GDT: World Cup Of Hockey - Part II

[Alexander the Gr8]

Here is the full article where Trotz talks about Crosby, I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

http://www.russianmachineneverbreak...t-the-best-player-in-the-world-sidney-crosby/

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Why, though? It still results in athletes representing a group rather than a specific country. Why does that not affect your enjoyment of the Olympics the way having non-countries represented at the World Cup affects your enjoyment of it? Besides which, you asked if people can imagine if the Olympics did something like that. Well, regardless of the *why*, they *do* do something like that. And have been doing it for decades.

It's not even like the "big boys" aren't represented at the World Cup. The usual power houses that are expected to win the tournament were all present: Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Finland, and Czech. All they did was make the tournament more competitive by replacing the bottom two teams (who likely had no chance at winning or even being contenders anyway) with two better ones.

If it's a hang up over the "historical significance" part, that goes back to my question above about athletes from a group or group of countries potentially winning medals at Olympics not seeming to be an issue.

Because Great Britain is a sovereign state that's competed together since the first Olympic games, and the Olympic refugee team was created to give athletes without a legal country an opportunity to compete.

Do you not see a difference between those situations and one where 2 countries are passed over to make room for an age-restricted "North America" team and a nominal "Team Europe" that conveniently excludes Scandinavia, Finland, and the Czech Republic?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Scotland, England and Wales are not states as recognized by international law. The UK is. Allowing a Scottish team independent of the UK would be like having a US team and a Hawaiian team...or a Spanish team and a Mallorcan team, which would open the door to a large number of other non-state regions wanting to send teams to the Olympics--doubling or tripling participation (Russia, alone, might end up sending 5)--which is really not necessary.

Line has to be drawn somewhere and the IOC drew the line at internationally recognized independent sovereignties, which Wales, Scotland and England are not.

Ireland has had an Olympic team for 100 years.

I think WC's point is that Norway, Slovakia and Slovenia have **** all to do with one another, but are thrown in one big "miscellaneous" pile. That's definitely not the case with England, Wales and Scotland.

Missed this. Summed it up better than I could.

 

[Beau Knows]

Here is the full article where Trotz talks about Crosby, I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

http://www.russianmachineneverbreak...t-the-best-player-in-the-world-sidney-crosby/

I've always had a lot of respect for Trotz, when you look at some of the other divisional coaches the Pens have seen like Torts or Laviolette it's nice to see a level headed guy who can leave the game on the ice.

It's always interesting to see players and/or coaches from rival teams work together like Giroux and Crosby last year.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I've always had a lot of respect for Trotz, when you look at some of the other divisional coaches the Pens have seen like Torts or Laviolette it's nice to see a level headed guy who can leave the game on the ice.

It's always interesting to see players and/or coaches from rival teams work together like Giroux and Crosby last year.

You must have missed the playoff series last year when Trotz was claiming the NHL is rigged in favor of the Penguins.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Because Great Britain is a sovereign state that's competed together since the first Olympic games, and the Olympic refugee team was created to give athletes without a legal country an opportunity to compete.

Do you not see a difference between those situations and one where 2 countries are passed over to make room for an age-restricted "North America" team and a nominal "Team Europe" that conveniently excludes Scandinavia, Finland, and the Czech Republic?

Of course I do. My original point was addressed toward you saying (paraphrasing) that the Olympics would never do that kind of thing (ie. sanction non-country teams). It does. Obviously for a different reason, but it still does.

On the overall point, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the big issue with Team Europe and Team North America being included instead of two crappy clubs the other six would have just beaten up on. The main hockey powers were all represented.

At the very least, even if you're not a big fan of the "non-country" teams, I just don't see why it would turn the tournament from a good idea to ridiculous side show in anyone's eyes. To me, it's like the difference between the NHL going to 3 on 3 OT instead of 4 on 4. Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I wouldn't expect people to suddenly think the NHL is a joke because of it.

