HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > International Tournaments
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
International Tournaments Discuss international tournaments such as the World Juniors, Olympic hockey, and Ice Hockey World Championships, as they take place; or discuss past tournaments.

The world rankings

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2013, 07:09 AM
  #51
joe89
#5
 
joe89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 16,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Writer View Post
They did put out a ranking for the 1st time ever after Sweden won it in Calgary '12 with Sweden assuming the number 1 spot... but as far as I can tell they didn't follow up this year after the U.S. victory in Ufa.
The rankings were based on two years(four tournaments) of U18 and U20 championships, but was also unofficial and it's not used for anything. Maybe they'll follow it up with a new one this summer, last year they posted it June 29th.

joe89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 07:35 AM
  #52
Mr Writer
Registered User
 
Mr Writer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe89 View Post
The rankings were based on two years(four tournaments) of U18 and U20 championships, but was also unofficial and it's not used for anything. Maybe they'll follow it up with a new one this summer, last year they posted it June 29th.
Yes, I seem to recall that the rankings came out late. Listen, the IIHF can devise whatever formula they want to come out with their results and call it pumpernickel for all I care. I have no issue with the IIHF rankings, I maintain my own rankings and generally refer to it rather then "gospel" according to the IIHF. Some people take offense to that, but there's nothing I can do about that.

Mr Writer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 07:42 AM
  #53
SeriousHabs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everlasting View Post
Canada havent done anything since the olympics, so no. It's like saying Chelsea is the best football club at the moment

As for the WJC, NO. They should not have anything to do with rankings. They are just kids and none of them could not even take a spot on the A team. It really is only Canada who cares about it too, but it is getting more popular here too.
Well there isn't anything relevant besides the Olympics. The Olympics is the only best on best tournament in the world outside of the NHL playoffs, which you know, are held during the WC.

SeriousHabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 07:43 AM
  #54
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Writer View Post
and with regards to the IIHF, you're already preaching to the choir. I've been a proponent for years of both Hockey Canada and USA Hockey pulling out of the IIHF U20 tournament and holding our own annual tournament alternating cities between the two. Best of 7 Summit Series every Christmas..compelling must see t.v. I think it would be a worth while project for 5 years to see what we have.
How would that benefit anybody?

Like it or not, the IIHF WJC has evolved into a Christmas tradition in Canada and is an absurdly huge cash cow for Hockey Canada.
An annual USA/Canada best-of-7 would get redundant extremely fast....likely similar to the Canada/Russia junior summit series that didn't garner too much attention.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 07:56 AM
  #55
Mr Writer
Registered User
 
Mr Writer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
How would that benefit anybody?

Like it or not, the IIHF WJC has evolved into a Christmas tradition in Canada and is an absurdly huge cash cow for Hockey Canada.
An annual USA/Canada best-of-7 would get redundant extremely fast....likely similar to the Canada/Russia junior summit series that didn't garner too much attention.
I think it would be intriguing enough to start, for a trial project, I know it speaks to several factors which garners Canadian attention. 1. it will be a best on best with a hated rival, they love beating us as much as we love beating them. 2. Best of 4 series which is much more within our scope of reason rather than a 1 game elimination possible shootout. 3. It will generally be not decided quickly and would go 6 or 7 games. That is 6 or 7 games, highly competitive, entertaining games. With the IIHF U20 we get what, 3 maybe 4 in a good year of competitive games.

Would a Canada-US Annual Summit Series have long term life? I don't know...but it's tempting from this Canadian's perspective. I'd be intrigued by it. At least for a few years.

And if NHL Olympic participation ends after Sochi, then North American and Europe should do their own thing and then have the Juniors compete for Olympic gold.

Mr Writer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 08:10 AM
  #56
Propane Nightmares
The Resist Stance
 
Propane Nightmares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: England land
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 45,629
vCash: 500
I started the thread with the Junior rankings, here it is http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1222281

Propane Nightmares is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 10:07 AM
  #57
waitin425
Registered User
 
waitin425's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,120
vCash: 500
Rankings mean nothing to me as a fan when the big 6 teams best players are not there.

waitin425 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 10:38 AM
  #58
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Writer View Post
I think it would be intriguing enough to start, for a trial project, I know it speaks to several factors which garners Canadian attention. 1. it will be a best on best with a hated rival, they love beating us as much as we love beating them. 2. Best of 4 series which is much more within our scope of reason rather than a 1 game elimination possible shootout. 3. It will generally be not decided quickly and would go 6 or 7 games. That is 6 or 7 games, highly competitive, entertaining games. With the IIHF U20 we get what, 3 maybe 4 in a good year of competitive games.

Would a Canada-US Annual Summit Series have long term life? I don't know...but it's tempting from this Canadian's perspective. I'd be intrigued by it. At least for a few years.

And if NHL Olympic participation ends after Sochi, then North American and Europe should do their own thing and then have the Juniors compete for Olympic gold.
But why pull out of the WJC?
A USA/Canada series could be played before the start of the season. Why eliminate the WJC and scrap some great junior rivalries to play the same country ad nauseum every year?

