HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > International Tournaments
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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.

What do you think of 2010 Olympic format?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-21-2009, 06:33 AM
  #26
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,813
vCash: 500
There's nothing arbitrary about a bronze medal. It exists in every Olympic sport. Plus it exists in every major world tournament (soccer, basketball, etc.). Why should hockey be different? Your "aluminum medal" argument is just silly.

Strangely enough, after Russia won its bronze medal game at WHC in 2007, they haven't lost another game in more than 2 years. Something to build upon

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2009, 06:35 AM
  #27
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
There's nothing arbitrary about a bronze medal. It exists in every Olympic sport. Plus it exists in every major world tournament (soccer, basketball, etc.). Why should hockey be different? Your "aluminum medal" argument is just silly.
Never mind, I think you missed the point.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2009, 02:57 PM
  #28
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rostov-on-Don
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
And now our ultra nationalist Zine decides who has honour, integrity and dignity worthy of being at the Olympics. Dude, you have an unhealthy obsession with Russia, and an equally unhealthy hate for Canada, get a life.
C'mon, quit with the personal insults.....this is a good topic.

Like I said, there's no reason to do away with the bronze game. The 'gold or nothing' mentallity doesn't preclude players from giving an honest effort even when gold is out of reach.

Instead of eliminating the game, perhaps the ones who should be eliminated are the players making a mockery of themselves and their country by not caring.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2009, 07:23 PM
  #29
Section337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,758
vCash: 500
The Olympics do have a number of sports where the bronze medal is awarded to both semi-finalist losers without and actual competition occurring. Though mostly in the fighting events where injury concerns are likely higher.

Section337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2009, 09:42 PM
  #30
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
In all the IIHF mens tournaments (WC and OG) since 1992 Canada has played in 12 gold medal games and 6 bronze medal games. Our gold medal record is .500 (6W, 6L) and our bronze medal record is .167 (1W, 5L). That to me suggests that we were not competing as hard in the bronze medal games.

Whether or not a team has represented itself with honour and integrity is ultimately judged by the people of the country they are representing. Personally I care very little how Canada does in the bronze medal game, because for me the tournament either ends when you get the gold or the day you are eliminated from winning it. Personally I do not find it entertaining watching any game where one of the teams is not engaged, be it the bronze medal game, or a preliminary round game where a superpower is mailing it in against a vastly less skilled team. I understand that for a lot of people the bronze is important, I'm just saying that for me it is not.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2009, 10:45 PM
  #31
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rostov-on-Don
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
In all the IIHF mens tournaments (WC and OG) since 1992 Canada has played in 12 gold medal games and 6 bronze medal games. Our gold medal record is .500 (6W, 6L) and our bronze medal record is .167 (1W, 5L). That to me suggests that we were not competing as hard in the bronze medal games.

Whether or not a team has represented itself with honour and integrity is ultimately judged by the people of the country they are representing. Personally I care very little how Canada does in the bronze medal game, because for me the tournament either ends when you get the gold or the day you are eliminated from winning it. Personally I do not find it entertaining watching any game where one of the teams is not engaged, be it the bronze medal game, or a preliminary round game where a superpower is mailing it in against a vastly less skilled team. I understand that for a lot of people the bronze is important, I'm just saying that for me it is not.
Fine, just a difference of opinion then. But who says teams aren’t trying, particularly with a medal on the line?

In fact, I distinctly remember Canadians rallying around and supporting the teams who came home with WJC bronzes.
While I agree with you to an extent about WC, I think the ‘gold or I don’t care’ mentality doesn’t apply for tourneys Canadians have strong interest in….primarily WJC and Olympics. Hypothetically speaking, I can't imagine Team Canada giving half an effort during the bronze game in front of a home crowd in Vancouver. I don't think the fans would stand for it.
"We don't care" is nothing more than the typical excuse for losing or playing poorly.


Last edited by Zine: 10-23-2009 at 11:05 PM.
Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2009, 06:52 AM
  #32
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
"We don't care" is nothing more than the typical excuse for losing or playing poorly.
I'm sure if you checked Canada's mens winning percentage in bronze medal games against our QF, SF, F and prelim game records, the bronze medal games would be our lowest winning percentage game hands down. That really says it all.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2009, 07:38 AM
  #33
Dfire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Germany
Posts: 309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
I'm sure if you checked Canada's mens winning percentage in bronze medal games against our QF, SF, F and prelim game records, the bronze medal games would be our lowest winning percentage game hands down. That really says it all.
They haven't played in that many bronze medal games so far.
So the amount of empirical data doesn't allow conlusions like that.

Dfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2009, 08:49 AM
  #34
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dfire View Post
They haven't played in that many bronze medal games so far.
So the amount of empirical data doesn't allow conlusions like that.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread:

In all the IIHF mens tournaments (WC and OG) since 1992 Canada has played in 12 gold medal games and 6 bronze medal games. Our gold medal record is .500 (6W, 6L) and our bronze medal record is .167 (1W, 5L).

While agree it is not a lot of data to work with it certainly shows a correlation between our bronze game performance and general apathy towards the game with Canadian fans.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2009, 11:15 AM
  #35
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rostov-on-Don
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
I'm sure if you checked Canada's mens winning percentage in bronze medal games against our QF, SF, F and prelim game records, the bronze medal games would be our lowest winning percentage game hands down. That really says it all.
I already answered this.

WC can't be grouped in with WJC and olympics.....it's a tournament Canadians generally care less about as it is. Although I'd say that's changed recently (at least for the players) because of olympic roster implications. It's no different than how Euro teams put less emphasis on WJC.

In tournaments that your whole country follows with people glued to television sets (WJC, olympics) you're lying if you say Canadian players don't care.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2009, 12:22 PM
  #36
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
I already answered this.

WC can't be grouped in with WJC and olympics.....it's a tournament Canadians generally care less about as it is. Although I'd say that's changed recently (at least for the players) because of olympic roster implications. It's no different than how Euro teams put less emphasis on WJC.

In tournaments that your whole country follows with people glued to television sets (WJC, olympics) you're lying if you say Canadian players don't care.
All I can say is that in Nagano it didn't look to me like the Canadians put a whole lot into the bronze game and it didn't really bother me. Here is the first article that came up when I googled that bronze medal game. Note that this is from a Japanese journalist.

"Canada, meanwhile, emotionally drained after its shoot-out loss to the Czech Republic on Friday, were listless on the ice and will go home empty-handed -- after coming to Nagano as the clear gold medal favorite."

http://www.shinmai.co.jp/oly-eng/19980221/0006.htm

Maybe we could agree that the Canadians don't care enough about the bronze to put in the effort required to beat one of the other top teams.


Last edited by Mr Kanadensisk: 10-24-2009 at 02:19 PM.
Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2009, 07:08 AM
  #37
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rostov-on-Don
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Maybe we could agree that the Canadians don't care enough about the bronze to put in the effort required to beat one of the other top teams.
Yep, sure looks like the team doesn't care by how little everyone celebrates the goals (including the team bench). How 'listless' they all look.




Let's see...international ice, reffing, IIHF/IOC is pro-european, shootouts, poor roster selections, injuries, anybody can win 1 game, and now you don't care.
What's next, you guys become malnourished when overseas because you run out of butter tarts?

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2009, 07:33 AM
  #38
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
Yep, sure looks like the team doesn't care by how little everyone celebrates the goals (including the team bench). How 'listless' they all look.


Let's see...international ice, reffing, IIHF/IOC is pro-european, shootouts, poor roster selections, injuries, anybody can win 1 game, and now you don't care.
What's next, you guys become malnourished when overseas because you run out of butter tarts?
Wow, we celebrated a goal.....

I'm not sure why you are so upset that most Canadians don't like the same thing you do. I don't know what else to say other than you are a broken record with an obvious political agenda and an unhealthy hate on for Canada. Every situation you discuss involving Canada you try in vain to put as negative as spin on the country as you can. The only reason I can think is that you are somehow threatened by us. Listen, Russia is a great hockey nation, but when it comes to this game there is no shame in taking a back seat to Canada. Canada is number one in hockey because we are the most committed to it and trolling for the rest of your life isn't going to change that.


Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2009, 08:04 AM
  #39
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rostov-on-Don
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Wow, we celebrated a goal.....

I'm not sure why you are so upset that most Canadians don't like the same thing you do. I don't know what else to say other than you are a broken record with an obvious on for Canada. Every situation you discuss involving Canada you try in vain to put as negative as spin on the country as you can. The only reason I can think is that you are somehow threatened by us. Listen, Russia is a great hockey nation, but when it comes to this game there is no shame in taking a back seat to Canada. Canada is number one in hockey because we are the most committed to it and trolling for the rest of your life isn't going to change that.


A political agenda and an unhealthy hate? Er...ok. Anyhow, anybody (you) who spends so much time on other county's boards spewing negativity is more likely the one feeling threatened.

Listen, Canada is a great hockey nation (you invented the sport), but when it comes to this game there is no shame in taking a back seat to Russia.....particularly at the very top level right now, and trolling Russian boards for the rest of your life isn't going to change that.


Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2009, 06:38 PM
  #40
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
A political agenda and an unhealthy hate? Er...ok. Anyhow, anybody (you) who spends so much time on other county's boards spewing negativity is more likely the one feeling threatened.

Listen, Canada is a great hockey nation (you invented the sport), but when it comes to this game there is no shame in taking a back seat to Russia.....particularly at the very top level right now, and trolling Russian boards for the rest of your life isn't going to change that.

I see you have no more evidence about our passion for the bronze than a video clip of some guys celebrating a nice goal, as usual your argument is lame. As for your last post we both know the truth, and let's face it you make Rush Limbaugh look objective.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 09:43 AM
  #41
Killa_Kyle*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Looks like a strange format to me for next year's Olympics:

Three groups of four, instead of two groups of six

Group A- Canada, USA, Swiss, Norway
Group B- Russia, Czech, Slovakia, Latvia
Group C- Sweden, Finland, Belarus, Germany

Each team plays the other three teams in its group during the preliminary round. After this round, all teams are ranked/seeded and the top four finishers are given a bye into the quarterfinal round.

The remaining eight teams (#5-12) play in the qualification round (one game each) to get into the quarterfinals. The match-ups are determined by ranking (5 vs. 12, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10, 8 vs. 9).

Once the qualification "round" is over, the quarterfinals are determined (#1 team vs. 8/9 winner, #2 vs. 7/10 winner, etc.).

This seems a rather odd format, compared to previous Olympics or the IIHF World Championships.

I don't like the change, because:

- Three games is not enough to properly rank 12 teams.
- Fans will miss a lot of potentially good games.
- The qualification round is the day before the quarterfinals, so the four teams with byes will have two days off, while the winners of qualification games will have games on consecutive days.

This is a really weak format and I'm not sure why it was changed from previous Olympics, unless they had less time to play the games. Might as well just watch the last day of qualification (each group's #1 and #2 team play each other), then the almost randomly matched qualification round, and finally the "regular" playoff format starting with quarterfinals.

This stinks so bad, Bettman must have come up with it!

Is this 100% accurate? If so then I agree this format is no good. I have mens hockey tickets for the 4 games on the 23rd (Qualification round) and it looks like I could likely miss out on watching Canada. Oh how lame that would be!


Last edited by Killa_Kyle*: 11-11-2009 at 12:19 PM.
Killa_Kyle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 01:43 PM
  #42
Panteras
perennial loser
 
Panteras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Television sky
Country: United States
Posts: 9,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv11 View Post
Stupid format, what's the point of having a round robin if every single team goes to the playoffs? The 2006 format was perfect for such a tournament, a meaningful first round and then the playoff teams were treated equally, no bye even for the top seeds.
to determine the seeds

whoever criticizes this format, might as well criticize the NHL, it's the same format, except some teams are eliminated in the NHl because there are 30 teams surely you aren't going to have all 30 going to the playoffs

Panteras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 02:42 AM
  #43
stv11
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panteras View Post
to determine the seeds

whoever criticizes this format, might as well criticize the NHL, it's the same format, except some teams are eliminated in the NHl because there are 30 teams surely you aren't going to have all 30 going to the playoffs
I actually think the NHL would be better with two or four divisions instead of three in each conference, but that's a whole other debate. Still, you can't compare a format where every team play at least once against every other one and where teams are actually eliminated with one where only three games are played, most teams don't face each other, and no team is eliminated.

Using the IIHF ranking for seeding purpose would have been less random.

stv11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:55 AM
  #44
Panteras
perennial loser
 
Panteras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Television sky
Country: United States
Posts: 9,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv11 View Post
I actually think the NHL would be better with two or four divisions instead of three in each conference, but that's a whole other debate. Still, you can't compare a format where every team play at least once against every other one and where teams are actually eliminated with one where only three games are played, most teams don't face each other, and no team is eliminated.

Using the IIHF ranking for seeding purpose would have been less random.
true, but if there was elimination the tournament would be shorter, and if they all had to play eachother the tournament would be longer..so it's give or take, remember that the NHL has a say in this, they are the ones who pressured the IIHF to lower the preliminary games to 3, therefore this format.

i really don't see what the big deal with it is though, there are only 12 teams, it's not like there was 20+ where some sort of preliminary elimination would surely be needed. Plus 3 games in preliminary is enough in a short tournament like this. A lot of these teams work really hard and had to go through a lot to get here, i think it's only fair they get at least 4 games, and in the 4th have the privilage to go against one of the top 4 or 6 in the world and maybe get an upset which would be tremendous for them...

Panteras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2009, 02:58 AM
  #45
stv11
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panteras View Post
true, but if there was elimination the tournament would be shorter, and if they all had to play eachother the tournament would be longer..so it's give or take, remember that the NHL has a say in this, they are the ones who pressured the IIHF to lower the preliminary games to 3, therefore this format.

i really don't see what the big deal with it is though, there are only 12 teams, it's not like there was 20+ where some sort of preliminary elimination would surely be needed. Plus 3 games in preliminary is enough in a short tournament like this. A lot of these teams work really hard and had to go through a lot to get here, i think it's only fair they get at least 4 games, and in the 4th have the privilage to go against one of the top 4 or 6 in the world and maybe get an upset which would be tremendous for them...
All of your points are right on, smaller teams deserve to take part, and once the playoffs are underway, everyone will forget how the seeding was decided. But as far as I'm concerned, the biggest problem with this format is the bye for the top 4, especially for the 4th seed, which will basically be decided by who can score the most goal in the easiest game.

stv11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2009, 06:14 AM
  #46
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv11 View Post
All of your points are right on, smaller teams deserve to take part.
I'm sorry but I completely disagree. In order to compete the athletes should reach a minimum standard of ability, as is the case with almost every other sport at the Olympics. The countries with "smaller" teams need to commit themselves to hockey much more than they currently are in order to deserve a spot. There is now decades of evidence to tell us the philosophy of allowing a lot of teams to these tournaments in the hope it will help them develop does not work. Switzerland is a perfect example, despite being in almost every major men's tournament in the last 20 years, being touted as one of the next countries to join the big 7, if anything the Swiss have regressed not improved. I just think that making it too easy to qualify for the OG cheapens the meaning of it, is counter productive to growing the sport and means that fans are forever watching a watered down product.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2009, 05:46 PM
  #47
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
I'm sorry but I completely disagree.
Much like with everything else, you're in the minority

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2009, 10:46 PM
  #48
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
Much like with everything else, you're in the minority
That's okay, I'd rather be right than popular.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2009, 01:55 AM
  #49
Dfire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Germany
Posts: 309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Switzerland is a perfect example,
There is no such thing as a perfect example because not a single item (country) is represantative for a larger amount of items.

If your statistical parameter would count for anything I could say your proven wrong because earlier this fall a bunch of lousy players from Zurich beat one of the strongest NHL outfits. But I don't believe in it so you can save your excuses

(which would be for example that the game didn't matter for the canadians of course because as we all know thanks to you canadians decide after the game whether it mattered or not based on this equasion: win = mattered, lost = didn't matter).

Dfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2009, 06:44 AM
  #50
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dfire View Post
There is no such thing as a perfect example because not a single item (country) is represantative for a larger amount of items.

If your statistical parameter would count for anything I could say your proven wrong because earlier this fall a bunch of lousy players from Zurich beat one of the strongest NHL outfits. But I don't believe in it so you can save your excuses

(which would be for example that the game didn't matter for the canadians of course because as we all know thanks to you canadians decide after the game whether it mattered or not based on this equasion: win = mattered, lost = didn't matter).
I agree with you that drawing conclusions based on the results of one or a few games is a completely useless exercise. However time and time again people do exactly that on these boards. Not only are there many factors which can skew results in international competition, such as familiarity with ice surface, rules and motivation, one game is just too small a sample size for any meaningful analysis. For anyone who disputes this I ask that they research the relationship in statistics between sample size and margin of error. If we are trying to find measures of a nations progress we must look for as broad a sample area as possible. Two areas that I think are meaningful are overall participation numbers and professional club statistics. For example the Swiss only have two full time NHLers this year, and while many will claim it is because Swiss players don't want to play in the NHL, the truth is it is a good example of the lack of Swiss players at the elite level.

Mr Kanadensisk 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 03:02 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.