Where would you say each major national team is in cyclical terms.
View Single Post
12-12-2012, 08:54 PM
Join Date: May 2005
Originally Posted by
Ya based on the raw numbers this shouldn't be surprising. American's now make up about 25% of the league so last year they were actually underrepresented in the Top 50. They were also underrespresented in the Top 100 and 200. I wonder if this has anything to do with what Xokkeu is sorta saying... Perhaps American kids are in general fast, strong, athletetic, etc enough to make the NHL in large (and growing) numbers but lack the technical skill it takes to be "elite" offensive players. It could also be a total cyclical cawinkydink and thinking to hard about it is just over analysing stuff.
With all that being said I think people overrate the amount of elite (or really just any) NHL talent a country needs to field a competitive and even contending national team.
The US has produced loads of elite technical players, such as Modano, Roenick, Weight, LaFontaine, Tkachuk, Chelios, Housley, Leetch, Richter, etc. but every country cycles up and down in this regard and the US is no different.
I agree that people way over estimate the amount of talent on paper you need to win a best on best tournament. One thing that makes them so exciting is that by being so short there is a high degree of randomness in who wins. Over time the countries with better teams on paper will win more often but lesser teams always have a good shot too. I would also say that most hockey fans read way, way too much into single game or single tournament victories.
View Public Profile
Mr Kanadensisk's albums
Find More Posts by Mr Kanadensisk