When Does the USA Surpass Canada as the #1 Hockey Country?

[sunb]

I never said that the USA was bad, they were definetly a good team that year, but the game was won on a lucky bounce, there is no argument there, that is a fact.

Has the talent level grown all that much, or has is this just happens to be a good batch? At the moment thats what it would appear to be, the US goes in spurts.

It seems to be an awfully powerful spurt. Albeit they're all youngsters right now, if this line-up develops at 50% of their envisioned rate, they'd be #2 in the world behind Canada in 10 years. The US' prospects have been getting better year after year. It was guys like Gomez and Mara 7-8 years ago. Guys like Dipietro and Martin 5-6 years ago. Guys like Brown and Parise 2-3 years ago. Guys lik Ryan, Suter, Johnson and Schremp recently. Guys like Kessel and Mueller next year. Guys like Eric Johnson after that. They are improving - make no mistake about it.

Dustin Brown - Phil Kessel - Bobby Ryan
Peter Mueller - Zach Parise - Robbie Schremp
Blake Wheeler - Ryan Kesler - Dan Fritsche
Patrick Eaves - Jack Skille - Drew Stafford

Ryan Suter - Jack Johnson
Brian Lee - Mark Stuart
Eric Johnson - Matt Niskanen

Alvaro Montoya
Cory Schneider

 

[Oilers Chick]

usa will never be better then canada because for the simple reason... they dont pay enough attention to hockey, there programs are garbage compared to the rest of the world, not just canada, need proof? a USA hockey commitee person went up to mike madano, asked who he was and if he ever played for the team.

that was said on the hot stove....

How much do you ACTUALLY know about the how the NCAA, NTDP, USHL and all of the other developmental leagues here in the US work? My guess is not very much, if at all based upon your what you used as so-called "proof".

 

[Frank the Tank]

It seems to be an awfully powerful spurt. Albeit they're all youngsters right now, if this line-up develops at 50% of their envisioned rate, they'd be #2 in the world behind Canada in 10 years. The US' prospects have been getting better year after year. It was guys like Gomez and Mara 7-8 years ago. Guys like Dipietro and Martin 5-6 years ago. Guys like Brown and Parise 2-3 years ago. Guys lik Ryan, Suter, Johnson and Schremp recently. Guys like Kessel and Mueller next year. Guys like Eric Johnson after that. They are improving - make no mistake about it.

Dustin Brown - Phil Kessel - Bobby Ryan
Peter Mueller - Zach Parise - Robbie Schremp
Blake Wheeler - Ryan Kesler - Dan Fritsche
Patrick Eaves - Jack Skille - Drew Stafford

Ryan Suter - Jack Johnson
Brian Lee - Mark Stuart
Eric Johnson - Matt Niskanen

Alvaro Montoya
Cory Schneider

Oh, I will not doubt that the US is improving. However, it is too soon to say if most of these guys will be at least average NHL players. In fact, after all the hype I heard about some of these players their NHL debut has been underwhelming at best (Parise, Fritsche). After Canada, I would be looking towards Russia for the future stars before the USA.

Kovalchuk
Datsyuk
Ovechkin
Frolov
Malkin

If one wants to look at trends, over its history USA Hockey has not been able to consistently develop enough star players to fill a team for every best on best tournament; only in bursts. I will reserve judgement for a few years to see if all these 'star' prospects are the start of a trend or the product of another spurt of talent caused by the US paying attention to hockey for a bit (i.e., 1996 World Cup win similar to the 1980 Miracle on Ice).

 

[TK79]

You're not from the US so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but do you seriously think one dollar measurement, on the CIA website no less, means much about standard of living? Too many factors are missing from a simple dollar figure.

The US is much more of a haves & have-nots country than Canada & Europe and you'd know that if you had more of a chance to visit.

GDP per capita might not be a perfect indicator for measuring the standard of living, but it's one of the best one's out there. I also found a couple of other lists on the net, and they were more or less the same. Although I am Finnish, I have also lived in the States for five years and traveled there extensively. I agree with you that the the U.S has an much more polar structure in the standard of living. But I wanted to validate my point (that the Nordic countries and Canada have a quite similair standard of living) and this indicator was the best one I could think of.

