I dunno there are a lot of players who choose free agency and try to win the cup with a different NHL team. But you rarely see guys flip flopping from country to country.
That's because, as far as I know, once you make a commitment to a national team under IIHF rules, you are only allowed to play for that national team. As such, a player like Tyler Myers, despite being both American and Canadian can only play for Canada in IIHF tournaments. Guys don't flip flop from country to country because they can't.
Cuz I have played, watched and followed hockey for 40 years. North American hockey players want to win the Stanley Cup.
Europeans think that country is important. We don't. Hell, people move to other countries all the time.
If Canada never wins another international tournament, I am fine with it. Who cares?
The question was what means more to a player, his NHL team, or his country? Not what would they rather win, a cup or gold.
For North American players the obvious answer is a cup, but i wouldn't confuse that with them having more value in wearing their NHL jerseys as opposed to their countries Jersey.
You get players who become UFA's every season and sign with other teams like its nothing. How many players do you think would play in the Olympics for 1 country 1 year and then go play for another country 4 years later? There are the odd Canadian player who goes to play for the USA when they are young because they have duel citizenship, but that is because they can't make the Canadian team and still want the exposure, or they would rather play for the USA.
I'll say that players value the Cup over a gold, and even playing in the NHL over playing in the Olympics, but I think their country means more to them then their NHL team does, in general of course.
Look at Ovechkin, he is going to play in Sochi 2014 no matter what the Capitals say. He'll even break his contract with them to do so. I'm sure a lot of Canadian players would do so as well.
A very common line at the Olympics from players goes like this, "Its just a tremendous honor to wear this jersey, to represent my country." You don't hear that kind of stuff very often when talking about NHL players getting traded to a team. It happens with original 6 teams because of the history and the great players who have worn that Jersey but that's about it. You never hear this, "Its a great honor to join the Columbus Blue Jackets, to wear this jersey is amazing".
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlblues9
Growing up playing road hockey it's always for the Stanley Cup and never for the Olympic Gold.
As stated above, the question was about the teams and not the trophies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Seriously.
I remember each and every one of the Oilers 5 Stanley Cups vividly. I can barely remember who won the last Olympic Gold and I sure as heck can't remember the one before that.
International hockey is interesting in that I am watching Oiler players to see how they do. Who wins is of little importance to me.
He was asking about professional hockey players and not fans. No one cares if you care more about the NHL than the Olympics.
That's because, as far as I know, once you make a commitment to a national team under IIHF rules, you are only allowed to play for that national team. As such, a player like Tyler Myers, despite being both American and Canadian can only play for Canada in IIHF tournaments. Guys don't flip flop from country to country because they can't.
Yeah, I know that's the real reason. My point still stands that NHL players happily go to free agency and change teams all the time.
Players are generally more loyal to their country, but the NHL is a paycheck that doesn't come around too often in their lifetime so it's a tough call.
Mist players would like to play for their country at least once in their careers, I'd imagine. They get the chance during the Olympics and being out of the playoffs barring injury. If your team is perpetually in the playoffs and you are not elite enough to play in the Olympics then it's unfortunate.
I wasn't born in Canada but by God I put on that jersey and by God I cheer my ass off.
And that is your way of identifying with your adopted homeland. I've dreamt of expatriating for much of my life and I can honestly say that I would root twenty times as hard for Team Finland if I moved there than I ever have for the country I was born in.
I still love my homeland, but...eh. I'd be more loyal to the Calgary Flames if they gave me a chance to play than I would be to Team USA...and I hate the Flames.
It has nothing to do with my disling in the USA or anything like that...wearing the red, white, and blue would be an extreme honor...it's just...in a country of 330+ million people it's really hard to get a unified identity...certainly much harder than it would be in a country of 5 million with almost everyone sharing the same genetic roots.
__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick
I don't know enough about european hockey but in soccer it's team by far. Country becomes more important to a player the more marginalized the one they are from is. Someone from England might grudgingly play in the WC, but for players from poverty-stricken developing nations it takes on more significance imo since it represents a lot more.
England is pretty marginal as a footballing country.
People from actual top teams don't "grudgingly" play in the WC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harv
(Unless your one of those special cases.)
I'm looking at your Paul Stastny
Yeah, pretty stupid for him to play for Slovakia instead of his country the USA.
Players play for their countries for free, and ask for millions to play for a team. Go figure.
This.
Just because a player would value a Stanley Cup higher than an olympic gold doesn't mean his team means more to him. Players switch teams all the time, but you only have one country.
I think only a few players in the NHL has the same kind of feelings for his team as a passionate supporter would have. I think most players care about winning the cup for himself and the group of guys he's spent the year with, and not the logo on his jersey and contributing to his teams history.
If you grew up being a fan of a team and then get to play for it, or if you've spent many years in it, you'd probably value your team higher.
I would think most players value Olympic Gold and Stanley Cup as high, both of which they dream of winning in their lifetime. OG is the pinnacle of international hockey, while Stanley Cup is that of club-level hockey. Apples and oranges.
I don't know enough about european hockey but in soccer it's team by far. Country becomes more important to a player the more marginalized the one they are from is. Someone from England might grudgingly play in the WC, but for players from poverty-stricken developing nations it takes on more significance imo since it represents a lot more.
Not a chance. I can almost bet any amount of money on that if England won the WC then that would be the biggest moment in any of those players careers. It would be insanely big to win the worlds biggest sports event for a soccer crazy country that has not won since 1966. We are talking heroes and loved by pretty much everyone in the country.