 

[Peat]

Can't say I had any problem with Team Europe or NA either. I guess this one's different for me as I grew up as a rugby guy and composite teams have a long and proud tradition in rugby - the concept doesn't strike me as weird. I'd rather have teams that can compete than not. My only regret is I didn't watch as much of the tournament as I'd have liked.

 

[flaneur]

after the world cup, preseason games are borderline unwatchable.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Pre-season games have always been unwatchable.

 

[Jacob]

Pre-season games have always been unwatchable.

I like them. Particularly watching prospects.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Of course I do. My original point was addressed toward you saying (paraphrasing) that the Olympics would never do that kind of thing (ie. sanction non-country teams). It does. Obviously for a different reason, but it still does.

On the overall point, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the big issue with Team Europe and Team North America being included instead of two crappy clubs the other six would have just beaten up on. The main hockey powers were all represented.

At the very least, even if you're not a big fan of the "non-country" teams, I just don't see why it would turn the tournament from a good idea to ridiculous side show in anyone's eyes. To me, it's like the difference between the NHL going to 3 on 3 OT instead of 4 on 4. Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I wouldn't expect people to suddenly think the NHL is a joke because of it.

It was still good competition, but I think the arbitrarily selected non-country teams cheapened the tourney and made it more of a novelty.

It could have been a legitimate replacement for the Olympics moving forward (as it was when it was the only best-on-best featuring NHLers), but the mere presence of Team Europe and Team NA turned it into something like a glorified all-star showcase.

 

[icon6668]

They can't really call it a 'world cup' and include EU and NA teams.
Although I would like to see a Europe v North America best of 7 series instead to be honest.
Could have Karlsson, Malkin, Ovy, Kopitar etc vs Crosby, Kessel, Toews and Kane etc

 

[PensFanSince1989]

You mean like how England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales competes under the Great Britain banner, instead of being allowed to compete as separate countries? Or how they put together an "Olympic refugee" team, a collection of athletes from different countries?

Obviously the circumstances of the above are different than what Bettman and Co. did for the World Cup, but the end result are if any of those athletes won a medal, they wouldn't be doing so competing for a specific country.

It's actually the UK, (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and they compete under them because UK is the actual country. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not independent countries.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

With that said, I think its stupid to harp on about Team Europe and North America. The biggest gripe is National Teams not being allowed to select their 23 and under players. Team North America should have been selected after National teams allowing USA to take Eichel and others (Canada wouldn't have taken McDavid though).

 

[VicBiggs]

I enjoyed the tourney, esp being hockey-starved even after a short summer, but playing TE in the final just didn't feel important. Greatly diminishes the patriotism. Also, you can't really have a true best-on-best tournament when certain players aren't even allowed to represent their own country (McDavid, Gaudreau, etc)

 

[Gunnar Staal]

I enjoyed the tourney, esp being hockey-starved even after a short summer, but playing TE in the final just didn't feel important. Greatly diminishes the patriotism. Also, you can't really have a true best-on-best tournament when certain players aren't even allowed to represent their own country (McDavid, Gaudreau, etc)

Better to have guys like Johnny Hockey, Eichel and Gostisbehere thrive on a hodgepodge squad instead of being stifled on a team led by Tortorella.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

It's actually the UK, (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and they compete under them because UK is the actual country. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not independent countries.

And yet each competes individually in the various sporting events, such as the World Cup (soccer). It's only at the Olympics where they are "made" to compete under one banner.

How dumb that the Olympics forces a "novelty" team to compete instead of allowing each to compete separately like in other international sporting competitions.

 

[Puffymuffin]

It's actually the UK, (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and they compete under them because UK is the actual country. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not independent countries.

The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is the sovereign state. The countries are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Same as The Netherlands is part of the Kingdom of The Netherlands, together with the countries of Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten.

Each individual sporting organisation handles the countries differently but for the above, the countries are individual members of FIFA but compete under the sovereign state in the Olympics.

 

[Sjoelbak]

The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is the sovereign state. The countries are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Same as The Netherlands is part of the Kingdom of The Netherlands, together with the countries of Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten.

Each individual sporting organisation handles the countries differently but for the above, the countries are individual members of FIFA but compete under the sovereign state in the Olympics.