 

[Slitty]

Uhh, no.

Hockey is a middle-upper class sport. Not everyone can afford the 650+ dollars worth of equipment necessary to play.

Baskeball has shoes and shorts, Baseball has a ball and bat, Football has (in some cases) just the ball.

Hockey has the stick, the puck, the skates, the knee pads, the shorts, the socks, the knee guards, the elbow pads, the chest protector, the helmet, and skating rink costs.

Before you write off the discussion, why don't you actually contribute something to it? Otherwise, refrain from running your post count up

Very true
Thats why soccer (football) is the most popular game in the world by far, all one needs is a ball and it can be played absolutely anywhere with any number of people. Hockey, at the basic level, needs ICE, sticks, a puck, skates, a net of some sort, even more equipment if you want a proper goalie... and is much more limited in terms of where you can play it and how many people can play. It is definetly not only for people with a certain income, but for nations of a certain climate with a certain standard of living. No poor Brazilian stars, unimginably skilled, but from the ramshakle ghettos in hockey

 

[futurcorerock]

Very true
Thats why soccer (football) is the most popular game in the world by far, all one needs is a ball and it can be played absolutely anywhere with any number of people. Hockey, at the basic level, needs ICE, sticks, a puck, skates, a net of some sort, even more equipment if you want a proper goalie... and is much more limited in terms of where you can play it and how many people can play. It is definetly not only for people with a certain income, but for nations of a certain climate with a certain standard of living. No poor Brazilian stars, unimginably skilled, but from the ramshakle ghettos in hockey

Maybe that's why you don't see a lot of lower class urban African Americans in the game? Racism? no, the poor don't play hockey.

Talk to some people who run youth leagues... the stuff ain't cheap. Heck, even beer league can costs a pretty penny.

The point of the arguemtn ofcourse was that Canada has a much larger dragnet to have kids of all walks of life playing hockey from an early age. They've got youth hockey programs where a kid can get free equiptment and the proper training, and if they really have "something" move on (See: Anthony Stewart)

Right now, a lot of places where hockey is blossoming and seeing its largest recruitment rates are from middle to upper middle class populations.

 

[Slitty]

Oh, I will not doubt that the US is improving. However, it is too soon to say if most of these guys will be at least average NHL players. In fact, after all the hype I heard about some of these players their NHL debut has been underwhelming at best (Parise, Fritsche). After Canada, I would be looking towards Russia for the future stars before the USA.

Kovalchuk
Datsyuk
Ovechkin
Frolov
Malkin

If one wants to look at trends, over its history USA Hockey has not been able to consistently develop enough star players to fill a team for every best on best tournament; only in bursts. I will reserve judgement for a few years to see if all these 'star' prospects are the start of a trend or the product of another spurt of talent caused by the US paying attention to hockey for a bit (i.e., 1996 World Cup win similar to the 1980 Miracle on Ice).

Add Zherdev, Semin, Perezhogin, ect in there. Hell even Chistov is starting to look good in Russia. Point being, Russia always has forwards... this generation might even be better than the last great generation of Federov, Mogilny, Bure, Yashin, Kovalev, Zhamnov, ect.

Russia even seems to have young quality goalies in Bryzgalov, Barulin, and Koshechkin.

What Russia needs is to produce another Fetisov... the recent defencemen Russia has produced have only been good NHL defencemen, but nothing more: Volchenkov, Markov, Vishnevsky. The current Russian generation is worse than the last in terms of nopt having Zubov, Gonchar, Malahkov, Mironov, Yuskevich.... yet alone Fetisov. Yes: Tyutin, Babchuk, and Kulyash may prove some hope, but current Russian hockey is all flashy skilled forwards.

It is however on the rise. Last time a whole bunch of great players were produced was the end of the Soviet era/begining of Russia. After that we would have okay players being spouted out in the Zyuzins, Afinogenovs, Valeri Bures, Samsonovs, ect... good, but not great. Now, the hockey system seems to have recovered and is once again producing quality players. Most quality Russian players are either 30+ or very young, not many 24-29 year olds at the moment for Russia.

