View Single Post
12-13-2012, 01:55 PM
Registered User
Hanji's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,259
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Obviously there are differences in philosophy in how to teach hockey (or any other sport) as you move from place to place but I think it is too easily overstated how effective one can be vs another. The primary driver behind how many top level pro's a place produces is the overall number of people they have participating in the sport. Sure some developmental systems will be better than others. A good system may produce 15% more pro's per enrolled players than a bad one. A great system may produce 20% more. But if anyone tries to tell me that their system is so much better that they produce +300% more elite players per capita then I would say they are 100% full of crap.
With our numerical advantage a I expect us to have superior depth. But why haven't we produced a high-end elite forward since the late 1960 early 70 generation? It's coming up on 20 years now. This can't be explained as a normal ebb and flow cycle. It's an obvious issue of development, or lack thereof. Our greatest potential superstar forward on the horizon is Galchenyuk and he's not even American trained.

Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote