WJC Relegation Round talk

[Jazz]

Norway vs Slovakia

I was at the game. This game was a lot closer than that Slovaks wanted it...

Here are some pictures, including a video clip of a penalty shot goal.

Current standings

• Switzerland - Norway (Tue Dec 27th) 2 - 0
• Slovakia - Latvia (Tue Dec 27th) 7 - 4
• Switzerland - Latvia (Mon Jan 2nd) 5 - 2
• Slovakia - Norway (Tue Jan 3rd) 4 - 3
• Latvia - Norway (Wed Jan 4th)
• Switzerland - Slovakia (Wed Jan 4th)

Rank Team...... GP W T L GF:GA GDF PTS
1 Switzerland......2 2 0 0 07:02 (+05) 4
2 Slovakia..........2 2 0 0 11:07 (+04) 4
3 Norway...........2 0 0 2 03:06 (-03) 0
4 Latvia............ 2 0 0 2 06:12 (-06) 0

 

[God Bless Canada]

IMO, the WJC, and other tournaments, should be reserved for the best hockey countries in the world. Two more teams would just result in more blowouts. A top-level tournament like this should be reserved for the best. Adding more teams would not make this a better or a more competitive tournament. It would just give two more countries a chance to get trounced by the top teams.

Germany and Switzerland should be in this tournament every year. I agree with that. They have shown that they can be consistently competitive against the top teams, and in the case of the Swiss, are capable of pulling off an occasional upset. (Switzerland has more medals in the last 10 years than Sweden). But until Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Slovenia, Norway, France, Austria and Italy show that they can consistently produce competitive teams, their appearances should be limited to cameoes. Once they are consistently competitive, I'd have no problem with having 12 teams, and continuing to expand the tournament as more teams become competitive. (It might seem daunting, but look at the steps the Swiss junior program has taken in the past decade).

Pool winners need to have the bye to the semi-finals. It makes winning the pool mean something. Take away that bye, and winning the pool becomes irrelevant. All you have to show for it is last change.

The problem with the current relegation system is two-fold. First, since 2003 in Halifax, they have relegated two teams. It should only be one.

Also, they have to have a tournament to determine the final entry (or now final two entries). Witness the 2001-02 WJC. France qualified the year before to draw into the tournament. That team was almost entirely 19-year-olds. The following year, when France moved up into the WJC, they had one returning player from the team that qualified. They were trounced every game, and had no business being in the tournament.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

IMO, the WJC, and other tournaments, should be reserved for the best hockey countries in the world. Two more teams would just result in more blowouts. A top-level tournament like this should be reserved for the best. Adding more teams would not make this a better or a more competitive tournament. It would just give two more countries a chance to get trounced by the top teams.

Germany and Switzerland should be in this tournament every year. I agree with that. They have shown that they can be consistently competitive against the top teams, and in the case of the Swiss, are capable of pulling off an occasional upset. (Switzerland has more medals in the last 10 years than Sweden). But until Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Slovenia, Norway, France, Austria and Italy show that they can consistently produce competitive teams, their appearances should be limited to cameoes. Once they are consistently competitive, I'd have no problem with having 12 teams, and continuing to expand the tournament as more teams become competitive. (It might seem daunting, but look at the steps the Swiss junior program has taken in the past decade).

Pool winners need to have the bye to the semi-finals. It makes winning the pool mean something. Take away that bye, and winning the pool becomes irrelevant. All you have to show for it is last change.

The problem with the current relegation system is two-fold. First, since 2003 in Halifax, they have relegated two teams. It should only be one.

Also, they have to have a tournament to determine the final entry (or now final two entries). Witness the 2001-02 WJC. France qualified the year before to draw into the tournament. That team was almost entirely 19-year-olds. The following year, when France moved up into the WJC, they had one returning player from the team that qualified. They were trounced every game, and had no business being in the tournament.

I was perfectly happy with 10 teams when one was relegated. I do not like the bye, do not like byes in any sport. Too big an advantage taking away some of the spectacle of what should be great semi's. Watching teams drag their asses is not really entertaining. So go back to 8 making playoffs or add 12 and hope the level comes up. The WC's have some lopsided scores but other times the underdog plays well.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Increase the tournament to 12 and hope the level comes up? It won't happen. The 11 and 12 teams will get blown out year after year. You thought U.S./Norway was a joke? Think about what'll happen with two more teams. You'll see at least three or four 15-goal spreads a year.