USA is on the rise as well, but too much of the athletic population is drawn into other sports: primarily baseball, basketball, and American football. Not to mention that USA produces swimmers, track stars, tennis players, and so on.

 

[Slitty]

Maybe that's why you don't see a lot of lower class urban African Americans in the game? Racism? no, the poor don't play hockey.

Talk to some people who run youth leagues... the stuff ain't cheap. Heck, even beer league can costs a pretty penny.

The point of the arguemtn ofcourse was that Canada has a much larger dragnet to have kids of all walks of life playing hockey from an early age. They've got youth hockey programs where a kid can get free equiptment and the proper training, and if they really have "something" move on (See: Anthony Stewart)

Right now, a lot of places where hockey is blossoming and seeing its largest recruitment rates are from middle to upper middle class populations.

I would say its half money and half accessibility. The number of ski jumpers in the world is quite limited simply because not alot of people can afford the huge skies and find a ski jump availble to them. Culture as well, if nobody in your family likes hockey or ever watches it because of tradition in playing baseball... chances are you are not gonna take up hockey.

 

[sunb]

Oh, I will not doubt that the US is improving. However, it is too soon to say if most of these guys will be at least average NHL players. In fact, after all the hype I heard about some of these players their NHL debut has been underwhelming at best (Parise, Fritsche). After Canada, I would be looking towards Russia for the future stars before the USA.

Kovalchuk
Datsyuk
Ovechkin
Frolov
Malkin

If one wants to look at trends, over its history USA Hockey has not been able to consistently develop enough star players to fill a team for every best on best tournament; only in bursts. I will reserve judgement for a few years to see if all these 'star' prospects are the start of a trend or the product of another spurt of talent caused by the US paying attention to hockey for a bit (i.e., 1996 World Cup win similar to the 1980 Miracle on Ice).

The United States has better goaltending and a MUCH better defense.

And guys like Datysuk is 28 years old and Frolov is 24. I was namely only naming US forwards who were about 21 and under. The US has guys like Gomez, Cole, Dipietro, Gionta, Arnason et al if we're talking about a few older guys.

In terms of forwards, the Russians win. But the US' defense absolutely kills Russia's back end. Gleason, Mara, Hale, Martin, Liles and Leopold are some excellent young defensemen who are already in the NHL. Bluechip prospects like Jack Johnson, Ryan Suter, Eric Johnson and Brian Lee are simply going to make a scary top 4 and those guys are all 19 or under.

Overall, in 10 years, the US will easily be considered the #2 hockey nation with their current young core. Finland, Czech Republic, Russia, Sweden and Slovakia all have phenomenal talents but none of those countries can put together a well-rounded squad like the US can.

------

In addition, Russia's economy is still on very weak legs and the foundation isn't strong. You won't see the government continuously establish more hockey facilities and ice rinks considering their current infrastruce is suspect. The nation itself is also experiencing negative population growth and if my memory is correct, I believe Russia's population decline is the fastest in the world. I think the gap between Russia and the US will only widen in the next two - three decades.

 

[someguy44]

Well, I think economics, population, popularity, developement programs, how much $$$ the nation's willing to pump into those programs, social values, climate, and such all played into what nation produces the most talent.

Right now, no doubt Canada is the #1 hockey nation doing that. If you put out 10 teams of the world's top hockey players from all the top hockey nations, Canada will be leading by a far mile. Sure the Checzh's team A might be able to defeat Canada's team A, but can the their team J defeat Canada's team J or their team I defeat Canada's team I? I think not. The fact is, there are so many factors to think of and unlike a lot of you are saying, population does matter (but only to a point). It's quite assanine to say that the Americans will never surpass Canada at producing more hockey talent. They're already developing more 1st round NHLers now than they were 20 years ago. If you guys think the interest in hockey in the US is low now, why not see how much lower it was 20 years ago. No nation can stand to be tops in any sport forever. I do agree that the Americans will one day surpass the Canadians in terms of producing hockey talent, but only if the popularity of hockey grows much more and the $$$ pump into hockey developement programs increases sufficiently. They already have the population advantage whereas Canada has the climate advantage. There are also many other factors that comes into play, but I'm too tired to type now.