The difference between Kingdom of The Netherlands and the United Kingdom is that Aruba competes in Olympic Games as a separate team. Athletes from Curaçao and Sint Maarten are allowed to choose whether they compete as a member of team The Netherlands or as a member of Team Aruba.

 

[Puffymuffin]

The difference between Kingdom of The Netherlands and the United Kingdom is that Aruba competes in Olympic Games as a separate team. Athletes from Curaçao and Sint Maarten are allowed to choose whether they compete as a member of team The Netherlands or as a member of Team Aruba.

And for example Gibraltar is part of FIFA and UEFA now, though it's not even a country and falls under the UK.

I think it's just whatever the governing body accepts.

 

[Shady Machine]

Here is the full article where Trotz talks about Crosby, I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

http://www.russianmachineneverbreak...t-the-best-player-in-the-world-sidney-crosby/

Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Shady Machine]

Of course I do. My original point was addressed toward you saying (paraphrasing) that the Olympics would never do that kind of thing (ie. sanction non-country teams). It does. Obviously for a different reason, but it still does.

On the overall point, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the big issue with Team Europe and Team North America being included instead of two crappy clubs the other six would have just beaten up on. The main hockey powers were all represented.

At the very least, even if you're not a big fan of the "non-country" teams, I just don't see why it would turn the tournament from a good idea to ridiculous side show in anyone's eyes. To me, it's like the difference between the NHL going to 3 on 3 OT instead of 4 on 4. Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I wouldn't expect people to suddenly think the NHL is a joke because of it.

Exactly. Plus, the World Cup of Hockey never claimed to be the Olympics and the historical significance, while interesting, is hardly similar to a world event for all sports.

Think of the World Cup of Hockey like the Ryder Cup. The reality is if you want a competitive tournament in golf, you can't have the US vs any other single country. US would destroy every time. WC is a similar thought process. Plus, the NHL put on the tournament. It's fine to be critical of it, but the rhetoric that it's a "joke" or "winning this gimmick tournament doesn't matter" is pretty absurd if you actually watched it. The players bought in and they played like they cared (I suppose one could argue the Russian team didn't look like they cared, but that's about it).

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Exactly. Plus, the World Cup of Hockey never claimed to be the Olympics and the historical significance, while interesting, is hardly similar to a world event for all sports.

Think of the World Cup of Hockey like the Ryder Cup. The reality is if you want a competitive tournament in golf, you can't have the US vs any other single country. US would destroy every time. WC is a similar thought process. Plus, the NHL put on the tournament. It's fine to be critical of it, but the rhetoric that it's a "joke" or "winning this gimmick tournament doesn't matter" is pretty absurd if you actually watched it. The players bought in and they played like they cared (I suppose one could argue the Russian team didn't look like they cared, but that's about it).

In the context of hockey, it has been.

This is a tournament in the same lineage as the '76 and '87 Canada Cups, which were key points in the history of the sport. It was HUGE prior to the Olympics allowing NHLers, and it could have taken on similar significance if the NHL chose to opt out of the next Olympics had they played their cards right. But they didn't, and now people are left to rationalize.

 

[Shady Machine]

In the context of hockey, it has been.

This is a tournament in the same lineage as the '76 and '87 Canada Cups, which were key points in the history of the sport. It was HUGE prior to the Olympics allowing NHLers, and it could have taken on similar significance if the NHL chose to opt out of the next Olympics had they played their cards right. But they didn't, and now people are left to rationalize.

Okay I'll play along. Let's say they had the same 6 teams and then Slovakia and Switzerland. What changes?

Canada wins every game, Crosby gets MVP, more teams get blown out. Is that tournament somehow more important than this one?

I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm saying this was a pretty entertaining international tournament where we saw the best players in the world play against each other and the best team came out on top with the best player in the world showing his dominance on the world stage.

 

[Winger for Hire]

Would it be better or worse if they instituted a draft for the World Cup?

Had a friend suggest it and I can't decide if I like it or hate it.