Go back to the one-team relegation system in a 10-team tournament. And have the relegated team play the new team before the tournament, using players that will be used in the tournament. If they're going to keep it at two, have the two relegated teams play the new teams for the chance to have the final two spots. Switzerland and Germany have shown they belong at this level. They deserve to be in the tournament every year. No way should the Germans be relegated. Latvia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Austria have shown signs of starting to build decent programs. Once they reach the legitimately competitive level on an annual basis (likely within the next 10 years), then expand the tournament. I'd love to see a 14 or even a 16-team tournament. But only once these nations prove that they belong.

 

[optimus2861]

I do not like the bye, do not like byes in any sport. Too big an advantage taking away some of the spectacle of what should be great semi's. Watching teams drag their asses is not really entertaining.

Is that a function of the bye, or a function of playing the QF and SF on back-to-back days?

I don't see why the tournament can't be extended by one day and give the QF winners a day to recuperate before playing in the SF. The pool winners already get the advantage of the bye; they shouldn't also get the advantage of a tired opponent.

 

[Sakaarnis]

How teams like Latvia, Belarus, Austria, Denmark, Norway can show that they are ready to play with big guns if they dont have a chance to (as suggested by many player that only the big 7 or to some extent 8 compete in elite). I wuld like to see atleast 12 teams in WJC and if for expamlpe any of those developing teams gets a blow out, fine by me, atleats they tryd and know where they are, what to do, where to progress, and where exactrly they are in the hockey world at the moment. The torney of 8 teams seems like an egoistic step...

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Increase the tournament to 12 and hope the level comes up? It won't happen. The 11 and 12 teams will get blown out year after year. You thought U.S./Norway was a joke? Think about what'll happen with two more teams. You'll see at least three or four 15-goal spreads a year.

Go back to the one-team relegation system in a 10-team tournament. And have the relegated team play the new team before the tournament, using players that will be used in the tournament. If they're going to keep it at two, have the two relegated teams play the new teams for the chance to have the final two spots. Switzerland and Germany have shown they belong at this level. They deserve to be in the tournament every year. No way should the Germans be relegated. Latvia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Austria have shown signs of starting to build decent programs. Once they reach the legitimately competitive level on an annual basis (likely within the next 10 years), then expand the tournament. I'd love to see a 14 or even a 16-team tournament. But only once these nations prove that they belong.

If Germany and Belarus are your 9th and 10th they are a very solid duo. Then your 11th and 12th( shuttle teams) are what you see, Norway, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Denmark, Poland,Ukraine, France, Italy and Slovenia. Not a ridiculously poor group to grab your back end teams out of if two are going up and down each year. Denmark and Slovenia have shown consistent improvement at the junior level. Germany and Belarus bouncing back up every year indicates to me that they belong in the top group on a permanent basis( or as long as they maintain a good level.)

 

[God Bless Canada]

How teams like Latvia, Belarus, Austria, Denmark, Norway can show that they are ready to play with big guns if they dont have a chance to (as suggested by many player that only the big 7 or to some extent 8 compete in elite). I wuld like to see atleast 12 teams in WJC and if for expamlpe any of those developing teams gets a blow out, fine by me, atleats they tryd and know where they are, what to do, where to progress, and where exactrly they are in the hockey world at the moment. The torney of 8 teams seems like an egoistic step...

Look at Switzerland. They spent several years developing their junior program. Granted, they got in when the tournament expanded to 10 teams in 1995, but by that point, they had a team that was going to be consistently competitive. They took Canada to the limit that year (outplaying Canada in a 2-1 loss that was Marc Denis' coming out party). Two years later, they won a bronze. How many times have the Swiss been blown out, or even in a situation where they're vastly outplayed? While not a perennial medal threat, when you play the Swiss, you know you're in for a good, competitive game.

Belarus has won one game at the tournament, an upset special over the U.S. I think within the next five years, they will be to the point where they can ice a perennially competitive team. At that point, I'd be more than happy to add two more teams.