 

[GPF]

when all coloured kids start to play street hockey, than change to the ice and love this game like basketball and football.

when the first latino born player from southern florida scores 145 points and all his hispanics buddys start to skate and sit infront of TV when he does play !!

maybe then ??

for me as european its a bit incomprehensible: why is this sport that focused by "white" kids??

 

[Legionnaire]

I'm not sure who you're responding to, but I think it was directed at me? A lot of people could be quited talented at a lot of things that they themselves wouldn't know unless they start doing it. Pavel Bure was a pretty good soccer player when he was young, but he chose hockey as his passion. If he chose soccer, we hockey fans might've never even heard of the name Pavel Bure.

Anyway, if China's hockey developement system (which they don't even have one) was anything like Canada/USA/Sweeden/Finland/Russia/Chezchs/Slovakia's, I can pretty much guarantee you that China would be producing more hockey talent than Canada. There are more hidden talent out of 1.3 billion than there are out of 30 million. Popularity leads to huge demands in certain sports, and with that demand, the nation will pump money into a developement system. That leads to more talented sports athletes.

No I wasn't.


If that's the case about China though, why don't they have better football teams?

 

[Legionnaire]

when all coloured kids start to play street hockey, than change to the ice and love this game like basketball and football.

when the first latino born player from southern florida scores 145 points and all his hispanics buddys start to skate and sit infront of TV when he does play !!

maybe then ??

for me as european its a bit incomprehensible: why is this sport that focused by "white" kids??

It's socio-economic mostly. What's cheaper skates, a stick, a helmet, or a basketball or football(soccerball)?

There's a reason why football is considered "the world's game" Everyone can play it for regardless of price.

 

[Roughneck]

The fact that hockey is the #1 sport in Canada is the biggest reason the U.S. will only ever catch up to Canada, but not surpass them. Based on top end talent, there are 7 teams capable of being the best in the world, on junior aged talent, there are few teams (I'd say 2, witht he U.S. becoming the third) that can legitimately ice contenders year in and year out, Canada and Russia being the top 2).

Being the primary sport in Canada, and by a very wide margin, means that Canadian families are willing to overcome the economic restrictions of playing the sport, it also allows Canadians the chance to play hockey at a much cheaper cost. This happens by an extensive variety of second hand equipment, the wider market, and I've worn equipment given to me by my neighbors when I was just starting out hockey, and I know other players on my team did too. I can't imagine there are too many kids like Anthony Stewart in the U.S. Why go through the hardships of trying to play hockey when there are considerably more popular and considerably cheaper alternatives to play. Not to mention the grassroots level in most of the areas where this would apply need alot of work. You would be extremely hard pressed to find a community in Canada where there isn't an easily accesably way to play hockey, at any level.

So in summary, the social aspects of hockey in Canada allow it to be far more popular than in the U.S. despite economic restrictions, which lead me to believe that the U.S. may catch up eventually, but that doesn't in anyway mean that Canada will regress from producing elite hockey talent at its current level. When half of the players in the world's best league are American and the U.S. has shown a period of consostent top level play at all tournaments like Canada has, then we'll talk about them being better.

As for the population issue, that is just a complete joke. There's a reason Australia kicks Canada's *** in the Summer Olympics despite having less people.

 

[Old Hickory]

The fact that hockey is the #1 sport in Canada is the biggest reason the U.S. will only ever catch up to Canada, but not surpass them. Based on top end talent, there are 7 teams capable of being the best in the world, on junior aged talent, there are few teams (I'd say 2, witht he U.S. becoming the third) that can legitimately ice contenders year in and year out, Canada and Russia being the top 2).

Being the primary sport in Canada, and by a very wide margin, means that Canadian families are willing to overcome the economic restrictions of playing the sport, it also allows Canadians the chance to play hockey at a much cheaper cost. This happens by an extensive variety of second hand equipment, the wider market, and I've worn equipment given to me by my neighbors when I was just starting out hockey, and I know other players on my team did too. I can't imagine there are too many kids like Anthony Stewart in the U.S. Why go through the hardships of trying to play hockey when there are considerably more popular and considerably cheaper alternatives to play. Not to mention the grassroots level in most of the areas where this would apply need alot of work. You would be extremely hard pressed to find a community in Canada where there isn't an easily accesably way to play hockey, at any level.

