The issue would be at 14 is a year away untill some may go to junior.A year to learn how to hit and play physical is not alot of time and may result in injurys.Some players may take less then a year and be ready but some may take more time.Could hockey canada benefit from raising the age yes maybe a bit but the same could be said if they go with more practices less games.
Just pass a law that bans players from turning junior before age 16. In other words no players born in calendar year 1994 would be allowed to play Junior Hockey in 2009-10, no exceptions.
no the 12 year olds that are injured and concused are not the panzies....the 12 year olds that are injured or concused THEN ARE AFFRAID TO GET HIT AND DONT WANNA PLAY ANYMORE those are the panzies...and it doesnt matter if they quite because if they have that kinda mental make up they will never make it anywhere anyways....this is a tough sport...for tough kids.
as an example what would you say if someone started a thread saying america is losing talented football players because the kids dont wanna get tackled and hit?...its a big part of the sport
also those skilled kids that didnt like getting hit end up being the ones scoring 6 goals a game in mens league cause theyve got speed and skill when there is no checking...but throw them in a real game with contact and they usualy disapear
Dude, I'm American in my mid-50's. I played HS football and hockey. I've got news for
you, US football has lost many very good white athletes due to the frequency of injury in football. Take a look at the # of white football players at the NFL/NCAA level, its down enormously from the mid to late 70's. Parents aren't going to put 12 year olds at risk of permanent brain impairment to satisfy your ignorant blood lust. Go crawl back under whatever rock you came out of.
One, America has hardly been dominating at basketball recently at the international level.
Two, the number of Americans in the NBA has actually been going down.
Three, the number of elite Americans relative to the total number of elite players in the league has been going down.
So thanks for the comparison, it definitely helps to make my point.
Anyway, there are all kinds of reasons why, reasons that any reasonable intelligent person could figure out.
One problem is that, in Canada, the emphasis is on hockey as a recreational sport, with a large portion of the resources devoted to ensure that as many people participate as possible.
If those resources were instead, directed solely towards the most promising athletes, then you might see the kind of result that you are looking for.
But Canadians are unwilling to change their attitudes towards hockey as a recreational sport, and are therefore unwilling to direct substantial resources away from the simple participation of their own children towards the more serious training of athletes.
For every "hockey parent" who wants their kid to be the next Gretzky, there are 20 who just want the kids to have fun.
Also, particularly in the last 20 years, competing attention for time is cited as a particular problem. Kids don't want to play hockey all the time, with TV, video games, the internet as distractions. The very "resources" you cite as a positive, in terms of the standard of living, are also a considerable negative.
Personally, I think another crop of "elite" Canadians is just around the corner. Any idiot knows talent is generally produced in cycles.
I'm just glad all of Russia's problems have clearly been solved because of their back to back victories at the World Championships. If only we could have been so lucky back in 2003-2004.
As I had made abundantly clear earlier, but which you apparently were unwilling/unable to read, changes to Canada's system took place within Hockey Canada following the 1998 Olympics. Meaning that, those players affected by those changes are around 10-11 years old. So give it a few years and let's see what pops out.
When the US sends its absolute best to the Olympics in basketball, its no contest. the disparity between the USA's basketball best and the rest of the world is far, far greater than the difference between Canada in hockey and the rest of the world.
In a one, three, five or seven game series, a team with James, Howard and Bryant
would never lose a game or be seriously challenged by any country, no matter how much they have improved. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
The less physical US game doesn't win them endless titles though. Canada's still the front runner, but the hot shot Russia's aiming high. As for team USA, it's a cute team, yet disastrously short on defensive talent.
As much as one can say that a player needs to learn the fundamentals like skating, passing, shooting, etc. - they should also learn about hitting. Hitting is a fundamental aspect of hockey. Europeans are soft as butter and don't like to hit/get hit themselves and that's why they view it as 'bad'.
What a tool you are. No Canadian, American, Russian or hell Martian likes to get hit. Where do you come up with such insane stuff?
Yeah, junior depth in Canada is fine. That's not what the thread is all about. Read, read, read before trying to pinch in!
Does anyone have the numbers on total # of male hockey players between the ages of 6-18, broken down by say 2 year age groups? It would be interesting to see the % of players to total male population by country. Just looking at the raw population numbers the Finns and Swedes can lay claim to producing the best hockey in the world, with Canada, USA and Russia actually bringing up the back of the pack of the elite nations.