IIHF World ChampionshipDiscuss International Tournaments like the WJC, Olympics, and World Cup, as they take place, or discuss past tournaments. performances.
Hockey Canada's fundamental philosphy (roster talk/omissions)
I'm not going to go ahead and say that Canada is deeply flawed or anything like that. Obviously the team is stacked. However, Stamkos should be on this team for sure. Leaving him off was a huge mistake.
there's always a risk with stacking a team with superstars, who are the go to guys on their team and then asking them to play a more lunch pail type of game. that being said, yzerman tried to avoid it a bit by going with guys who are familiar with each other. perhaps if canada fails there will be questions concerning stamkos/vinny and st louis (all familiar with each other) being left off the team.
but as others mentioned it's way too early to have this discussion. russia hasn't looked very cohesive either. i expect canada to figure it's chemistry out and at least play for a medal
If Canada brought a pure grit team to Vancouver and lost, pundits would talk smack telling them they should have more talent. If they bought the 12 statistically most impressive scoring forwards and lost, the same pundits would say they should have more grit and heart. So Hockey Canada really has no choice but to not listen to any of you and just do whatever they want, because they know they can't win under any circumstance...until they win gold then everything they did was right and those same pundits would be saying they knew all along that Hockey Canada made the right choices.
Hockey Canada gets it wrong again. You'd think they'd learn, but nope, keep coming back with the same dumbass selection errors. I havebeencallingfor months!!!
Hcoeky Canada builds their team like it's for a NHL best of 7 series, and to "stop" big bad team Russia. So they put on all these "gritty" 2 way checkers over more talented players. OH LOOK WHAT A SURPISE, Canada can't buy goals when they run into a hot goalie. What a great idea to bring guys like Seabrook, Morrow & Bergeron over top 15 NHL forwards!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrit didn't do much last night for them vs. Hiller, sure coulda used a nice unstoppable Stamkos or Green one timer from the face off circle tho!
Where have I seen this movie before? Oh right, all those other times that team Canada and other favourite teams lose when they run into hot goalies. At least when Sweden & Russia do it, they have already brought all their best guys (tho Russia maybe coulda used Kovalev's touch last night). Team Canada left 5 of the top 25 NHL forwards at home, including 3 in this year's top 10, and bring a bunch of guys way down the list instead because they are grrrrrrrrrity!! Forget that they are younger, have never won anything, and nowhere near as dominant as the guys staying at home.
Hockey Canada just doesn't get it, this isn't a best of 7 series, you come up short in scoring in ONE GAME and you're gone. Having a dominant stanely cup winning line Richards-Lecavalier-St Louis on your bench would sure be more likely to get something going than Morrow-Richards-Toews. Woulda been nice to have Stamkos' DEVESTATING one timer and Mike Green doing his thang when Canada was going like 1 for 8 on the PP too.
History repeating itself here, and the genius braintrust at hockey Canada is 100% to blame.
Then why have Toews and Richards been the best players on the ice? If anything the problem with Canada has been that they've not been playing their style. They all have these big bodies yet they're not hitting anybody. This is what has always been the advantage of Canada in winning on an international level, the physical play. And they've not used it.
If Canada brought a pure grit team to Vancouver and lost, pundits would talk smack telling them they should have more talent. If they bought the 12 statistically most impressive scoring forwards and lost, the same pundits would say they should have more grit and heart. So Hockey Canada really has no choice but to not listen to any of you and just do whatever they want, because they know they can't win under any circumstance...until they win gold then everything they did was right and those same pundits would be saying they knew all along that Hockey Canada made the right choices.
Truth. Unless Canada wins gold, people will criticize Yzerman for his decisions.
Skill is struggling across the board, not only for Canada.
One of the problems IMO is the constantly bouncing puck. Makes it difficult for skilled players to complete plays and really evens things out, turning games into puck battles. Playing cute, perimeter hockey with long stretch passes is perhaps not the way to go.
Canada's lineup was not selected on the basis of playing grind hockey so these guys need to adjust - fast. See some stats below on who among Canadian forwards hit - more importantly, in bold are the forwards with more takeaways than giveaways (my proxy for forechecking) - only 3 are currently in the plus category. All from NHL.com:
Those forwards who are unwilling to hit and/or forecheck, and who lose the puck more than they take it away, ought to be benched even if it means going with 3 lines.