The tournament has outgrown an eight-team setup. It is now to the point that we can have a good, 10-team tournament. There are seven really, really good countries, and when Germany's in there, there are two competitive teams capable of an upset. To me, the most important thing is maintaining the competitive integrity of the tournament, not admitting two more weak opponents so they can realize how far away they are from being competitive, let alone a medal contender.

I think we need to look at the relegation system, which would allow Germany to stay in the tournament consistently, instead of adding two more fodder teams.

 

[insider]

Swiss and Slovaks tie 3-3...

anyone know why Valent was pulled with a minute left?

 

[Sakaarnis]

Once youre on top, the last thing youre thingking is the petit dummys under you. And this is true. Look how canadians treat teams like Italy, Slovenia, Poland and to some extent Latvia and teams alike, they act very ignorant... When a top 7 team playing some team mentioned above, all can fans think is god please let there be no injuries so we can play the rest of the big guns and have fun within our own group. SO this game becomes something as dislike, an unnecesary game. I cant blame them, but beeing on the other side of the story, all this looks egoistic. Sure, Latvia hasnt produced big results in juniors but ist their first year here and we got a win against Norway wich puts us 9th best in the world and thats a good result. If you, whoever you are, think that we dont belong here, all i can say, youre wrong.

P.S. Well be back after 2 years, mark my words and with more talanted team. A 1992-4 guys looks outstanding, and if they dont stop progress, i garantee you will see some surprises within 4-5 years considering latvian junior hockey team.

 

[Jazz]

Swiss and Slovaks tie 3-3...

anyone know why Valent was pulled with a minute left?

The tie gave Switzerland 7th place (and the Slovaks 8th). The Slovaks needed to win to win the relegation group.

I've got picture from today's games as well, I'll post them later. Even took my nephews to the respective team buses and took some pictures with the players. That combined with getting a picture with the Stanley Cup has my nephews excited about tonight...

 

[Douggy]

Once youre on top, the last thing youre thingking is the petit dummys under you. And this is true. Look how canadians treat teams like Italy, Slovenia, Poland and to some extent Latvia and teams alike, they act very ignorant... When a top 7 team playing some team mentioned above, all can fans think is god please let there be no injuries so we can play the rest of the big guns and have fun within our own group. SO this game becomes something as dislike, an unnecesary game. I cant blame them, but beeing on the other side of the story, all this looks egoistic. Sure, Latvia hasnt produced big results in juniors but ist their first year here and we got a win against Norway wich puts us 9th best in the world and thats a good result. If you, whoever you are, think that we dont belong here, all i can say, youre wrong.

P.S. Well be back after 2 years, mark my words and with more talanted team. A 1992-4 guys looks outstanding, and if they dont stop progress, i garantee you will see some surprises within 4-5 years considering latvian junior hockey team.

Don't generalize.

I'd love to see 12 teams in this tournament. So we can see the 'big 7', Germany, Switzerland and Belarus along with 2 other teams that will fluctuate every year.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Once youre on top, the last thing youre thingking is the petit dummys under you. And this is true. Look how canadians treat teams like Italy, Slovenia, Poland and to some extent Latvia and teams alike, they act very ignorant... When a top 7 team playing some team mentioned above, all can fans think is god please let there be no injuries so we can play the rest of the big guns and have fun within our own group. SO this game becomes something as dislike, an unnecesary game. I cant blame them, but beeing on the other side of the story, all this looks egoistic. Sure, Latvia hasnt produced big results in juniors but ist their first year here and we got a win against Norway wich puts us 9th best in the world and thats a good result. If you, whoever you are, think that we dont belong here, all i can say, youre wrong.

P.S. Well be back after 2 years, mark my words and with more talanted team. A 1992-4 guys looks outstanding, and if they dont stop progress, i garantee you will see some surprises within 4-5 years considering latvian junior hockey team.

Beating Norway is not an meaningful accomplishment. Wake me when you beat Switzerland or Germany in a meaningful game. Latvia, at this time, still does not belong in this tournament. That's not to say they won't belong in five years, but now? No.

You mentioned the crop of players born from 1992 to 1994. Hey, that's great. I hope they continue to develop. But by the time they're ready to excel in the tournament, it'll be 2010 at the absolute earliest (and that's if those players are NHL stars in the making, since the 92s will only be 18, and this is a 19-year-old's tournament) and more likely 2012 or 2013. As I stated before, once Latvia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Austria get to the point where they are at Germany or Switzerland's level, I'd have no problem with a 12 or even a 14-team tournament. But that is likely five years away. My issue is not with a 12-team or 14-team tournament, my problem is with it at this time. Keep the competitive integrity of the tournament and maintain it at 10 teams, until these other nations build up their programs and are consistently competitive.

