Why has Russia so low hockey population ?

[Jussi]

This certainly helps bolster your case, but does this makes sense to you? I would imagine that high level players between the ages of 10 and 20 are only a small percentage of the total number of kids under 20 playing hockey in Russia. If this were the case then Russia would need a much larger hockey infrastructure (i.e. more arenas) to accomodate this many players. It just doesn't add up.
Do you think it is possible that something might be lost in the translation or context of what registered means? Doesn't it seem more likely that the RHF took this into account when reporting to the IIHF for the survey and that they actually did report the total number of U20 players?

You do know Zine is Russian? He speaks/writes fairly good English so translating shouldn't be an issue. As for players outside the first team, they train on outdoor rinks if no indoor rink time is available (explained by the Finn who played in Dynamo juniors)

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

You do know Zine is Russian? He speaks/writes fairly good English so translating shouldn't be an issue. As for players outside the first team, they train on outdoor rinks if no indoor rink time is available (explained by the Finn who played in Dynamo juniors)

This might be a little off topic, but I honestly always thought Zine was an American.

Zine, do you care to share? Are you originally from Russia or the USSR?

 

[Zine]

This might be a little off topic, but I honestly always thought Zine was an American.

Zine, do you care to share? Are you originally from Russia or the USSR?

Yeah, father is from Kiev, mother is Russian via N. Ireland (yeah go figure). Wife is American. Split the year living in Russia/US.

 

[Zine]

This certainly helps bolster your case, but does this makes sense to you? I would imagine that high level players between the ages of 10 and 20 are only a small percentage of the total number of kids under 20 playing hockey in Russia. If this were the case then Russia would need a much larger hockey infrastructure (i.e. more arenas) to accomodate this many players. It just doesn't add up.
Do you think it is possible that something might be lost in the translation or context of what registered means? Doesn't it seem more likely that the RHF took this into account when reporting to the IIHF for the survey and that they actually did report the total number of U20 players?

You do know Zine is Russian? He speaks/writes fairly good English so translating shouldn't be an issue. As for players outside the first team, they train on outdoor rinks if no indoor rink time is available (explained by the Finn who played in Dynamo juniors)

More precise info about registration is here,
Regulations for schools to participate in the championships here .


Chapter 2.1 (from link above) states that all registered players have the legal status of hockey school student, or professional hосkey player.

Other things of note,
* nobody under 10 is registered.
* To become registered and participate in FHR competitions, a contract with a youth school is required.

It appears it's up to the individual school to decide how many kids it serves or trains above and beyond their 'contracted students'. What that average number is, I don't know. Then there's Vorky's link saying 260 hockey schools exist but only 50 junior clubs. It's probable that these schools aren't even registering their kids considering they've no team.....could easily explain the disproportionate # of reported outdoor rinks. I don't know but that's potentially a lot of unregistered players; even if it's only the U10 kids.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

More precise info about registration is here,
Regulations for schools to participate in the championships here .


Chapter 2.1 (from link above) states that all registered players have the legal status of hockey school student, or professional hосkey player.

Other things of note,
* nobody under 10 is registered.
* To become registered and participate in FHR competitions, a contract with a youth school is required.

It appears it's up to the individual school to decide how many kids it serves or trains above and beyond their 'contracted students'. What that average number is, I don't know. Then there's Vorky's link saying 260 hockey schools exist but only 50 junior clubs. It's probable that these schools aren't even registering their kids considering they've no team.....could easily explain the disproportionate # of reported outdoor rinks. I don't know but that's potentially a lot of unregistered players; even if it's only the U10 kids.

So here's the thing, I think we can both see that there is no way the number Russia reported on the IIHF survey is only the top tier of their over 10 players at less than 1/5th of their hockey schools. Does it not make a lot more sense that Russia reported the number of under 20 kids who were registered at a hockey school? This is what I meant by misinterpreting what being "registered" is. There could certainly be a difference between being registered at a hockey school and registered with the RHF. It would have been pretty easy for the RHF to ask each school how many U20 kids they had in their programs and then report that number. I think we would all agree that the intent of the IIHF survey is to capture the number of kids U20 playing hockey in each country.

