Olympics: Your Preferred Ice Size For Future Olympic Tournaments

[Jussi]

I realise that, but how is that a benefit?

There's enough space on the sides that it doesn't create unncessary space.

NHL regulation size. The world's best players play on it every day all day long. The de facto standard for best on best.

International rink is tailor-made for trapping and neutralizing top-end skill. Fewer blowouts but frustrating to watch. The only fun thing about it is watching goalies' eyes widen as d-men fire rockets at them from a much-closer point.

It's just as easy to trap on small ice. It's not as if the SC playoffs tend to be goal fests when the tactically best teams are playing each other

International size for me...but move the blue lines to where they are on NHL ice.

I'd like to see try this on hybrid rink a well.

Is there a picture of a hybrid rink? Do these exist or are you suggesting the IOC build/create one?

Many European rinks are variable size. Finnish and Czech rinks can vary anywhere between 28-30 meter width and 58-60 meter length.

 

[NewFang]

NHL all the way. Big ice = boring hockey.

 

[Uhmkay]

I can't believe there are people who just watched the Olympics and would still vote for International Ice. It makes hockey extremely boring. You can't sell that product.

 

[Stephen23]

I would just keep it the way it is. Whichever city is hosting, we use their ice size. Makes it kind of unique. In a non-related way, it reminds me of all the vuvuzelas (swarm of bees) that were in the crowd during the last World Cup. FIFA opted not to have them removed as it was part of the host city's culture. That's part of whats neat about the Olympics, is that you embrace the culture you are in to a certain degree.

 

[Uhmkay]

I would just keep it the way it is. Whichever city is hosting, we use their ice size. Makes it kind of unique. In a non-related way, it reminds me of all the vuvuzelas (swarm of bees) that were in the crowd during the last World Cup. FIFA opted not to have them removed as it was part of the host city's culture. That's part of whats neat about the Olympics, is that you embrace the culture you are in to a certain degree.

This I could live with.

... but you Europeans really need to adopt NHL ice into your culture.

 

[Tmu84]

I voted Hybrid ice. In fact I think that is the only logical answer.

I admit NHL-sized rink can be more exciting to watch from TV, but somehow looking back at the 80's and how relatively more open the games were back then leads to an obvious conclusion: players has become significantly larger than they were back in the 80's and earlier. So it's quite obvious that sometimes I feel the NHL sized rink has become simply too small for biggest players these days. There can be sense of fumbling and too much random stuff going on and fluke goals. While in the same time big ice allows more room for elite players which can be very exciting (assuming two elite teams are playing). However the downside of big IIHF sized rinks is that the games can be very boring to watch, since trapping teams get an obvious benefit here against really talented teams (e.g. the way Finland plays Russia).

So, to sum up: get the best of both worlds: hybrid ice. It also would be a logical compromise for both NHL and IIHF.

 

[Pilky01]

I am in favour of all three. I like the variety.

 

[Kharkov]

I am in favour of all three. I like the variety.

I agree.

But, if I had to choose one, then it would be hybrid. Not too small, not too big. Also nowadays every good player doesnt play in NHL, so hybrdi is good compromise.

 

[ronnyweed]

200 by 200 square

 

[Crosbyfan]

200 by 200 square

200 X 300... also use bigger nets, 11 a side, and a ball...no not soccer

Bandy anyone?

 

[hyperion]

How certain are you guys seriously that it was the larger ice that made some of the games subjectively "boring" or at least made them have less goals than in the past?

I know Crosby himself made that claim after one game midway into the tournament and that his word must have some value, but are we sure it was just not Crosby being frustrated after like 4 games being 0+0 (or something like that, I didn't really follow Crosby's stats like that) and blaming the easiest thing to blame? After all we also know that many players said pre-tournament, that the big ice difference is always blown out of proportions and probably the goalies have the biggest difficulties of adjusting because shots come from different angles.

But how sure we really can be this tournament would have looked so much different on NHL size rink? Why couldn't this tournament be just a demonstration how rest of the world has made the gap smaller between Canada and them, and how the smaller teams have learned to play hockey against a overwhelming opponent in a way that, despite the odds being like 1:25 for a win, gives them a chance of winning the big and naughty Canada? And maybe even showing some kind of alarm lights about Canadian coaching not being able to really make any kind of counter-moves for things like these? (I do not blame the players.)

