EHM The Blue Line

Good for the Russians. They will make the semi-finals and throw out the Young Stars...

I think they're the worst opponent for the Canadiens in the semi-finals.

CJ wrote:I think they're the worst opponent for the Canadiens in the semi-finals.

I did not know Montreal was participating.

Holy poop, I DEFINITELY didn't expect USA to lose all of their games. I guess the management group got what they deserve, this better mean it's 'cleaning house' time for them.

I'm saddened NA didn't get to play against Canada, boy, would that've been fun to watch.

This is what you deserve when you take inferior players because they have "grit". USA left so much skill and goalscoring at home because they were 'building a team' or whatever, can't do that in a short tournament like this, need all the skill you can get. Players like Shattenkirk, Tyler Johnson, Kessel, Yandle and probably many more definitely should have been on this team.

Or maybe it's you who are overrating the Americans? I think there's a reason the Americans never won a thing (except 1980, that is)
Now, I won't write this time about Team Russia as I'm biased, but did Team Sweden look like 100 times better than Team USA, just to say...

How am i overrating USA in anything i wrote? Didn't say they should have won the tournament or anything, just said that they deserved to lose horribly since they consciously brought a lesser squad then they could have. They purposely brought worse players (Abdelkader, Kesler, Jack/Eric Johnson) because they are 'grittier' and stuff. Also they had their best goalie in the press box and played their 3rd best goalie. To clarify, not saying i think they would have won with the best possible squad, just saying they deserved to lose since they didn't

Actually, if you look at actual "best on best" tournaments the US and Russia are the same...the US won the 1996 World Cup and Russia won the 1981 Canada Cup (and if you look at "best on best" competitions since 1998, Russia is at the bottom of the 6 "hockey nations" and have never won once)

Russia's successful history was mostly built by beating amateurs with pros (training 11 months a year = pros) for decades, and then winning some World Championships (a "B" level tournament that is not "best on best"); since the formation of the Czech Republic both Canada and the Czech Republic have won more Worlds than Russia

I think nowadays Russia needs to start winning as much as the US to maintain any belief they're a top team (and Russia might win...as I've said before, they are the most likely team to blow out Canada, but for many years they've been no bigger threat to beat Canada than any other top team IMO & another loss to Canada doesn't make them look any better than the US IMO)

EDIT - in 1976 Russia did the same thing as the US ("they consciously brought a lesser squad then they could have") and lost to the Czechs and Canada and never made the final as a result

Peter_Doherty wrote:How am i overrating USA in anything i wrote?

I meant "you" as generally speaking. "People" overrates the US. IMHO, that is.

I see, you might have a point but i dno, i saw them as the 5th best team in this competition, they could have been like tied 3/4/5 with Russia and Team NA if they had a Management who picked the best players. This is all on paper ofc.

Honestly, didn't see many people rank USA high before the tournament, it was Canada............ Sweden..................... A cluster of US/Russia/Team NA............. the rest...

nino33 wrote:
Russia's successful history was mostly built by beating amateurs with pros (training 11 months a year = pros) for decades, and then winning some World Championships (a "B" level tournament that is not "best on best"); since the formation of the Czech Republic both Canada and the Czech Republic have won more Worlds than Russia

Well, you may be right in the amateurs with pros, but what about those games between soviet and NHL teams? Btw, in old times, czechs etc were as pro as the soviets. Just in North America they weren't pro

I can see how we could've been overrating USA before this tournament but I think there's a reason for that- it's a highly populated country where the hockey program is one of the best, they have produced some super talented players(Kane, Kessel, Pacioretty etc) and they, while haven't won anything major in a while, have been pretty solid in the last two Olympics. While they definitely weren't called to win the whole thing, I think none of us called for them to lose EVERY game in the round robin.