 

[Jussi]

So here's the thing, I think we can both see that there is no way the number Russia reported on the IIHF survey is only the top tier of their over 10 players at less than 1/5th of their hockey schools. Does it not make a lot more sense that Russia reported the number of under 20 kids who were registered at a hockey school? This is what I meant by misinterpreting what being "registered" is. There could certainly be a difference between being registered at a hockey school and registered with the RHF. It would have been pretty easy for the RHF to ask each school how many U20 kids they had in their programs and then report that number. I think we would all agree that the intent of the IIHF survey is to capture the number of kids U20 playing hockey in each country.

in case you didn't know, "things are done a little differently in Russia". Let's leave it at that.

 

[Yakushev72]

I'm not sure where this discussion is going, since the thread itself asks the "innocent" question "why has Russia so low hockey population?" The answer could fill volumes, but I think the question is based on the premise that with as much success as Russia has had over the years in international hockey, how could they have done it with so few rinks? In the Soviet years, hockey schools were formed to identify and train elite hockey players with consummate skills. The few available indoor rinks (about 50 in the Soviet era) were used to train elite players. Soviet success was as a result of those efforts.

Estimates are that today, about 25 to 30 new rinks are being built each year in Russia. The expansion of Russian junior hockey within the last 5 years requires at least that. Mr. Kanadensisk's buddy Mr. Writer said that in his hometown of 300,000, there are 5 or 6 indoor rinks. This suggests that the main purpose of building those rinks was to facilitate public recreation, which is certainly laudable, but which is entirely different than targeting the development of elite athletes. One rink for every 20,000 residents is overkill in terms of identifying and training those with potential to excel.

Money has to be the biggest factor for the smaller number of Russian rinks and the less broad based participation in hockey. Russia has been impoverished throughout the czarist centuries, and not much more prosperous during the Soviet years. With energy wealth boosting other parts of the economy, there is more money available and more demand to use it. Especially with the advent of the KHL, where kids can watch on TV or the Net and imagine that they could be a hockey star will no doubt fuel a great interest in and expansion of hockey.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

in case you didn't know, "things are done a little differently in Russia". Let's leave it at that.

I agree, but the evidence suggests this is probably what they have done.

 

[Zine]

So here's the thing, I think we can both see that there is no way the number Russia reported on the IIHF survey is only the top tier of their over 10 players at less than 1/5th of their hockey schools. Does it not make a lot more sense that Russia reported the number of under 20 kids who were registered at a hockey school? This is what I meant by misinterpreting what being "registered" is. There could certainly be a difference between being registered at a hockey school and registered with the RHF. It would have been pretty easy for the RHF to ask each school how many U20 kids they had in their programs and then report that number. I think we would all agree that the intent of the IIHF survey is to capture the number of kids U20 playing hockey in each country.

No, the definition of registered player is clearly defined in FHR regulations.

But the FHR is a joke in many ways, totally lacking in a unified development program. Traditionally the responsibility for development fell/falls solely on the regions. The FHR mostly only gets involved in competitions....so it makes sense the players the FHR deems registered are the ones participating those competitions. This conforms 100% to Vorky's link. Although this is starting to change (see KHL).

Saying that, more than just elite top kids are being registered. Most schools/clubs have secondary/subsidiary teams down the line in competitions.....but again, there's very little uniformity.
So the guy Jussi is quoting could be telling 100% truth depending on his experience with teams, club, etc, but his experience certainly isn't uniform across the board.

Imo, Russian players are being significantly underreported, but it's obviously not by 200-300%.

Cool link detailing youth competitions in English:
http://hockey.penza.net/menu.asp?razdel=3&language=e

 

[Jussi]

No, the definition of registered player is clearly defined in FHR regulations.

But the FHR is a joke in many ways, totally lacking in a unified development program. Traditionally the responsibility for development fell/falls solely on the regions. The FHR mostly only gets involved in competitions....so it makes sense the players the FHR deems registered are the ones participating those competitions. This conforms 100% to Vorky's link. Although this is starting to change (see KHL).

