HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   International Tournaments (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   The world rankings (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1432769)

Everlasting 05-20-2013 04:19 AM

The world rankings
 
1. Sweden
2. Finland
3. Russia
4. Czech Republic
5. Canada
6. USA
7. Switzerland
8. Slovakia
9. Norway
10. Germany

I think it is a good ranking that displays the current form and strenght of the teams. Switzerland need to make atleast 1 or 3 more good tournaments before they deserve to be ranked better, but they are getting there. Finland and Russia have been good lately, and have had their sucess, but Russia can do so much better. Maybe switch Czech Republic with Russia? The other rankings are fair too. Canada can do A LOT better, but hockey is not a game of theory. You need consistency and good results, which is something Canada have been struggeling with since the last Olympics, but they can easily bounce back.

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/c...3-ranking.html

vancityluongo 05-20-2013 04:23 AM

Wow, I didn't know/realize the Czechs were that strong internationally. Similarly, good on the Swiss for passing Slovakia and cracking into that top-7. Two nations that fly under the radar a bit I guess, unless I'm just ignorant (likely).

My guess though is that the US is on the verge of solidifying a position in the top-3.

Rob 05-20-2013 04:35 AM

Even if Canada were to win gold at Sochi they would not make any big gains in the rankings as an Olympics gold medal is worth the same as a World Championship gold medal according to the IIHF.

I do understand that the rankings serve a purpose for seeding the teams at the Olympics. This is why I think the rankings are more important for the lower ranked teams than for the highly ranked ones.

Tomas W 05-20-2013 04:49 AM

Yeah the ranking is more important for lower level teams.

stv11 05-20-2013 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob (Post 66328227)
Even if Canada were to win gold at Sochi they would not make any big gains in the rankings as an Olympics gold medal is worth the same as a World Championship gold medal according to the IIHF.

I do understand that the rankings serve a purpose for seeding the teams at the Olympics. This is why I think the rankings are more important for the lower ranked teams than for the highly ranked ones.

Yes, the ranking's main purpose being qualification for the Olympics, giving the OG more weight would result in the same teams qualifying over and over again. They work well as a seeding system too, the pools are pretty well balanced and since they are in use, there wasn't any seeding disaster like the 2004 World Championship.

But in the end, there's isn't much difference between being ranked first or sixth.

roto 05-20-2013 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob (Post 66328227)
Even if Canada were to win gold at Sochi they would not make any big gains in the rankings as an Olympics gold medal is worth the same as a World Championship gold medal according to the IIHF.

I do understand that the rankings serve a purpose for seeding the teams at the Olympics. This is why I think the rankings are more important for the lower ranked teams than for the highly ranked ones.

Still, also olympic tournament is still only one tournament. Yes, top countries have their A-players there, but it doesn't really matter from ranking point of view because the sample quality of that tournament is low: round robin games are almost meaningless (all teams advance to playoffs) and then from one to four single game elimination games.

Anyway, the IIHF ranking is much better than FIFA ranking, for example, which is a joke. FIFA ranking favors teams from continents with weak teams. Even bigger joke is the FIFA World Cup. The best teams are not there but predefined amount of best teams from each region.

If ice hockey World Cup was arranged in same way, it'd be like this: Canada, Russia, Sweden, Czech Rep, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Qatar, South Africa and Egypt.

premadonna 05-20-2013 06:42 AM

Canada has done nothing on international level since 2010. Their ranking is deserved.

Rob 05-20-2013 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stv11 (Post 66328465)
Yes, the ranking's main purpose being qualification for the Olympics, giving the OG more weight would result in the same teams qualifying over and over again. They work well as a seeding system too, the pools are pretty well balanced and since they are in use, there wasn't any seeding disaster like the 2004 World Championship.

But in the end, there's isn't much difference between being ranked first or sixth.

I agree. Despite Canada's low ranking they ended up in the easiest group at Sochi. As long as Canada doesn't drop out of the top eight I'm not too concerned.


I'm sure every nation would rather win at the Olympics than be ranked #1 in the IIHF ranking.

leksig 05-20-2013 07:19 AM

The rankings seems accurate to me.

Rob 05-20-2013 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roto (Post 66328769)
Anyway, the IIHF ranking is much better than FIFA ranking, for example, which is a joke.

Disagree. FIFA has 'best vs best' games and tournaments every year. IIHF? Once every four years. That is a joke.

True Hockey Fan 05-20-2013 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt Russell Crowe (Post 66328849)
Canada has done nothing on international level since 2010. Their ranking is deserved.

Well, can't argue about that :), but isn't a little bit weird that olympics have the same importance as the whc ?

On the other hand, I really don't care so much about the IIHF rankings. What matters are the results and the score at the end of the game.

Btw, congratulations to Sweden. :)

roto 05-20-2013 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob (Post 66329053)
Disagree. FIFA has 'best vs best' games and tournaments every year. IIHF? Once every four years. That is a joke.

Apparently it's not easy for many to understand why FIFA ranking sucks. Think. It has nothing to do with "best-on-best".

roto 05-20-2013 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Hockey Fan (Post 66329081)
Well, can't argue about that :), but isn't a little bit weird that olympics have the same importance as the whc ?

Why so? IIHF doesn't even know if NHL is going to release it players because NHL is still afraid that the league goes belly up if there's a two week olympic break every four years. It's weird since other leagues don't have a problem with it.

I bet Canadians wouldn't like to emphasize the olympics in IIHF ranking if NHL players weren't there.

Rob 05-20-2013 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roto (Post 66329149)
Why so? IIHF doesn't even know if NHL is going to release it players because NHL is still afraid that the league goes belly up if there's a two week olympic break every four years. It's weird since other leagues don't have a problem with it.