As stated before, the problem is not the number of teams at the tournament. It's the relegation system involved.

 

[ZombieMatt]

The only way there will ever be more competitive nations is if nations are consistently facing the top competition. It will be through the experience of having a program that consistently competes at the top international stage in the junior ranks that nations like Latvia will be able to improve their programs.

Adding (two) more teams to the event is a logical way of helping these nations improve their programs.

 

[God Bless Canada]

The only way there will ever be more competitive nations is if nations are consistently facing the top competition. It will be through the experience of having a program that consistently competes at the top international stage in the junior ranks that nations like Latvia will be able to improve their programs.

Adding (two) more teams to the event is a logical way of helping these nations improve their programs.

Switzerland went several years without facing the top competition. They slowly and steadily built their program. When the tournament expanded to 10 teams in Boston in 1995/96, Switzerland moved up to the elite group. They were expected to be pushovers. But in their first year, Switzerland took Canada to the limit. (With all due respect to Gord Miller, the Swiss outplayed Canada in that game, and it was Marc Denis who saved the game for Canada). The Swiss have not dropped down to the relegation pool since, have a third and a fourth place finish in the last 10 years, and have been a perennial headache for the top teams.

Having the 11th and 12th place teams drawing into the tournament once every two or three years and losing in lopsided fashion to the top teams is not going to help their development. Adding two teams would legitimately assist only one team, and that's the Germans, because they wouldn't be relegated every two years. All of the other teams I've mentioned would constantly be moving up and down between the WJC and the qualifying group. Belarus is likely No. 10, but it's by no means a convincing No. 10. There's no guarantee they would stay in the top pool on an annual basis. One bad crop of 19-year-olds, and one good crops of Kazakhs, Latvians or Austrians, and they're back to qualifying. Kazakhstan was in the top 10 for a couple years in the late 1990s (made the playoffs in 1998 and 1999), but haven't been in the tournament since being relegated in 2000.

The day is coming where we will be able to have a legitimate 12-team tournament. But that day is not today, nor will it be in 2007 or 2008. But I do look forward to it.

 

[Sakaarnis]

Its just sad from my piont of view to see this resistance. Im still holding to position that we belong here, as do Belarus and Germany, rest is for a grab... And there was mentioned that Swiss didnt face tough opposition for long time and got there where they are now in a long and painfull process, but dont you think they could get faster there if they playd against good teams more often? Or the level of elite teams would be worse than it is now? Integrity of competition you say, well i say let them play, its just fair. I dont like the situation that a potential hockey stars in one or another country (GER, BLR, LAT) have to play against Japan or another team alike just coz of fictional integrity of this competition (meaning the 10 team system).

 

[God Bless Canada]

Its just sad from my piont of view to see this resistance. Im still holding to position that we belong here, as do Belarus and Germany, rest is for a grab... And there was mentioned that Swiss didnt face tough opposition for long time and got there where they are now in a long and painfull process, but dont you think they could get faster there if they playd against good teams more often? Or the level of elite teams would be worse than it is now? Integrity of competition you say, well i say let them play, its just fair. I dont like the situation that a potential hockey stars in one or another country (GER, BLR, LAT) have to play against Japan or another team alike just coz of fictional integrity of this competition (meaning the 10 team system).

I didn't say Switzerland didn't face tough competition. I said they weren't in the main tier. Switzerland would not have grown as a program if they would have been shuffling back and forth between the main tournament and the main qualifier. Compare their team from their last appearance in the eight-team tournament (1991-92, I believe) and the team that showed up in 1995. They shuffled back and forth, and it didn't help. It sure hasn't helped the Germans. If you're not good enough to be in the top tier, then I believe you're better off to be in the second tier, where you can slowly and diligently build your program.

The days of the eight-team tournament are over, and that's a good thing. (Of course, the split of Czechoslovakia and the rapid emergence of the Slovaks ensured that).