So in summary, the social aspects of hockey in Canada allow it to be far more popular than in the U.S. despite economic restrictions, which lead me to believe that the U.S. may catch up eventually, but that doesn't in anyway mean that Canada will regress from producing elite hockey talent at its current level. When half of the players in the world's best league are American and the U.S. has shown a period of consostent top level play at all tournaments like Canada has, then we'll talk about them being better.

As for the population issue, that is just a complete joke. There's a reason Australia kicks Canada's *** in the Summer Olympics despite having less people.

The population issue is every reason why it can easily happen. All that needs to happen is the % of American hockey players to grow.
California produces the most baseball players of any state by a long shot. Not only because of population, but because growing up and playing baseball in engrained into California lifestyle. (Most of these players come from Southern CA BTW. LA, OC and San Diego)

Let's say 2% of Americans play hockey as a kids. If hockey catches
on big in the States and say 15-20% catch on, you really don't think the number of quality American hockey players will rival or even surpass the number of quality Canadians?


These are populaton estimates from the CIA
US 295,734,134
Canada 32,805,041

The US has a little more than 9x the population that Canada does.


I would be very interested to see how Canada and Austrailia match up in the Winter Games. Before you make a claim like you last sentance you need the control involved as well.

I am pretty sure that Austrialia "kicks Canada's *** in the Summer Olympics" because they have more athlete's training in swimming, track and field etc. while Canada's Athletes are focus more on Winter Sports.

 

[Geese_Howard*]

How much do you ACTUALLY know about the how the NCAA, NTDP, USHL and all of the other developmental leagues here in the US work? My guess is not very much, if at all based upon your what you used as so-called "proof".

I know your program is garbage when compared to the rest of the world, so what your producing a couple of good players now, you guys are penciled in to win the WJ's, wow........

anyways, if the USA can keep this up for more then 1 or 2 years then they will be improving, but still wont be in canada's league

 

[GPF]

It's socio-economic mostly. What's cheaper skates, a stick, a helmet, or a basketball or football(soccerball)?

There's a reason why football is considered "the world's game" Everyone can play it for regardless of price.

HMMM okay .. but by accident I had a lecture in politics some years ago about american society and polit system. And - excuse me - but its a lie to say that there hasnt built a coloured intermediate layer and also upper-class and further (maybe a small but) an intellectual elite.

No reason that these parents kids dont play hockey?!? Or am I posting b|_|llshit and talk about things I have no idea and got you wrong at the end.

But if you connect it with money - there it is ..

 

[therealdeal]

It seems to be an awfully powerful spurt. Albeit they're all youngsters right now, if this line-up develops at 50% of their envisioned rate, they'd be #2 in the world behind Canada in 10 years. The US' prospects have been getting better year after year. It was guys like Gomez and Mara 7-8 years ago. Guys like Dipietro and Martin 5-6 years ago. Guys like Brown and Parise 2-3 years ago. Guys lik Ryan, Suter, Johnson and Schremp recently. Guys like Kessel and Mueller next year. Guys like Eric Johnson after that. They are improving - make no mistake about it.

Dustin Brown - Phil Kessel - Bobby Ryan
Peter Mueller - Zach Parise - Robbie Schremp
Blake Wheeler - Ryan Kesler - Dan Fritsche
Patrick Eaves - Jack Skille - Drew Stafford

Ryan Suter - Jack Johnson
Brian Lee - Mark Stuart
Eric Johnson - Matt Niskanen

Alvaro Montoya
Cory Schneider

I'll give you Gomez, but Mara is a good player, he's not a franchise player, and not even a #1 defenseman, so thats not really dominating Canada in any way. Martin is your typical American defenseman, a powerplay quaterback, nothing more. Dipietro I'll give you. Parise is 21 and by no stretch dominating, he will not be a franchise player, nor a superstar. He'll be good, no doubt about it, but certainly not a guy that will ever have a team built around him. Brown I know very, what is he, maybe a top 6 winger on his team?