No, the league is not afraid that it will go bankrupt. There are just a lot of US owners who do not see the positive in closing down the season for two weeks.

Quote:

I bet Canadians wouldn't like to emphasize the olympics in IIHF ranking if NHL players weren't there.
If NHL players aren't playing I wouldn't care about the IIHF ranking at all.

True Hockey Fan 05-20-2013 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roto (Post 66329149)
Why so? IIHF doesn't even know if NHL is going to release it players because NHL is still afraid that the league goes belly up if there's a two week olympic break every four years. It's weird since other leagues don't have a problem with it.

I bet Canadians wouldn't like to emphasize the olympics in IIHF ranking if NHL players weren't there.

It's not like the IIHF doesn't know. Fasel can influence that. And the last 4 years it were olympics with NHL players. So it's not only about one olympic tournament. You can also change the point system easily. So yes, it's very weird to me that since 1998 olympics, after 16 years, the IIHF has still the same point system for olympic games and the world hockey championships.

But as I said, it doesn't matter to me. If Canada is ranked 7th, but wins the Sochi olympics, I'm completely all right with that. :) And I think the same thing applies for europeans.

If the United States wins, I don't care they are number 6 right now. The tournament where every nation can make the best team possible is the tournament that matters to me.

// edit: matters MOST to me.

stv11 05-20-2013 09:00 AM

As I said earlier, giving more wait to the Olympics would push the teams taking part up the ranking and thus defeat its main prupose, automatic qualification for the OG. Belarus, who was 9th in Vancouver, could have qualified for Sochi thanks to this result despite Norway performing a lot better than them ever since.

I think that thanks to the IIHF ranking, the right nine teams earned direct qualification for Sochi.

IHaveNoCreativity 05-20-2013 12:44 PM

The rankings are fair and accurate.

True Hockey Fan 05-20-2013 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IHaveNoCreativity (Post 66335329)
The rankings are fair and accurate.

For the World hockey championship, probably yes. But with olympics together ? No way.

Zine 05-20-2013 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Hockey Fan (Post 66336527)
For the World hockey championship, probably yes. But with olympics together ? No way.



The purpose of the rankings is to place a country in the most deserved tournament (olympics, WC div1-4, etc.) based on recent performance. In that sense they are extremely fair and accurate.

True Hockey Fan 05-20-2013 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zine (Post 66338013)
The purpose of the rankings is to place a country in the most deserved tournament (olympics, WC div1-4, etc.) based on recent performance. In that sense they are extremely fair and accurate.

Yes, it's as fair as the qualification for teams like Austria, Slovenia, Lativa and Germany when fighting for olympic spot without their best players ;)

TonsofPuppies* 05-20-2013 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Hockey Fan (Post 66338963)
Yes, it's as fair as the qualification for teams like Austria, Slovenia, Lativa and Germany when fighting for olympic spot without their best players ;)

The rankings are fair. While I agree that the Olympics should be worth more than the WHC, like someone else already posted, since Vancouver 2010, Canada has done NOTHING on the international stage, at ANY level, except one U18 gold. Hockey Canada should be embarrassed by their efforts.

Zorkan 05-20-2013 02:43 PM

The whole "not with their best players" argument is kind of moot IMO. Especially considering that some countries (especially the more hockey developed) intentionally waived to get some of their stars into the tournament. And in the end, if you do not have the depth to compensate for the few players still in the playoffs, I guess your lower ranking is also justified... (and as you can see, this "depth" argument shows just how ridiculous the claim of "not having our best players" really is, I mean, look at Team Canada this year ffs...)

Shrimper 05-20-2013 02:56 PM

Surprised to see Great Britain drop to 21. We punched above our weight with the Olympics to get to the final qualification stage but then I guess our poor WJHC cost us.

Frank the Tank 05-20-2013 03:03 PM

It is not surprising that the IIHF rankings rely heavily on the WHC championships because it is the organization's crown jewel event. It generates large revenues for the IIHF in terms of viewing rights in European markets. As a result, such rankings have to be taken with the bias the IIHF has as an organization towards Europe. For example, the WHC schedule is based on the finish of the European professional leagues while ignoring the NHL playoffs, the league where the majority of best players in the world play.

Everyone knows to take these ranking with a grain of salt, anyways. Russia was #1 heading into Vancouver 2010 and were eliminated at the QF in a blowout loss. That is not the perception, however, because when I point out (to both NA or European hockey fans) that Canada upset the tournament favorites, the large majority reply that Canada was the actual favorite so it is not an upset.

Zorkan 05-20-2013 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank (Post 66339831)
It is not surprising that the IIHF rankings rely heavily on the WHC championships because it is the organization's crown jewel event. It generates large revenues for the IIHF in terms of viewing rights in European markets. As a result, such rankings have to be taken with the bias the IIHF has as an organization towards Europe. For example, the WHC schedule is based on the finish of the European professional leagues while ignoring the NHL playoffs, the league where the majority of best players in the world play.

Everyone knows to take these ranking with a grain of salt, anyways. Russia was #1 heading into Vancouver 2010 and were eliminated at the QF in a blowout loss. That is not the perception, however, because when I point out (to both NA or European hockey fans) that Canada upset the tournament favorites, the large majority reply that Canada was the actual favorite so it is not an upset.

The rankings are based on your previous successes and it's obvious that you can't use it as a prediction for future success, especially with the marginal differences between the top countries.

I don't understand this obsession about who is the "best country" in general as all those tournaments will always just be a snapshot in the first place. So just relax and enjoy the hockey...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.