HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   International Tournaments (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Rink size - IIHF vs NHL (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=745503)

17* 03-03-2010 09:43 AM

Rink size - IIHF vs NHL
 
Do you think the KHLers will have a big advantage at Sochi, playing on the larger ice surface?

I've been reading in various threads here some differing opinions about the effect the wider ice surface has on the game.

A lot of people are under the opinion that the better skilled players have more room to demonstrate their abilities on the bigger ice.

But, there is also the argument that it's just as easy to trap on the big ice surface.

Barrie22 03-03-2010 10:06 AM

it is easier to trap, because you can push the skill players to the outside and it makes it harder to get good quality shots off on a goalie on larger ice from the outside.

on smaller ice, there is bad places to shoot the puck. but no matter what those bad angle shots can still can get through without the puck being seen.

kjri 03-03-2010 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 17 (Post 24253113)
..But, there is also the argument that it's just as easy to trap on the big ice surface.

Ron Wilson said after Finland game that Finland and Russia made the same mistake. They played big ice hockey that does not work in NHL size rink. In smaller rink it is possible to close mid zone so tight that opponent cannot make opening passes.
If that's true, then there is a big difference. Small rink makes mid zone trap very effective.

RewBicks 03-03-2010 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 17 (Post 24253113)
Do you think the KHLers will have a big advantage at Sochi, playing on the larger ice surface?

I've been reading in various threads here some differing opinions about the effect the wider ice surface has on the game.

A lot of people are under the opinion that the better skilled players have more room to demonstrate their abilities on the bigger ice.

But, there is also the argument that it's just as easy to trap on the big ice surface.

No. The vast majority are just not as talented as the NHL guys. The players that stood out for Russia were NHL players - the rest, with the possible exception of Radulov, looked like background/filler talent. Same goes for the other teams (Jagr excepted).

Psycho Papa Joe 03-03-2010 11:13 AM

For the most part I find hockey on the small NAmerican ice more exciting because of the physical play and more hitting. Hockey on the big ice seems like soccer on ice because of all the room and less contact. I really don't think hockey on the big ice even generates more offense. So basically you don't get more offense but you lose some physical play. Boring if you ask me. Heaven on earth for the perimeter and soft players of the world.

On the other hand, the big ice does put a premium on good skating, which IMO is a positive. Alot of NHLers get away with mediocre skating skills because of the smaller ice.

stingo 03-03-2010 11:26 AM

I find hockey on the big ice boring as hell. It's easier to trap. The smaller ice surface is better for the game.

RewBicks 03-03-2010 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe (Post 24256985)
On the other hand, the big ice does put a premium on good skating, which IMO is a positive. Alot of NHLers get away with mediocre skating skills because of the smaller ice.

Such as? There's no room for Jeff Beukeboom's, Derian Hatcher's, or Dana Murzyn's in the new NHL.

jakzed 03-03-2010 11:33 AM

I for one prefer the bigger ice surface. I'm not into the physicality of the sport as much as the poster above me. We value different aspects of the game differently. The smaller ice surface is a faster game and you can trap with the big ice as well. But I think the bigger ice surface is a more tactical game and allows the more technically superior players the room and thus the ability to utilize their skill more. I think it's a more skilled game and I do prefer it. I don't know why teams like the Russians didn't adjust their tactics though. It looked to me that the Czechs played a defense that was suited to the bigger ice surface as well since they kept collapsing back to the net so often instead of standing guys up.

pld459666 03-03-2010 11:36 AM

.
 
smaller surface = faster paced game.

Personally I like the 2 week change that the Olympics usually provide as it allows the country's best stars to skate freely on a larger sheet of ice.

However, when you water it down to individual leagues, having a smaller, confined rink provides for a much better game.

jakzed 03-03-2010 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stingo (Post 24257521)
I find hockey on the big ice boring as hell. It's easier to trap. The smaller ice surface is better for the game.

I don't think it's easier to trap at all. You can trap and the method of trapping is a little different, but I think it's easier for a faster and more skilled opponent to get through the trap on the larger ice surface. My opinion anyway.

xtr3m 03-03-2010 12:35 PM

Sochi might be NHL size. They're really split right now. Olympic directors really liked the intensity of NHL ice.

Danish Pastry 03-03-2010 12:44 PM

i like the game on the north american ice a 100X's better... from the previous olympics and watching games online the bigger ice game just seems so much more boring and slow... give me speed and checking over the extra room... the lack of extra ice doesnt seem to affect players like ovie...

cenas* 03-03-2010 12:57 PM

I think the smaller ice is more exciting and I think whole europe should start transitioning towards it if it is possible. There should be one rink to rule 'em all and quite frankly the NHL one is a lot more fun.

Siberian 03-03-2010 01:33 PM

Moving to the smaller ice will take away a lot from European hockey as far as development of the young talents go. That is the only advantage Europe has over North America. If Europe will start develoing their youngsters on small ice then all advantage is gone and Canada with USA will dominate by sheer quantity of players.

HarlemsFinest 03-03-2010 01:59 PM

i can't beleive how tight the olympic people always seem to be about every little thing, yet the host gets options on which ice they want? to me that makes no sense. it's clearly advantageous to people who play in the NHL versus other teams comprising of mostly international players.

not that i'm complaining, but i was surprised that vancouver was even allowed to not have an IIHF size rink.

bottomofthefoodchain 03-03-2010 03:40 PM

Changing to smaller ice in Europe probably won't happen for a long long time. It's too expensive to rebuild pretty much every indoor rink.