When it comes to hockey it is more difficult as there is no event that has the same status as the World Cup so I'd say it depends on the player. For a european it will be big because you can share it with friends and family on a whole different level, you grew up with national heroes and idolized the national team. So that is a big part. But on the other hand pretty much everything you do during your life in NHL is towards the goal to win the Stanley Cup. You play game after game, practice session after session for years just to win the Cup.
Another factor is that a Swedish player might not want to say that he values the Stanley Cup higher than an Olympic goal to a Swedish reporter, out of loyalty to his homeland.
And the country provided him the means to become a professional hockey player.
However, that is irrelevant in this case. The question is which one a player would choose if the choice had to be made free from any external influences. I believe most players would have a tough time picking one over the other.
Not a chance. I can almost bet any amount of money on that if England won the WC then that would be the biggest moment in any of those players careers. It would be insanely big to win the worlds biggest sports event for a soccer crazy country that has not won since 1966. We are talking heroes and loved by pretty much everyone in the country.
Definitly. The football world cup is the greatest sports event on this planet, and every single player values it higher than any other league or cup titles. Not even close to be honest.
As a Jets fan for nearly twenty years and a Pats (junior team) fan for twenty years I think the last thing you should be doing is questioning my dedication to my teams.
This is a very difficult question, because there are vastly different reasons to want either.
If you ask most players, they will say team. But like someone else mentioned, if that was entirely true, why would they leave their team and go to a heated rival for a better paycheck (Max Talbot?).
Assuming a player will generally say he wants a Cup more (which I think they would), I think the question could be tweaked to read: if the Stanley Cup matters more for a player, does it matter which team he wins it with?
There won't be a consensus on this, but I think players in this day and age know that they are kind of looked at as a piece of meat by their club teams. They will be loyal up to a point, but then realize that the loyalty has limits.
Take a player who has played for Team X for ten years. Blood, sweat and tears for that team. Battled through injuries, the whole nine yards. Is that team going to hesitate to trade that player if they think they can improve their team by making that deal? No way. He's gone.
Players know this. They want to win for their friends on the team, but I am sorry, the city they are in is generally not as important.
Players say they want the Stanley Cup more than an Olympic gold (most do), but I don't think they care what team that is for. They would be as happy winning it in Calgary as they would New York.
Playing for country, on the other hand, is less about friendships and the guys in the room as it is for the people of that nation and the legacy it will leave.
Great question - I love thinking about this kind of stuff.
England is pretty marginal as a footballing country.
People from actual top teams don't "grudgingly" play in the WC
Quote:
Originally Posted by chcl
Not a chance. I can almost bet any amount of money on that if England won the WC then that would be the biggest moment in any of those players careers. It would be insanely big to win the worlds biggest sports event for a soccer crazy country that has not won since 1966. We are talking heroes and loved by pretty much everyone in the country.
You are both wrong. It would be huge to win for England but most players now a days don't give a damn. You think Rooney likes the world cup? Most England fans under 40 don't care about it at all, they see it as a huge distraction getting in the way of club success.
If you look at the effort given in South Africa and tell me they want to be there I say you are delusional.
What a coincidence that England has the biggest league in the world and has not done anything in the WC since '66...
You are both wrong. It would be huge to win for England but most players now a days don't give a damn. You think Rooney likes the world cup? Most England fans under 40 don't care about it at all, they see it as a huge distraction getting in the way of club success.
If you look at the effort given in South Africa and tell me they want to be there I say you are delusional.
If you think the 2010 England line-up was worth anything more than "round of 16" then you are delusional. They simply had very little talent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebastianHornbuckle
What a coincidence that England has the biggest league in the world and has not done anything in the WC since '66...
Don't get too carried away, England has had the biggest league in the wolrd for 5 years or so, and it's mostly because of the foreigners.
Most of England's entries since 66 have been either not very talented at all or chokers, or both. Of course it doesn't help that their press and fans at home consistently mislead them into thinking they are one of the top teams.
Really I can't think of any instance where England was knocked out by a team that was not better on paper.
You are both wrong. It would be huge to win for England but most players now a days don't give a damn. You think Rooney likes the world cup? Most England fans under 40 don't care about it at all, they see it as a huge distraction getting in the way of club success.
If you look at the effort given in South Africa and tell me they want to be there I say you are delusional.
What a coincidence that England has the biggest league in the world and has not done anything in the WC since '66...
That is because the English media tend to hype their national team and suddenly everyone in England thinks they are among the best.
It is not that they do not care. It is that they are simply not good enough.
If you think the 2010 England line-up was worth anything more than "round of 16" then you are delusional. They simply had very little talent.
Don't get too carried away, England has had the biggest league in the wolrd for 5 years or so, and it's mostly because of the foreigners.
Most of England's entries since 66 have been either not very talented at all or chokers, or both. Of course it doesn't help that their press and fans at home consistently mislead them into thinking they are one of the top teams.
Really I can't think of any instance where England was knocked out by a team that was not better on paper.
Shrek is good enough to be arguably Man U's best player, the highest scorer in the PL last year and he is not talented? Gerrard? Lampard? Terry? And all they can do is tie the U.S. team and then lose 4-1 to Germany?
They've had plenty of talented sides in the last 20 years, and plenty of disappointing results. They are "chokers" because they don't really care. Watch Rooney the next time he plays for England, all he does is stand there like a lump.
That is because the English media tend to hype their national team and suddenly everyone in England thinks they are among the best.
It is not that they do not care. It is that they are simply not good enough.
every player on the team plays for a top flight PL club, and many are the best players on their team. Yes, I agree that English talent is overrated when it comes to how much they are paid and sought after within the league (LFC fan here), but they've got as many world class players as anyone (though their kind of in an in between stage right now)