I believe Germany is good enough to be in this tournament on an annual basis, and at this time, it would be in the best interests of all to relegate only one team. (Or use the aforementioned tournament). When they're in, they're competitive, and capable of stealing a game. Belarus and Latvia are inching closer, as are Kazakhstan and Austria. (Three of these are former USSR nations, which had their sporting infrastructure badly damaged when the USSR broke up. I think we're all familiar with the travails of Kazakh hockey players). When the timing is right, 12 or 14 teams will be a good thing. But unless the goalie stands on his head, or the opposition has collectively the worst games of their careers, they don't have a chance of beating a top team, or even staying close. When they reach that stage, then they belong. (Norway lost by four to Canada, but the score flattered Norway. The only reason it wasn't double digits was because the Norwegian goalie had the game of his life).

 

[Sakaarnis]

Ok i see we can go for hours discussing why do i want a 14 team WJC now and not after 5 years. One more thing, i dont belive that breakup of USSR destroyed hockey infrastructure, opposite, it stimulated infrastructure. In soviet times there was only one decent ice rink in Latvia now we have about 15 and a big arena is almoust completed for this years WC. Yes we had a strong team in Riga, but half of the players if not more were brought from Russia so there was just a few local talents. Those days are gone and all the players from that team are retired or coaching. Im saying that basicly we had to build our infrastructure from scratch, our own natinal hockey programme. Soviet times left one decent legacy and thats the passion for hockey, way back then it was beating CSKA, it felt like winning a war, atleast for us latvians. And you should know that hockey in Latvia was introduced in early 20th century, first as bendy but in 1920s the first hockey game as we know it was played here and thats long before russians started to play. We have a long history of hockey and even tho we are small, yet we are prod of our NT and always will think of it as best in the world. PEACE OUT, cya in Torino 2006. First game Latvia - USA

 

[Jazz]

God Bless Canada.

While I applaud you for having more knowledge about international hockey than the average Canadian, I think your position on this is short-sighted. Countries can only take that next step when they can participate at the next level, not demolish the level below.

As I have said on this forum, other forums, and to Bob Nicholson last week, I think 12 is the right number now for this competition. Forget the bye that the first place team gets (funny that in the Olympics and the World Champsionships there is no bye to the first place team, so why here?) Make 2 groups of 6, and the top-4 advance to a cross-over QF, and the bottom 2 of each play the relegation round. This will add 2 more days to the tournament.

It is interesting to note that in the 6 years (97, 99, 03, 04, 05, 06) that there has been a bye, the Gold Medal Final has either been Canada vs Russia (99, 03, 05, 06) or Canada vs USA (97, 04). In the other years, there have been upsets and you see teams like Switzerland and Slovakia get in the top-4.

It took Switzerland until the WJC expanded to 10 teams for them to establish themselves. This current setup is killing Germany, who's juniors are not getting the competition they need every other year.

Also, it will bring the sport more recognition in the countries involved (which cannot be underestimated).

Look at basketball. Once the US entered the Olympics with their dream team, the 2nd tiered nations then knew what they needed to do to close the gap, and it has closed considerably since that time.

 

[Fredrik]

The only way there will ever be more competitive nations is if nations are consistently facing the top competition. It will be through the experience of having a program that consistently competes at the top international stage in the junior ranks that nations like Latvia will be able to improve their programs.

Adding (two) more teams to the event is a logical way of helping these nations improve their programs.

It also makes sense with the current situation where 8 teams are stronger than the others and two teams are relegated which means that the new teams will be relegated immediately. Divison 1 is quite competitive these days so the two extra teams would be just as good as team 9 and 10 today.

 

[God Bless Canada]

God Bless Canada.

While I applaud you for having more knowledge about international hockey than the average Canadian, I think your position on this is short-sighted. Countries can only take that next step when they can participate at the next level, not demolish the level below.

As I have said on this forum, other forums, and to Bob Nicholson last week, I think 12 is the right number now for this competition. Forget the bye that the first place team gets (funny that in the Olympics and the World Champsionships there is no bye to the first place team, so why here?) Make 2 groups of 6, and the top-4 advance to a cross-over QF, and the bottom 2 of each play the relegation round. This will add 2 more days to the tournament.

