as well. The only real problem with the US would have been in net. Remember Richter was hurt and Beezer and Hebert were older now. You had Brian Boucher who could have taken the job as he just took the Flyers on a run but who knows.

08 would have been the Canada vs Russia show. Canada was strong but at the same time Russia had a lot of players in their prime.

12 I think all Canada as well but a question to ponder is does Sweden convince Lidstrom to finish his career in this tournament and do they pair him with Karlsson.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Bump. I wish there was a way to figure this out. Using rosters from those years.

 

[JianYang]

They were doing it every 4 years for Canada cup/world cup/Olympics.

They had best on best every 4 years, it was just the name of the platform and the size of the stage that varied.

I just want best on best international tournament, no matter the size of the stage, and we lost that in the last Olympics. The world cup as it stands today is not a credible international tournament anymore though with those gimmicky teams added in.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

"Team Europe" or "Team Under Whatever the f***" and I'm out.

 

[Pominville Knows]

"Team Europe" or "Team Under Whatever the f***" and I'm out.

I'd still take that instead of nothing as it may stand right now.
But obviously we may very well get the Olympics back in 2022 and a World Cup before that seems not very likely.

 

[JackSlater]

They were doing it every 4 years for Canada cup/world cup/Olympics.

They had best on best every 4 years, it was just the name of the platform and the size of the stage that varied.

I just want best on best international tournament, no matter the size of the stage, and we lost that in the last Olympics. The world cup as it stands today is not a credible international tournament anymore though with those gimmicky teams added in.

The 2016 tournament was a complete joke because of the gimmick teams and because of the restrictions they placed on some of the teams that were ostensibly best on best national teams. It's too bad it's such a wasted opportunity.

 

[JianYang]

The 2016 tournament was a complete joke because of the gimmick teams and because of the restrictions they placed on some of the teams that were ostensibly best on best national teams. It's too bad it's such a wasted opportunity.

There was nothing wrong with the world cup before. I actually wish they kept it the same way as before, except have a final in Europe for once.

Sure, it won't make as much money, but if you want the tournament to grow globally, you can't just keep holding the final in Toronto or Montreal.

 

[JackSlater]

There was nothing wrong with the world cup before. I actually wish they kept it the same way as before, except have a final in Europe for once.

Sure, it won't make as much money, but if you want the tournament to grow globally, you can't just keep holding the final in Toronto or Montreal.

The 2004 tournament is much maligned but was fine. Ideally they hold it every four years, rotate the site from time to time even if it doesn't generate the most money in the short term, and only allow national teams without idiotic age restrictions applied to some teams but not others. The 2016 tournament will always be a farce.

 

[ForsbergForever]

What was the actual reason for there being no World Cup in 2000? The 1996 tournament was very successful, so why did they wait until 2004? I mean the marketing writes itself with it being the first best-on-best of the 21st century and plus Canada looking to bounce back after the disaster of the '98 Olympics.

 

[JianYang]

What was the actual reason for there being no World Cup in 2000? The 1996 tournament was very successful, so why did they wait until 2004? I mean the marketing writes itself with it being the first best-on-best of the 21st century and plus Canada looking to bounce back after the disaster of the '98 Olympics.

Once the league started participating in the Olympics, it replaced the world cup for me.

Even when they brought it back in 2004, it didn't feel the same as it did in 1996, because it was no longer the premier international event.

Now if the league doesn't go to the Olympics, and the world cup abandons the gimmick teams, I suspect that the tournament will regain alot of its luster.

We need a best on best every 4 years, no matter what the tournament is called.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Considering putting rosters together using whatifsports and simming 2000,2008, and 2012 using the 8 teams they had. Germany maybe the only difficult one to do, but with no hockey it might be fun who knows.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Currently doing a 2000 wcoh sim using whatifsports.

 

[GMR]

"Team Europe" or "Team Under Whatever the f***" and I'm out.

You didn't like "Team Slovakia and friends"?