Regardless, at the end of the day it's about $$. A 5-7 game junior series won't come close to generating the kind of cash the WJC does....especially for Hockey Canada.

Yea ok I understand some people's spite towards IIHF, but nonetheless, there's no benefit whatsoever for Canada in pulling out of the WJC.

But each to their own I guess.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 10:38 AM
  #59
roto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitin425 View Post
Rankings mean nothing to me as a fan when the big 6 teams best players are not there.
Is the ranking really that hard concept to understand? IIHF ranking is meant to mean nothing to you. No Canadians or others are supposed to brag with IIHF ranking. It exists because it's used to seed the teams in tournaments, for example.

It tells how countries have succeeded in latest tournaments. Canada hasn't finished well since Vancouver and that's why Canada is not number one. Yes, on paper Canada has gazillion of super-hyper-excellent players which could easily destroy all other teams in theory, but in order to be number one in IIHF ranking you have to win on ice.

roto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 10:41 AM
  #60
waitin425
Registered User
 
waitin425's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roto View Post
Is the ranking really that hard concept to understand? IIHF ranking is meant to mean nothing to you. No Canadians or others are supposed to brag with IIHF ranking. It exists because it's used to seed the teams in tournaments, for example.

It tells how countries have succeeded in latest tournaments. Canada hasn't finished well since Vancouver and that's why Canada is not number one. Yes, on paper Canada has gazillion of super-hyper-excellent players which could easily destroy all other teams in theory, but in order to be number one in IIHF ranking you have to win on ice.
I realize everything you have said.....some people choose to brag about rankings and in fact they mean nothing. They provide seedlings only. It has nothing to do with which Country is better. That is only determine every four years at the Olympics

waitin425 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 11:03 AM
  #61
roto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitin425 View Post
It has nothing to do with which Country is better. That is only determine every four years at the Olympics
No. Even olympics doesn't determine which country is best. It's just a tournament. Can you seriously say that tournament of 1-4 single game elimination rounds every four yeas can be used to determine which country is best? No. It proves only that the winning team was best in that tournament.

Yes, that's the best tournament we have but still it doesn't prove anything about which country is best.

roto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 11:51 AM
  #62
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roto View Post
No. Even olympics doesn't determine which country is best. It's just a tournament. Can you seriously say that tournament of 1-4 single game elimination rounds every four yeas can be used to determine which country is best? No. It proves only that the winning team was best in that tournament.

Yes, that's the best tournament we have but still it doesn't prove anything about which country is best.
It didn't mean as much on these boards 4 years ago as it does now, for some reason.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 12:02 PM
  #63
Huffman
Registered User
 
Huffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
But why pull out of the WJC?
A USA/Canada series could be played before the start of the season. Why eliminate the WJC and scrap some great junior rivalries to play the same country ad nauseum every year?

Regardless, at the end of the day it's about $$. A 5-7 game junior series won't come close to generating the kind of cash the WJC does....especially for Hockey Canada.

Yea ok I understand some people's spite towards IIHF, but nonetheless, there's no benefit whatsoever for Canada in pulling out of the WJC.

But each to their own I guess.
The WJC was great while Canada was still winning

Huffman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 01:51 PM
  #64
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,083
vCash: 500
Guess which 2 countries each played 18 home games at the World Championships in the past 2 years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Everlasting View Post
1. Sweden
2. Finland

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 01:58 PM
  #65
TollefsenFan
Registered User
 
TollefsenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: K-town
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
Guess which 2 countries each played 18 home games at the World Championships in the past 2 years
Home ice sucks in international hockey, because of all the pressure. Finland won in Slovakia 2011, Bronze in Vancouver 2010. But they failed twice in the bronze final 2012 and 2013. Sweden won gold, because they faced Switzerland. Nothing against Switzerland, but last years team Russia was stronger.

TollefsenFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 02:03 PM
  #66
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv11 View Post
I think that thanks to the IIHF ranking, the right nine teams earned direct qualification for Sochi.
Had Germany scored one more goal (or allowed one less) against Latvia last year, they'd be in Sochi and Switzerland would have had to qualify.

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 02:30 PM
  #67
Fighting Banana Slug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
As has been stated previously, the rankings only assess recent past performance, and as such Sweden/Finland would be rightfully rated highly. My problem, however, is the application of that ranking to the Olympics, where an entirely different caliber of players are available. Would anyone argue that Canada/US/Russia would be likely rated (relatively) higher based on the Olympic rosters?

Fighting Banana Slug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 02:34 PM
  #68
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everlasting View Post
Canada havent done anything since the olympics, so no. It's like saying Chelsea is the best football club at the moment
Difference is that Chelsea plays every year

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 02:35 PM
  #69
Huffman
Registered User
 
Huffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TollefsenFan View Post
Home ice sucks in international hockey, because of all the pressure. Finland won in Slovakia 2011, Bronze in Vancouver 2010. But they failed twice in the bronze final 2012 and 2013. Sweden won gold, because they faced Switzerland. Nothing against Switzerland, but last years team Russia was stronger.
So we only played one game to win the gold? Take a look at the lineup we faced in the quarterfinal.

