National team discussion
View Single Post
04-18-2013, 01:39 PM
Join Date: Jul 2004
Originally Posted by
For me the QF are secondary.the style of hockey is more important (of course I don't wnat them to be relegated). because what's the point when you play with a team that gets to the QF but has to let all its energy on the road to come there and has nothing left in the tank to continue? We've had solid results for 10 years now, but what I want is a coach who tries do give his team some freedom on attack against strong competition (it's much less tyring for the players when they spend some time in the O), plus that they don't have to completely chance their game against lesser opponents. And I think Simpson shows this will, and therefore I can live with some subpar results we had over the last years, when the team is on the road for the next step (which I think they are). But if the Federation looks at it similar, I'm not sure. And about medals: of course, a WCC-Medal would be awesome. I just think that the last WCC before OG in general should be used as a test-tournament. and the OG got one beig advantage, you don't have to think about relegation, which makes it much easier for teams like Germany, Switzerland, Latvia or Slovakia to think only one way.
You have to be a bit realistic too. Despite the improvement we've seen over the last ten years, Switzerland is still clearly behind the top 7 talent pools, which means that winning a quarterfinal would be a huge achievement. You seem to oppose Krüger and Simpson's approaches, but Krüger's defensive minded hockey, despite the occasional disappointment, was good for some upsets, usually got the job done and led to close quarterfinals against opponents who had better talent (Switzerland should have beaten Canada in 2000, but against Slovakia in 2003 and 2004, Sweden in 2005 and the US at the Olympics the opponents were better and a bit of luck would have been needed). I'm not sure what you mean when you write that the team had nothing to continue once the quarterfinals were reached, it only happend twice: in 2007 when Switzerland wasn't very good in the first place and lost to the eventual champion, and in 2008 when an improbable combination of results led to a quarterfinal against one of the best World Championship team in recent memories. With Simpson, we've also had strong games against top teams and some disappointment, so two different strategies led to similar results.
My point is, wether you prefer one coach over the other, both had Switzerland were its talent level belongs: right behind the top teams. To reach the next level, we need better players and there's not much a national team coach can do to change this, it takes time and a lot of investment in player developpment.
Originally Posted by
What are your thoughts about Scherwey? or A.Berger? to make the team... (I know I mentioned Berger once a few months ago, and people in here didn't agree at all, but now after his first play-offs what are your impressions?)
Never been a big fan of that kind of player. Alain Berger wouldn't bring much, we already have players who can bring some toughness while being better skater and having more skills, and I won't change my mind because he managed a highlight worthy shot. Any player can find the top corner once in a while. If the German goon it up, just let them do and score on the power play.
Regarding Scherwey, I hate pests, I prefer to win because I play better hockey, not because I was better at tricking my opponent into taking penalties
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by stv11