Saying that, more than just elite top kids are being registered. Most schools/clubs have secondary/subsidiary teams down the line in competitions.....but again, there's very little uniformity.
So the guy Jussi is quoting could be telling 100% truth depending on his experience with teams, club, etc, but his experience certainly isn't uniform across the board.

Imo, Russian players are being significantly underreported, but it's obviously not by 200-300%.

Cool link detailing youth competitions in English:
http://hockey.penza.net/menu.asp?razdel=3&language=e

Like I said, the guy was playing for Dynamo Moscow, one of the biggest clubs and in the biggest city, so obviously the numbers would be different in other cities and different clubs.

I'm actually disappointed that no Russian poster here seems to have personal experience from taking part in junior hockey in Russia. Or at least no one has bothered to share their experiences.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

No, the definition of registered player is clearly defined in FHR regulations.

But the FHR is a joke in many ways, totally lacking in a unified development program. Traditionally the responsibility for development fell/falls solely on the regions. The FHR mostly only gets involved in competitions....so it makes sense the players the FHR deems registered are the ones participating those competitions. This conforms 100% to Vorky's link. Although this is starting to change (see KHL).

Saying that, more than just elite top kids are being registered. Most schools/clubs have secondary/subsidiary teams down the line in competitions.....but again, there's very little uniformity.
So the guy Jussi is quoting could be telling 100% truth depending on his experience with teams, club, etc, but his experience certainly isn't uniform across the board.

Imo, Russian players are being significantly underreported, but it's obviously not by 200-300%.

Cool link detailing youth competitions in English:
http://hockey.penza.net/menu.asp?razdel=3&language=e

Okay, maybe I should avoid the term registered as much as possible. Can we agree that there would be a large difference between the number of kids who are registered with the RHF and the number of kids who are members of a hockey school? Maybe the numbers for Russia on the IIHF survey actually represent hockey school membership as opposed to those registered with the RHF??

 

[1Gold Standard]

I fail to see why this is even an issue. HC has its methodology as to how it wants to calculate registered players and the FHR has their methodology. The only important number from our perspective is the number of players playing the game at an elite level. From a developmental perspective in Canada that means 60 CHL teams x the average number of Canadians represented on each team approx. 17. plus the number of Canadians playing in Div.1 NCAA hockey in the U.S. which is around 500. Less than 1600 Canadians playing the game at an elite "developmental" level. HC's mandate is to govern and regulate the game for ALL Canadians wishing to participate in it...not for the 2% of those who will play the game at an elite level. I'm sure that other countries have close to the same number of "registered" players playing at an elite level. That's the number that we should be focused on...and not the fact that I'm a registered player because I play twice a week in a men's rec. league.

 

[Zine]

Okay, maybe I should avoid the term registered as much as possible. Can we agree that there would be a large difference between the number of kids who are registered with the RHF and the number of kids who are members of a hockey school? Maybe the numbers for Russia on the IIHF survey actually represent hockey school membership as opposed to those registered with the RHF??

Probably unlikely. The survey is one specifically of players registered to IIHF federations. I don't think any federation is (or could get away with) reporting non-members, especially in sizable amounts.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Probably unlikely. The survey is one specifically of players registered to IIHF federations. I don't think any federation is (or could get away with) reporting non-members, especially in sizable amounts.

I just think it is much more likely that the intent of the survey is to measure the number of kids U20 playing hockey and thus the IIHF would probably prefer the more accurate of the two numbers in that respect.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I'm actually disappointed that no Russian poster here seems to have personal experience from taking part in junior hockey in Russia. Or at least no one has bothered to share their experiences.

You have to appreciate that most "Russian" posters on these boards no longer live in Russia and may have not for some time. I'm curious with you too. Do you or have you ever lived outside of Finland? Are your parents from Finland?

 

[Jussi]

You have to appreciate that most "Russian" posters on these boards no longer live in Russia and may have not for some time. I'm curious with you too. Do you or have you ever lived outside of Finland? Are your parents from Finland?