Huffman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 02:38 PM
  #70
SwissBruin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Basel
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousHabs View Post
Well there isn't anything relevant besides the Olympics. The Olympics is the only best on best tournament in the world outside of the NHL playoffs, which you know, are held during the WC.
Am I the only one who's getting tired of this "the NHL playoffs are much better then the WC because they are best on best" stuff? Actually they are not! A typical NHL team consists of a few star players, a number of good complementary players and then they are filled up with totally replaceable dime a dozen players who would never get an invitation for the national team. The Canadian forward group had actually more talent than any NHL team (maybe Pittsburgh is debatable..). The world's best players are randomly distributed over 30 teams and many of them do not make the playoffs. Still nobody complains that the Stanley Cup is meaningless because it isn't best on best..

SwissBruin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 02:47 PM
  #71
Fighting Banana Slug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissBruin View Post
Am I the only one who's getting tired of this "the NHL playoffs are much better then the WC because they are best on best" stuff? Actually they are not! A typical NHL team consists of a few star players, a number of good complementary players and then they are filled up with totally replaceable dime a dozen players who would never get an invitation for the national team. The Canadian forward group had actually more talent than any NHL team (maybe Pittsburgh is debatable..). The world's best players are randomly distributed over 30 teams and many of them do not make the playoffs. Still nobody complains that the Stanley Cup is meaningless because it isn't best on best..
You are comparing apples and oranges. The view that the Olympics are the "best on best" is based on the idea that all of the players are made available and there is an assumption that they have had a chance to practice together (summer training camp and prior to Olympics). No one thinks the Stanley Cup finals are meaningless, because everyone understands these are all club teams. Now, if you want a "Champions Tournament" with the Stanley Cup winners playing the SEL, FEL, KHL, etc. champs, sign me up. I like the Stanley Cup winners chances.

Fighting Banana Slug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 02:53 PM
  #72
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TollefsenFan View Post
Home ice sucks in international hockey, because of all the pressure. Finland won in Slovakia 2011, Bronze in Vancouver 2010. But they failed twice in the bronze final 2012 and 2013.
Yes that was a pretty odd comment since both countries did better away from home.

Finland at home finished 4 and 4, away they finished 3, 6, 1 (avg: 3.3).
Sweden at home finished 6 and 1 (avg: 3.5), away they finished 5, 3, 2 (avg 3.3).

The same is true for Slovakia who finished 10th at home while they ended up 4, 12, 2, 8 away (avg 6.5).

Canada on the other hand benefited from being at home, finishing 1st in Vancouver. Away from home they were 7, 5, 5 and 5.

It's obvious Canada's 2010 result is an outlier solely explained by the home ice and as such has no meaning and should be disregarded altogether.

Germany also did better at home finishing 4th while they couldn't place better than 7th when playing away.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 03:02 PM
  #73
SwissBruin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Basel
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug View Post
You are comparing apples and oranges. The view that the Olympics are the "best on best" is based on the idea that all of the players are made available and there is an assumption that they have had a chance to practice together (summer training camp and prior to Olympics). No one thinks the Stanley Cup finals are meaningless, because everyone understands these are all club teams. Now, if you want a "Champions Tournament" with the Stanley Cup winners playing the SEL, FEL, KHL, etc. champs, sign me up. I like the Stanley Cup winners chances.
Don't get me wrong, I love the NHL and especially the playoffs. But this endless complaining and diminishing of the WC is really annoying. No one says it is a best on best tournament! It is an international tournament where nations compete against each other with the best teams they are able to assemble. Who cares if some players are missing? Even the Olympics are not best on best, you always have some players missing due to injuries. Would a Russian win in Sochi still count if Crosby is out with another concussion? If some of you don't care about the WC that's fine, but then just ignore it and stop the endless complaining about it!

SwissBruin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 03:08 PM
  #74
stv11
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
Had Germany scored one more goal (or allowed one less) against Latvia last year, they'd be in Sochi and Switzerland would have had to qualify.
And Switzerland could have cancelled that goal by scoring one more against Slovakia or Canada. This year, Slovenia or Austria could have stayed in the top pool with slightly different results.

That's just the way sports go, sometimes things are decided by the small margins.

stv11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2013, 03:08 PM
  #75
Fighting Banana Slug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissBruin View Post
Don't get me wrong, I love the NHL and especially the playoffs. But this endless complaining and diminishing of the WC is really annoying. No one says it is a best on best tournament! It is an international tournament where nations compete against each other with the best teams they are able to assemble. Who cares if some players are missing? Even the Olympics are not best on best, you always have some players missing due to injuries. Would a Russian win in Sochi still count if Crosby is out with another concussion? If some of you don't care about the WC that's fine, but then just ignore it and stop the endless complaining about it!
I think it is safe to say that the average NA hockey fan cares less about the WC, simply because they occur during the Stanley Cup playoffs and many, if not most, of the top NA (and many Euro) players are not available. I complain because I think "World Championship" should have the best players. I certainly would not complain if Russia wins in Sochi if all of the available players are there.

Fighting Banana Slug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.