It is interesting to note that in the 6 years (97, 99, 03, 04, 05, 06) that there has been a bye, the Gold Medal Final has either been Canada vs Russia (99, 03, 05, 06) or Canada vs USA (97, 04). In the other years, there have been upsets and you see teams like Switzerland and Slovakia get in the top-4.

It took Switzerland until the WJC expanded to 10 teams for them to establish themselves. This current setup is killing Germany, who's juniors are not getting the competition they need every other year.

Also, it will bring the sport more recognition in the countries involved (which cannot be underestimated).

Look at basketball. Once the US entered the Olympics with their dream team, the 2nd tiered nations then knew what they needed to do to close the gap, and it has closed considerably since that time.

The reason the tournament went to 10 teams was the rapid rise of Slovakia. They gave the hockey world seven quality teams, and it would have been academic most years who would get relegated.

Switzerland was ready-made for strong competition the moment they came up in 1995. They showed that against Canada that year, and they've continued to show it every year since. They are consistently competitive, and I can see other nations attaining that status within the next five years.

Germany is getting shafted not by the number of teams, but by the relegation system. It should be just one team being relegated, the way it was until 2003. If they insist on two teams being relegated, then a pre-WJC four-team mini-tournament is a must.

If we expand to 12 teams, then we're still in the situation where two developing teams will flip flop back and forth between the main tournament and the qualifier. How will it help these teams to flip flop back and forth, and to get killed every two years? It won't.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

The reason the tournament went to 10 teams was the rapid rise of Slovakia. They gave the hockey world seven quality teams, and it would have been academic most years who would get relegated.

Switzerland was ready-made for strong competition the moment they came up in 1995. They showed that against Canada that year, and they've continued to show it every year since. They are consistently competitive, and I can see other nations attaining that status within the next five years.

Germany is getting shafted not by the number of teams, but by the relegation system. It should be just one team being relegated, the way it was until 2003. If they insist on two teams being relegated, then a pre-WJC four-team mini-tournament is a must.

If we expand to 12 teams, then we're still in the situation where two developing teams will flip flop back and forth between the main tournament and the qualifier. How will it help these teams to flip flop back and forth, and to get killed every two years? It won't.

With a move to 12 you can ensure Belarus and Germany's survival( to a degree anyway) and still play a four team mini tournament to decide 11 and 12.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Relegating one team, or having the tournament, would also ensure Germany's survival, which to me is the short-term concern: getting Germany into the tournament on an annual basis. They belong in this tournament, they have shown an ability to be consistently competitive, but because of the ludicrous relegation system, which started only in 2003, they get shafted. I don't want to see two more teams in the tournament that have no shot of winning and wind up being fodder for the other teams. That will not improve their programs. Norway will see zero improvement to their program from this year.

Belarus would not be guaranteed a spot in the top 10, or 12, every year. The win over the U.S. was a fluke, and Belarus had likely their best team ever. Kazakhstan made the playoffs in back-to-back years in the late 1990s, but haven't been good enough to crack the top 10 since relegation in 2000.

Just to clarify: I can see the argument of playing against the best teams helping to improve talent for the senior level. A lot of these teams have the same rosters for the Worlds on a year-to-year basis. But the juniors are different, thanks to the turnover associated with national junior programs. Most of the players on Norway and Latvia who got beat up this year won't be back next year, and even more won't be back in two years from now when they're eligible to return. (Assuming a pre-WJC qualifying tournament isn't utilized). The national junior programs in Latvia and Norway will not benefit from this year's tournament.

 

[ZombieMatt]

Consistently playing at the top level will improve developing nations' programs.

If they are consistently at the top level countries will put more emphasis and money towards the program, including expanding vital components such as infrastructure. Nobody will truly make junior hockey programs a priority while they are playing in a second-class tournament.

 

[Jazz]

God Bless.

How does relegating only 1 team fit into the IIHF's 2 groups per division setup? (Div I has Groups A and B, each with 6 where both group winners get promoted).

The problem is that Germany and Belarus have to make 2 steps to get to the level of the Top-8 (I include the Swiss here), whereas the 2 teams added would only be half a step behind Germany and Belarus. This is why, given the 2 up/2 down relegation system, that there should be 12 teams.

I honestly think that Switzerland's 2-1 loss to Canada in 1996 was a momentary spike in their upward climb. Canada were probably not mentally prepared for that match.