Vladiator 03-03-2010 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberian (Post 24264988)
Moving to the smaller ice will take away a lot from European hockey as far as development of the young talents go. That is the only advantage Europe has over North America. If Europe will start develoing their youngsters on small ice then all advantage is gone and Canada with USA will dominate by sheer quantity of players.

You are right. The big ice is why Europeans on average are better skaters and danglers, while lacking in the physicality. If we all move to the smaller ice, we will not have such a diversity of playing styles.

RandV 03-03-2010 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarlemsFinest (Post 24266882)
i can't beleive how tight the olympic people always seem to be about every little thing, yet the host gets options on which ice they want? to me that makes no sense. it's clearly advantageous to people who play in the NHL versus other teams comprising of mostly international players.

not that i'm complaining, but i was surprised that vancouver was even allowed to not have an IIHF size rink.

Maybe they told them how many prime ticket front row seats would have to be removed from GM place to make it international size, and how much money would be lost from that? :sarcasm:

Either way I don't mind the bigger rinks it's just nice to see international competition played on our size of rink once in a while. They may call the big ice the 'international' size but they're really isn't a true agreement on a standardized rink but rather it's North American vs European size. Now that I think about it I kind of wonder the history behind each standard.

BlackAces* 03-03-2010 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrie22 (Post 24254057)
it is easier to trap, because you can push the skill players to the outside and it makes it harder to get good quality shots off on a goalie on larger ice from the outside.

on smaller ice, there is bad places to shoot the puck. but no matter what those bad angle shots can still can get through without the puck being seen.

Yeah, I agree with that. I think Europeans in general will have an advantage, not just KHLers.

The lack of familiarity with the larger ice presents a challenge for NA guys, but it is what it is.

Personally, I prefer the smaller ice. I find it to be more exciting.

MALKIN NTHE MIDDLE 03-03-2010 06:02 PM

Hockey on big ice is so boring less scoring less hitting

coolboarder 03-04-2010 03:40 PM

I would like to point out a few things: smaller ice play does force the teams to have better teamwork to accomplish their purpose on the ice. Any shot from anywhere is a good shot even from the perimeter It forces them to employ passing more to create the speed and use more strategies. You can pressure them more when you are on penalty kill. I noticed that you can develop more talent when you play on the smaller ice than you can on the bigger ice. It brings traffic when there is shot from the blue line provide the opportunity for rebounds and result in faster pace of play. It brings more hits. Teams hit to make a play and take the puck off from them more easier than on the big ice. If there is missed pass, it is recovered faster. The overall game brings better flow back and forth with more scoring chances on any opportunity. Dumping and chase is a good strategy despite what European think because it brings pressure to the defenders in the low. There is a good mix of carrying the puck in and dump and chase. It is a way to beat the trap and harder to use the trap.

Now, on the bigger ice, players tend to hog the puck more and play the puck outside the perimeter and generate shots that can be easily stopped by the goaltender. It does not encourage the teamwork and more individual plays than the team plays. Yes, passing combination does exist but it takes longer to develop and easier to defend. Traffic is non-exist because it takes long time to skate and screen the goalie from the board. Pace of play is slower and the penalty kill tend to be passive and powerplay teams tend to handle the puck better due to lack of pressure. Transition game is slower. You need to have the puck now and there is lack of physicality and the result of this is more time to kill when you are down. It tires players more if there is any missed pass. It does not develop the talent faster and longer development time but it does helps to skate faster with more room due to lack of physicality which makes for boring game. It lacks flow if there is too many missed passes and easier to trap.

VelvetJones 03-04-2010 03:45 PM

Big ice is for figure skating, small ice for hockey.

Sergei Makarov 03-04-2010 03:49 PM

I find hockey in NHL rinks boring as hell: players are less skilled, poor skaters, only average stickhandlers and spend all time fighting in the boards for the puck. In a small rink, coaching is not very important. It's painful to see the poor tactics systems and the lack of techinal knowledge of the majority of the NHL teams.

coolboarder 03-04-2010 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberian (Post 24264988)
Moving to the smaller ice will take away a lot from European hockey as far as development of the young talents go. That is the only advantage Europe has over North America. If Europe will start develoing their youngsters on small ice then all advantage is gone and Canada with USA will dominate by sheer quantity of players.

Canada and American players grew up in North America on smaller ice and they develop their talent better so I believe that European countries can develop their talents on smaller ice as well. It helps them to adapt the physical part of the game and to make decisions better. I also disagree about the European advantage is gone with smaller ice, but rather, it produces more intensity to develop talents faster and quality of players. Bigger ice lack intensity whenever I watch any international competition. This 2010 Olympics has greater intensity that I ever seen than in the past Olympics games on bigger ice. If I were an European, I would experiment the development on smaller ice and compare with other countries and give it a few years. I guarantee you that you will see more talents players coming out of Europe.

Tombernack 03-04-2010 04:30 PM

I prefer the smaller ice myself. I like all aspects of hockey, including the physicality. The best players in the world play on small ice, I can't imagine the IIHF resisting the change to smaller ice for too much longer.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.