I mean, can you really describe in ice hockey terms how smaller rink helps scoring? I know some have said that larger ice helps trapping, but is that even really so? Wouldn't large ice make it harder to cover the whole neutral zone with only 5 players? Wouldn't smaller ice make it easier to create a stick jungle into the neutral zone?

 

[Exarz]

Hybrid is the best option! I hope that all the leagues will have this in the future!

 

[Xokkeu]

I prefer small but I can go either way.




Oh no........

 

[tony d]

Hybrid for me.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

How certain are you guys seriously that it was the larger ice that made some of the games subjectively "boring" or at least made them have less goals than in the past?

I know Crosby himself made that claim after one game midway into the tournament and that his word must have some value, but are we sure it was just not Crosby being frustrated after like 4 games being 0+0 (or something like that, I didn't really follow Crosby's stats like that) and blaming the easiest thing to blame? After all we also know that many players said pre-tournament, that the big ice difference is always blown out of proportions and probably the goalies have the biggest difficulties of adjusting because shots come from different angles.

But how sure we really can be this tournament would have looked so much different on NHL size rink? Why couldn't this tournament be just a demonstration how rest of the world has made the gap smaller between Canada and them, and how the smaller teams have learned to play hockey against a overwhelming opponent in a way that, despite the odds being like 1:25 for a win, gives them a chance of winning the big and naughty Canada? And maybe even showing some kind of alarm lights about Canadian coaching not being able to really make any kind of counter-moves for things like these? (I do not blame the players.)

I mean, can you really describe in ice hockey terms how smaller rink helps scoring? I know some have said that larger ice helps trapping, but is that even really so? Wouldn't large ice make it harder to cover the whole neutral zone with only 5 players? Wouldn't smaller ice make it easier to create a stick jungle into the neutral zone?

The quality of the various national teams hasn't changed that much since 2010, and that tournament was much more entertaining while being played on small ice.

 

[xxxx]

The quality of the various national teams hasn't changed that much since 2010, and that tournament was much more entertaining while being played on small ice.

Agreed. I respect european hockey, but......it's just boring. Boring, boring, boring.


I won't ever understand how some people don't see this as a totally unlogical thing / or are ok with that, that all the best players in the world play on NHL ice. The best league in the world is NHL and has been for a long, long time. The best hockey is simply played on NHL ice, in Canada and US. But somehow, we get freaking 'democratic' international ice for the best-on-best competition, and when the tournament is held by the NHL in NA, it's wrong.

 

[Exarz]

I can't believe there are people who just watched the Olympics and would still vote for International Ice. It makes hockey extremely boring. You can't sell that product.

I'd say it's different for us in Europe. We "grew up" watching hockey on international sized ice, so it's no bigger deal than usual for us. Then there are some exceptions, of course.

 

[meph]

NHL size (and I am not from NA)

80% of games in the last olympics were almost unwatchable, it was approaching soccer territory for me
edit: with that said, i really think the game is becoming too "defense heavy" no matter what type of ice it is played on

 

[Dave is a killer]

I'd love to see a 200' x 93' surface

 

[Yakushev72]

I vote for Sochi-sized ice. More wide open between the goal lines, more great skating and better puck control. More opportunity to execute strategies, even if they are defensive.

 

[Jussi]

I vote for Sochi-sized ice. More wide open between the goal lines, more great skating and better puck control. More opportunity to execute strategies, even if they are defensive.

All that great skating and puck control is wasted when no scoring chances or goal are created. It's like Barcelona and football. Other team parks the bus, Barca pass the ball around in the midfield a million times inside a 5 squaremeter area to pad Iniesta's pass numbers. Those comments by North Americans were actually right, the extra space didn't prove that much useful. However, before moving to hybrid rinks, I would definitely like to move the blue lines towards the neutral zone. It would create more space on the points and allow more shots by defensemen. I'd like this done in a hybrid rink as well.