PS - who are some of the better Canadians overall (I mean selected and not selected for the team) in terms of taking the puck away versus giving it away? Jamie Benn, Toews, Burrows, Bergeron, Zajac, Doan, Jeff Carter, John Madden, Nash.
When you desperately need a goal against a hot goalie, you want every player out there being a gamebreaker who be your hero. You don't need plugs. You need to MAXIMIZE your chances by bringing ALL the most dangerous players your country has.
Canada couldn't get that goal last night, would one of the 5 missing guys beaten Hiller? I don't know, but they would've had a BETTER CHANCE TO than with the weaker guys they did bring.
Again in these short tournaments, they aren't NHL playoff series. You LOSE these tournaments when you run into a hot goalie, how do you minimize the chance of that happening? You bring ALL your best scorers to overwhelm him. Canada didnt.
so did you actually watch and see why they were having trouble scoring??? It's not cause they lacked talent, it's cause they were trying too hard to make jaw droppingly pretty plays rather than keeping it simple, that wouldn't have changed with a couple more allstar types, that's just guys having to adjust to a situation where they are surrounded by more talent than normal and realizing that they shouldn't change their games dramatically just cause there's other stars out there with them.
Lots of chances passed off by canada, lots of passes blocked trying to thread the needle when a simpler play was there.
There's nothing wrong with this teams talent level, the team was selected well you won't find a 4th line with more talent than canada's i don't believe, all they need to do is pull their heads out of their ***** and focus on playing the game the way it's supposed to be played and the offense will come.
Hockey Canada gets it wrong again. You'd think they'd learn, but nope, keep coming back with the same dumbass selection errors. I havebeencallingfor months!!!
Hcoeky Canada builds their team like it's for a NHL best of 7 series, and to "stop" big bad team Russia. So they put on all these "gritty" 2 way checkers over more talented players. OH LOOK WHAT A SURPISE, Canada can't buy goals when they run into a hot goalie. What a great idea to bring guys like Seabrook, Morrow & Bergeron over top 15 NHL forwards!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrit didn't do much last night for them vs. Hiller, sure coulda used a nice unstoppable Stamkos or Green one timer from the face off circle tho!
Where have I seen this movie before? Oh right, all those other times that team Canada and other favourite teams lose when they run into hot goalies. At least when Sweden & Russia do it, they have already brought all their best guys (tho Russia maybe coulda used Kovalev's touch last night). Team Canada left 5 of the top 25 NHL forwards at home, including 3 in this year's top 10, and bring a bunch of guys way down the list instead because they are grrrrrrrrrity!! Forget that they are younger, have never won anything, and nowhere near as dominant as the guys staying at home.
Hockey Canada just doesn't get it, this isn't a best of 7 series, you come up short in scoring in ONE GAME and you're gone. Having a dominant stanely cup winning line Richards-Lecavalier-St Louis on your bench would sure be more likely to get something going than Morrow-Richards-Toews. Woulda been nice to have Stamkos' DEVESTATING one timer and Mike Green doing his thang when Canada was going like 1 for 8 on the PP too.
History repeating itself here, and the genius braintrust at hockey Canada is 100% to blame.
You make it sound as though our team consists of goons. The only player I don't consider too talented is Morrow. The rest are top notch players who have performed very well in various international tournaments.
Richards, Lecavalier and St-Louis were in Torino and did they perform better than the rest? NO. I did hate Team Canada in Torino though, having Ryan Smyth, Shane Doan and Kris Draper was bad enough but to make it worse, they added Todd Bertuzzi, a major FAIL. I hated the team so much that I sometime I wished it would fail and it did. Yet I like the team Yzerman and gang chose for these Olympics. I don't agree with a couple of choices but none of the players on the present team I really dislike. Aside from Morrow, everyone else are skilled players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonFournier
I think the problem is more about chemistry and rink size than Patrice Bergeron, Brent Seabrook and Brendan Morrow.