Alessandro wrote:

nino33 wrote:
Russia's successful history was mostly built by beating amateurs with pros (training 11 months a year = pros) for decades, and then winning some World Championships (a "B" level tournament that is not "best on best"); since the formation of the Czech Republic both Canada and the Czech Republic have won more Worlds than Russia

Well, you may be right in the amateurs with pros, but what about those games between soviet and NHL teams? Btw, in old times, czechs etc were as pro as the soviets. Just in North America they weren't pro

This thread's referring to international competition, not club competition & "in old times" many/most top players from Czechs etc were playing in the NHL too (until the 1990s virtually every top player worldwide who wasn't from Russia was playing in the NHL...it's why I don't give full credit to the Russian victories over Europeans during that time either, as Russian opponents had top players that were in the NHL and none of the Russian top players were in the NHL)


IMO Russia has a thing for producing snipers, and while I've never looked at data they may well be better at producing snipers than any other Nation...but after that they're not any better than anyone else nowadays and haven't been for a long time; in the 70s it was more just Canada and the Czechs that were as good as the Russians, then through the 80s and 90s the Swedes, Finns and Americans got better...and now there's a "big 6" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Six_(ice_hockey)

Personally I wish this World Cup had used the same format as 1976, just the top 6 hockey Nations playing a round robin where everyone plays everyone once and then playoffs (though I'd make the semis a best of 3 just like the finals)




Personally, I don't see a need to include the lesser hockey Nations for the World Cup of Hockey (the World Cup of Soccer includes 32 Nations of 209, or 15%). If the international hockey used the same 15% standard, looking at the IIHF rankings after this year's World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIHF_World_Ranking they'd include 7.65 teams

I'd rather accept that hockey's not as worldwide as soccer, and limit the teams to provide the best competition (and by doing so everyone could play everyone in a round robin, a much better system IMO)


P.S. I feel fortunate to grow up when I did, as I think international hockey was much better then (as it was "different/unique/special" and there was much less of it)

Nice game between Russia and Canada! Too bad it became a one sided game in the third period. I was hoping for a better match ending.

Oh man!! Europe beat Sweden.

Sweden is terribly coached, that was 100% a coach win imo.

Oh wow I wasn't expecting that at all!

Canada won the World Cup but not a single word about it here on TBL?! Interesting. Must have been a great tournament!

I watched a Rangers pre season game instead of game 2 of the finals

Finally this farce is done

CJ wrote:Canada won the World Cup but not a single word about it here on TBL?! Interesting. Must have been a great tournament!

That was the expected result. Had Europe won it, we would've had a discussion!

All of my interest in this tournament died when Team Europe made the final. No offense to that team but I didn't even hope for anything exciting in that series so I skipped the finals. Can't wait for the NHL season to start!

Alessandro wrote:Finally this farce is done

I could not agree more.

The only surprise for me was Sweden losing against team EU. Otherwise no surprise for me. The Olympics are much more engaging to me. This tournament doesn't really mean anything.

Ironically, this tournament, with the best of the best players, felt less meaningful than the World Championships. Mainly because in the World Championships all countries have their own teams.

Well.. for me at least.

I watched the last half of the Canada-Russia game (I was at my daughter's and she has cable!) and enjoyed it. I tried watching the games/highlights on YouTube but watched less than 20 minutes total (like almost all modern hockey, to boring for my tastes)


The World Championships mean nothing to me (and almost all North Americans), and the Olympics are probably the most boring of all hockey played...the Nationalism required to make such things entertaining has long ago left me; I feel blessed to have seen the international hockey I did in my youth, as it was so much better when the top players didn't all play in the same league/on the same teams (and the IOC/IIHF is as corrupt or worse than anything NHL owners do)

I don't understand the big deal made of the Olympics myself, especially the focus on the ratings/number of people watching - so many (almost all) Olympic events have essentially no coverage/significant interest from anyone outside of a couple weeks every 4 years


I (like almost everyone) couldn't stand the format with the "fake teams" but the Olympics aren't the answer IMO, a real World Cup is (with soccer/football the Olympics aren't a big deal compared to the World Cup, I think hockey could be the same way)

I also don't understand the big deal about NHL players being in the Olympics. I've been around for far more Olympics when they weren't, and I think most making a big deal of NHL Olympic participation likely weren't hockey fans much before 1998. Given the quality of hockey in the Olympics (awful/boring) I'd definitely prefer a World Cup, but 6-8 teams (all Nations) and a true round robin where everyone plays everyone (like the World Champions and I think the Olympics too used to be) - I see absolutely no need to have teams involved that will never win the tournament and have at most a handful of NHL quality players (if that)