No. No. Yes.

 

[Zine]

I just think it is much more likely that the intent of the survey is to measure the number of kids U20 playing hockey and thus the IIHF would probably prefer the more accurate of the two numbers in that respect.

If that was IIHF's intent then Finland would be reporting 105,000 players (see my example on page 1).


I think it's obvious by now, (as I've been saying all along), there is no uniform standard to registering a player. Seems like every North American kid in a summer league is officially registered. Russia takes the opposite approach. FIN/SWE appear to be somewhere in the middle. The Czechs? Who knows. Their IIHF numbers fluctuate like the wind.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

If that was IIHF's intent then Finland would be reporting 105,000 players (see my example on page 1).


I think it's obvious by now, (as I've been saying all along), there is no uniform standard to registering a player. Seems like every North American kid in a summer league is officially registered. Russia takes the opposite approach. FIN/SWE appear to be somewhere in the middle. The Czechs? Who knows. Their IIHF numbers fluctuate like the wind.

It'd really hard to say without knowing more about the Finnish survey. For all we know they may have asked; have you ever played hockey? I assume the IIHF survey is trying to capture the number of kids enrolled in some sort of organized program.

 

[Zine]

It'd really hard to say without knowing more about the Finnish survey. For all we know they may have asked; have you ever played hockey? I assume the IIHF survey is trying to capture the number of kids enrolled in some sort of organized program.

IIHF survey specifically states 'registered players'. If the IIHF survey was asking otherwise (non-registered), the FHR would have reported more than the laughable amount of 2,600 senior players.

I'm not sure what else there is to discuss.

 

[Jussi]

It'd really hard to say without knowing more about the Finnish survey. For all we know they may have asked; have you ever played hockey? I assume the IIHF survey is trying to capture the number of kids enrolled in some sort of organized program.

It's all in the link I've posted. The license categories are for juniors, recreational leagues, girls and "old timers".

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

IIHF survey specifically states 'registered players'. If the IIHF survey was asking otherwise (non-registered), the FHR would have reported more than the laughable amount of 2,600 senior players.

I'm not sure what else there is to discuss.

I don't think there is enough information there to make that claim. It could mean registered in a hockey school or with the RHF.

 

[Jussi]

I don't think there is enough information there to make that claim. It could mean registered in a hockey school or with the RHF.

Nothing speaks for that assumption.

 

[Zine]

I don't think there is enough information there to make that claim. It could mean registered in a hockey school or with the RHF.

Ummm....no.

FACTS: Before a proper analysis of a player survey can be done, it's essential to first understand how federations define and count their respective registered players.......it's something your simple 'U20 - indoor rink' analysis never did, although I see your still grasping at anything.

It's quite obvious Russia's IIHF numbers strongly coincide with the definition of 'registered player' noted in the FHR regulations. This also explains the disproportionate amount of outdoor rinks reported.


Horaay for common sense. As Jussi said earlier, case closed.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Ummm....no.

FACTS: Before a proper analysis of a player survey can be done, it's essential to first understand how federations define and count their respective registered players.......it's something your simple 'U20 - indoor rink' analysis never did, although I see your still grasping at anything.

It's quite obvious Russia's IIHF numbers strongly coincide with the definition of 'registered player' noted in the FHR regulations. This also explains the disproportionate amount of outdoor rinks reported.


Horaay for common sense. As Jussi said earlier, case closed.

Before a proper analysis of the survey can be completed you must first understand the intent of the survey. I know you would like to close the case but you're not there yet.

 

[Jussi]

Before a proper analysis of the survey can be completed you must first understand the intent of the survey. I know you would like to close the case but you're not there yet.

Yes it is. Take it up with the IIHF. All this survey is to them is "guys, someone contact the national federations again to send in their registered players figures for this year so we can show to Fasel like we're working. - I sent the email! - Ok, thanks!"

You're giving an impression of having gotten an overdose of D-vitamin with the "D" standing for "denial". Just let go before you embarrass yourself any further.