If Crosby, Iginla, Nash, Thornton, Heatley, Getzlaf, etc. can't win I don't think adding Stamkos and Green will make a very big difference.
Rink size? They're playing at GM Place, home of the Vancouver Canucks in case you didn't know.
I haven't read the entire thread, but the problem (if there is one) is not that they're not scoring, it's that they're not doing the things that lead to scoring. They're not forechecking, not sustaining adaquate pressure and not moving the puck out of our end well enough. If we did these things (or at least did them more consistantly) then the goals will come.
Yes, we talk about canadian grit, but that's the thing that we haven't really shown. I think the team may have gotten a wake-up call from Switzerland. If we see the same thing against the USA though, then I'll fear that they (the players) really don't get it.
Oh cmon, +/- stats?? Chicago players have high + stat? Really?? Hey Jeff Schultz is +37, sign him up to Team Canada!
Regarding the intangibles, like I said in my first post, this is a team built with the wrong objectives. These are intangibles that are more useful for a 7 game stanley cup playoff series. In this single elimation tournement the real threat is not a team that can out grriiiiiitt you, but the team with the hot goalie. To increase your chance of getting past a hot goalie you bring all your all-world offensive talent.
Canada just slipped by the hot goalie, Russia didn't. Both teams could've used more offensive talent last night, not more griiiiiittttt. One of Canada's offensive lines wasn't playing well (Getzlaf), and the PP was terrible. This is when you wish you had some other guys to try.
What I'd like to know is where you get the idea that a single-game elimination is necessarily so different from a Stanley Cup playoff series ... and what that has to do with building a "complete" team instead of just an All-Star team. While I agree the dynamics of a best of 7 series may be different from a single-game elim tourney, why would that change the basic tenets of team play? You take a penalty? You still need penalty killers. You get a powerplay? You can still only put 5 guys out on the ice at one time. You seem to mistake quantity for quality here. I have no problem with you arguing for a guy like Stamkos to be on the team, hell I wish he was here too ... but he'd be here instead of a guy like Perry or Staal, not a guy like Toews or Bergeron. If guys who are already top scorers in the league like Crosby, Nash, Marleau, Thornton, etc run into a hot goalie, why do you automatically assume Stamkos or Lecavalier will fare any better? Maybe they will, maybe they won't ... however odds are they won't since the problem isn't in the players so much as the other teams defensive system and goalie playing out of his mind. And when you argue the best response then is to just add even more skilled forwards, you don't seem to understand that there is only 180 forward minutes (3x60) to go around ... if you add minutes to these guys, it has to come from someone else. And since you seem to be arguing those minutes should come from a guy like Toews or Morrow, you are only giving Stamkos about 6-8 mins of ice time. If you think he's likely to impact the game much in less than 10 mins, well I just don't know what to say
What I'd like to know is where you get the idea that a single-game elimination is necessarily so different from a Stanley Cup playoff series ... and what that has to do with building a "complete" team instead of just an All-Star team. While I agree the dynamics of a best of 7 series may be different from a single-game elim tourney, why would that change the basic tenets of team play? You take a penalty? You still need penalty killers. You get a powerplay? You can still only put 5 guys out on the ice at one time. You seem to mistake quantity for quality here. I have no problem with you arguing for a guy like Stamkos to be on the team, hell I wish he was here too ... but he'd be here instead of a guy like Perry or Staal, not a guy like Toews or Bergeron. If guys who are already top scorers in the league like Crosby, Nash, Marleau, Thornton, etc run into a hot goalie, why do you automatically assume Stamkos or Lecavalier will fare any better? Maybe they will, maybe they won't ... however odds are they won't since the problem isn't in the players so much as the other teams defensive system and goalie playing out of his mind. And when you argue the best response then is to just add even more skilled forwards, you don't seem to understand that there is only 180 forward minutes (3x60) to go around ... if you add minutes to these guys, it has to come from someone else. And since you seem to be arguing those minutes should come from a guy like Toews or Morrow, you are only giving Stamkos about 6-8 mins of ice time. If you think he's likely to impact the game much in less than 10 mins, well I just don't know what to say
Quite possibly the best first post in Hfboards history.