Schremph is 20, and not playing in the NHL, Canada has 2 under 20 year olds in the NHL that made their club, and are either injured, or far, far to important to the club to be let go. Suter is good I agree, but I wouldn't say he's any better than a Seabrook or Phanuef.

For every guy you named, Canada has 2 or 3 of the same, or ever better, they're not producing any faster or better than Canada, they're still not producing as much or as good.

 

[therealdeal]

You're right, the US should have been good sports and done something to stop Canada from scoring on themselves.

Are you trying to argue the fact that the US won on a flukey goal, or what was the point of this post? I don't get it.

It takes more than just a few years of "good" prospects to make a dominating country, it takes year, after year, after year, which Canada still does more consistently than any other country, the US not even being the closest.

 

[DownFromNJ]

I think that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of US hockey. We are on the verge of a massive influx of talent from the United States into the NHL. I'm not talking about in 2-3 years or even in 6-7 years. But 10-12 years from now, the change is going to come very suddenly and very dramatically.


It's been roughly twenty years since hockey came to New Jersey. NHL and NCAA D1 players are starting to come out of New Jersey. See Bobby Ryan. It's not a boatload of NHL talent, but we're starting to see a lot of high-powered NCAA talent from our state. It's only a matter of time before the base takes the jump to the next level, as Bobby Ryan did this year.


California alone has a population over 40% larger than Canada. California also has a lot more money than Canada. I'm not saying that hockey is popular enough in the state to equal Canada...but hockey became popular in the state about ten years ago. Ten, fifteen years from now? That will change.

The US is seeing it with soccer. The vast amount of resources and athletes that the country commands wins out in the long run over a cultural history of the sport. The US women's team is the best in the world. The US men's team is starting to make a splash.

 

[FreeBird]

2 words: NEVER or IMPOSSIBLE!!!


Die HARD CANADIAN!!!!!!!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Are you trying to argue the fact that the US won on a flukey goal, or what was the point of this post? I don't get it.

It takes more than just a few years of "good" prospects to make a dominating country, it takes year, after year, after year, which Canada still does more consistently than any other country, the US not even being the closest.

I think the last half-dozen NHL drafts prove you wrong. The U.S. consistently places the 2nd highest numbers of players in the draft overall and in the 1st round in particular. This year could feature ten Americans picked in the 1st round alone. What other country matches that?

 

[Rabid Ranger]

As for the original question in this thread, I don't think we'll see the U.S. match or surpass Canada anytime soon, but I can see a situation arise where the U.S. consistently churns out 8 or so 1st round draft picks and places in the top three in most if not all international competitions. The U.S. has both the second highest number of rinks and the 2nd highest number of registered hockey players in the world, and that number continues to rise. What's key is not only the fact that hockey continues to be a big sport in Minnesota, Michigan, New York, and New England, but is becoming a big sport in California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Illinois, and other non-traditional markets. That's what's going to key growth. What the U.S. desperately needs is a superstar player on the level of a Sidney Crosby. Who knows when that will happen?

 

[futurcorerock]

I know your program is garbage when compared to the rest of the world, so what your producing a couple of good players now, you guys are penciled in to win the WJ's, wow........

anyways, if the USA can keep this up for more then 1 or 2 years then they will be improving, but still wont be in canada's league

Where's your proof?

Quit being a homer.

 

[therealdeal]

I think the last half-dozen NHL drafts prove you wrong. The U.S. consistently places the 2nd highest numbers of players in the draft overall and in the 1st round in particular. This year could feature ten Americans picked in the 1st round alone. What other country matches that?

Well, Russia had arguably its 2 greatests prospects of all time go 1 and 2 overall, and they could be better than any of the Canadian prospects. And the Americans will probably have 1 first overall pick this year.

You see the difference?

And if its such a vast improvement, where are all these American superstars, I haven't seen or heard about them yet. I don't see any of them doing much of anything, I would agree that the last 2 or 3 draft years might still be too young, but 6 years? Where are these prospects now?