What I'd like to know is where you get the idea that a single-game elimination is necessarily so different from a Stanley Cup playoff series ... and what that has to do with building a "complete" team instead of just an All-Star team. While I agree the dynamics of a best of 7 series may be different from a single-game elim tourney, why would that change the basic tenets of team play? You take a penalty? You still need penalty killers. You get a powerplay? You can still only put 5 guys out on the ice at one time. You seem to mistake quantity for quality here. I have no problem with you arguing for a guy like Stamkos to be on the team, hell I wish he was here too ... but he'd be here instead of a guy like Perry or Staal, not a guy like Toews or Bergeron. If guys who are already top scorers in the league like Crosby, Nash, Marleau, Thornton, etc run into a hot goalie, why do you automatically assume Stamkos or Lecavalier will fare any better? Maybe they will, maybe they won't ... however odds are they won't since the problem isn't in the players so much as the other teams defensive system and goalie playing out of his mind. And when you argue the best response then is to just add even more skilled forwards, you don't seem to understand that there is only 180 forward minutes (3x60) to go around ... if you add minutes to these guys, it has to come from someone else. And since you seem to be arguing those minutes should come from a guy like Toews or Morrow, you are only giving Stamkos about 6-8 mins of ice time. If you think he's likely to impact the game much in less than 10 mins, well I just don't know what to say
I forgot to mention this. Actually, I don't buy the hot goalie idea, Hiller was good - even great for moments but ultimately in a 60 minute game between Canada and the Swiss, even the hottest goalie shouldn't be able to solely steal a game. People will disagree - that's fine, people might mention Hasek etc, but if team Canada really was playing up to standards, there is no way the Swiss should be in the game. This wasn't just a hot goalie, this was a well structured team that knew how the control the pace, knew how to play shorthanded, knew how to form a tight box and keep canada to the outside, and yes, when needed Hiller was quite good.
The point is; Canada didn't almost get beat by Hiller, they almost got beat by a well coached, well structured and well diciplined Swiss team - again.
We scored 8 goals in the first game then ran into a hot goalie and our offense sucks? Russia's offense must lack firepower because they ONLY scored one goal on Jaroslav Halak.
Hiller wasn't going to be beat last night. He played like a man possessed and his team did a good job "containing" our big guns. Also, we lacked opportunism. You'll see, everything will be different agianst the USA. The guys will be ready to play and they will play a very north american game.
Last edited by JordanStaal#1Fan: 02-20-2010 at 01:32 PM.
If you people didn't work yourselves into a lather over what amounts to little more than two weeks of glorified all-star exhibition games, then you wouldn't get so bothered.
What I'd like to know is where you get the idea that a single-game elimination is necessarily so different from a Stanley Cup playoff series ... and what that has to do with building a "complete" team instead of just an All-Star team. While I agree the dynamics of a best of 7 series may be different from a single-game elim tourney, why would that change the basic tenets of team play? You take a penalty? You still need penalty killers. You get a powerplay? You can still only put 5 guys out on the ice at one time. You seem to mistake quantity for quality here. I have no problem with you arguing for a guy like Stamkos to be on the team, hell I wish he was here too ... but he'd be here instead of a guy like Perry or Staal, not a guy like Toews or Bergeron. If guys who are already top scorers in the league like Crosby, Nash, Marleau, Thornton, etc run into a hot goalie, why do you automatically assume Stamkos or Lecavalier will fare any better? Maybe they will, maybe they won't ... however odds are they won't since the problem isn't in the players so much as the other teams defensive system and goalie playing out of his mind. And when you argue the best response then is to just add even more skilled forwards, you don't seem to understand that there is only 180 forward minutes (3x60) to go around ... if you add minutes to these guys, it has to come from someone else. And since you seem to be arguing those minutes should come from a guy like Toews or Morrow, you are only giving Stamkos about 6-8 mins of ice time. If you think he's likely to impact the game much in less than 10 mins, well I just don't know what to say
I figured this deserved a little extra love. Hopefully the kids will come around and read posts like this with an open mind.
The Swiss played a GREAT game, some people seem to overlook that. They took away our time and space very effectively and when we got chances, Hiller was there. It didn't help that Brodeur gave up a softy either.
Give credit where credit's due.
Ever heard of a perfectly placed shot son? Saying the first goal was *soft* just oozes ignorance.
There's nothing wrong with the selections. It's the in game philosophy and mentality that is the problem if Canada is to perform as good as they should.
Then why have Toews and Richards been the best players on the ice? If anything the problem with Canada has been that they've not been playing their style. They all have these big bodies yet they're not hitting anybody. This is what has always been the advantage of Canada in winning on an international level, the physical play. And they've not used it.
Fantastic post.
I been saying this the whole time... you have all these big bodies... USE THEM... throw a hit.
You saw during the Swiss game... how was the first goal scored?... Well Thornton came in hard on the forecheck, had a big hit, caused the Swiss player to miss play the puck and coughed it up... Canada capitalized and scored.
TAKE THE BODY!!!
I cannot stress it enough, when you throw a big hit, its ONLY positive, either it will be a momentum swing, or the player will cough the puck up... OR next time the player sees someone coming down on them, they will think twice on what to do, and that hesitation is sometimes all you need to get the puck.
I think Russian fans have a lot more reasons to panic than you guys. For elite players, used to big TOI numbers, it takes time to gel. And it takes a coach to design a system that will make them gel faster. Certainly adding 3 more elite scorers would not have solved that problem. Canada was trying to be too cute and got outworked by the Swiss... so what? It's the group round, chill!
I think Canada's bigger problem will be the fact that 3 out of 4 coaches practice trap (or a modern variation thereof) in their clubs and just don't know what to do with the offensive superstars that they have. But I still don't believe it's time to start panicking yet.
Why don't we all just relax and go back to our customary "Crosby's Heart vs. Ovechkin's Skates" discussion.
I been saying this the whole time... you have all these big bodies... USE THEM... throw a hit.
You saw during the Swiss game... how was the first goal scored?... Well Thornton came in hard on the forecheck, had a big hit, caused the Swiss player to miss play the puck and coughed it up... Canada capitalized and scored.
TAKE THE BODY!!!
I cannot stress it enough, when you throw a big hit, its ONLY positive, either it will be a momentum swing, or the player will cough the puck up... OR next time the player sees someone coming down on them, they will think twice on what to do, and that hesitation is sometimes all you need to get the puck.
I'll second this...as I've contested before, why take the big bodies if not to crash and bang?
Clearly, a slippery finesse player like a Stamkos would have been more effective than many of the bigger, less agile guys on the current team IF Babcock's battle plan was to play like they did against the Swiss...in which case you have to question Babcock as a coach and his lack of communication and/or relationship with Detroit's 'other' Stevie Wonder who picked the team.
Canada has 2 HUGE advantages over all others in VAN, depth and skilled players who are at the same time big and able to play physical. No other country has this luxury... SO USE IT.
I guarantee you, CAN cannot beat CZE, FIN,SLV, let alone SWE and RUS on finesse and skill alone. Most of these guys have played together this way since they were 16 years old.
Canada has to play to its strengthspulverize their opponents into submission like it did to OV and the Russians in 2005 while utilizing their skills and playing disciplined and smart hockey...and without whining about refs either...Canada has to win DESPITE the bad reffing like our girls did in 2002.
Quite possibly the best first post in Hfboards history.
Thanks! But don't let my post count fool you, I've been following HF boards for years, just recently decided to start contributing ... this seemed like an easy topic to sound reasonably smart in
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyDangles
I figured this deserved a little extra love. Hopefully the kids will come around and read posts like this with an open mind.
Hehe, that would be nice but I've been following HF for long enough to know that it is not too likely. I'm happy enough to see that the majority of posters here understand that hockey is not like NHL '10 where picking the All-Star team is the best way to win.
Coincidentally, I saw a great quote from Peter Stastny last night about the US knocking off Czechoslovakia at the 1980 Winter Olympics:
"Character is sometimes more important than talent, but if you have both, you have a chance - and when you have chemistry, you have even a bigger chance."
Think a HOF player who was actually on a team with great firepower that got knocked out of a single-elimination tourny might have a pretty good insight on this issue? Ya, that's what I thought too
