USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
- Thread starter skatefast
- Start date
Hux
Alfond to Ridder & rinks in between
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
Just about 6000. I think actual attendance was around 3200. Problem that weekend was Mass Hockey, in its infinite wisdom, saw fit to have the State Championships out in Marlboro, 45 miles away. I saw about two dozen youth players tops at the F4. I think it was brilliant that Hockey Canada, the IIHF, and the local organizers were able to bring the youth teams in and create an incredible atmosphere for players and fans alike. Not something that would likely happen here, be it F4 or Worlds.
Attendance for the Gold Medal game is listed as 13,776
Just about 6000. I think actual attendance was around 3200. Problem that weekend was Mass Hockey, in its infinite wisdom, saw fit to have the State Championships out in Marlboro, 45 miles away. I saw about two dozen youth players tops at the F4. I think it was brilliant that Hockey Canada, the IIHF, and the local organizers were able to bring the youth teams in and create an incredible atmosphere for players and fans alike. Not something that would likely happen here, be it F4 or Worlds.
Attendance for the Gold Medal game is listed as 13,776
Last edited:
David De Remer
Moderator
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
I agree women's hockey is in no imminent danger of being cut. I would always be the first to write why women's hockey was different from softball when anyone would make the comparison between women's hockey and softball.
Regardless of the imminent danger, I believe pointing out the hypocrisy of these threats is important in its own right.
Thanks for the link, which had details on the international coaching/mentoring that I didn't have offhand.
Based on comments I've read, no one in the sport seems to share my outrage about Rogge's comments. Now there are a couple reasons for this. One is that it's necessary to suck up to Rogge. Another is that there are short-term benefits to women's hockey from this, because it spurred the IIHF to devote more money to the sport.
Still in the long run, accepting those kind of threats from the IOC to get more money from the IIIHF is playing with fire. First, if you ever make these comments again, you risk killing women's hockey because no one wants to invest in it if it's going to be cut. Second, decisions often get made on a whim by small groups in the IOC. Sure, there's no imminent threat, but when softball and wrestling got cut, they didn't see it coming. (Note: it'd be a slightly different legislative procedure since "women's ice hockey" is an "event" in the "sport" of "ice hockey" rather than a whole event.) What the axed sports baseball, softball, and wrestling have in common is they're sports dominated by Continental Americans and Asians (broadly defined), and if women's hockey becomes a sport dominated by Russia in addition to U.S. and Canada, then you're left somewhat more vulnerable to the whims of the IOC then if that Bronze Team were Switzerland.
And regardless of everything else, I'm frustrated that such a huge share of the features on international women's hockey provide this "OMG the sport could be cut" content and not much else. Note I wrote basically the same thing in response to an ESPNW column two years ago. Now the lack of parity is still something to write about it, but please, writers and editors, write something intelligent about it. Write about how much this IIHF money is actually working and whether there's progress that's not showing up in the scorelines just right. But it's just so much easier to write "OMG OHNO UHOH CANADA JUST WON 13-0 OVER SWITZ" and so much harder to be creative and do any actual work, and you're left with a column that could've been summed up by the text message of a teenager.
I agree women's hockey is in no imminent danger of being cut. I would always be the first to write why women's hockey was different from softball when anyone would make the comparison between women's hockey and softball.
Regardless of the imminent danger, I believe pointing out the hypocrisy of these threats is important in its own right.
Thanks for the link, which had details on the international coaching/mentoring that I didn't have offhand.
Based on comments I've read, no one in the sport seems to share my outrage about Rogge's comments. Now there are a couple reasons for this. One is that it's necessary to suck up to Rogge. Another is that there are short-term benefits to women's hockey from this, because it spurred the IIHF to devote more money to the sport.
Still in the long run, accepting those kind of threats from the IOC to get more money from the IIIHF is playing with fire. First, if you ever make these comments again, you risk killing women's hockey because no one wants to invest in it if it's going to be cut. Second, decisions often get made on a whim by small groups in the IOC. Sure, there's no imminent threat, but when softball and wrestling got cut, they didn't see it coming. (Note: it'd be a slightly different legislative procedure since "women's ice hockey" is an "event" in the "sport" of "ice hockey" rather than a whole event.) What the axed sports baseball, softball, and wrestling have in common is they're sports dominated by Continental Americans and Asians (broadly defined), and if women's hockey becomes a sport dominated by Russia in addition to U.S. and Canada, then you're left somewhat more vulnerable to the whims of the IOC then if that Bronze Team were Switzerland.
And regardless of everything else, I'm frustrated that such a huge share of the features on international women's hockey provide this "OMG the sport could be cut" content and not much else. Note I wrote basically the same thing in response to an ESPNW column two years ago. Now the lack of parity is still something to write about it, but please, writers and editors, write something intelligent about it. Write about how much this IIHF money is actually working and whether there's progress that's not showing up in the scorelines just right. But it's just so much easier to write "OMG OHNO UHOH CANADA JUST WON 13-0 OVER SWITZ" and so much harder to be creative and do any actual work, and you're left with a column that could've been summed up by the text message of a teenager.
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
Attendance for last nights game was 13K. (The Provincials finished on Sunday, so that was not part of the crowd anymore).
Congrats to the US for their win. They were full value, and their speed advantage played a major factor. The TSN reporters were raving over the Coyne, Kessell, Decker line. They said "The two most recent Kaz Maier winners on one line, what a dream line". Cheryl Pounder was the color analyst. I thought she did a pretty good job. Got a good broadcasting voice.
Attendance for last nights game was 13K. (The Provincials finished on Sunday, so that was not part of the crowd anymore).
Congrats to the US for their win. They were full value, and their speed advantage played a major factor. The TSN reporters were raving over the Coyne, Kessell, Decker line. They said "The two most recent Kaz Maier winners on one line, what a dream line". Cheryl Pounder was the color analyst. I thought she did a pretty good job. Got a good broadcasting voice.
Last edited:
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
I was looking for something written about today's game that would give some insight into U.S. vs. Canada and tell me anything I didn't already know. I found nothing, but I did find think this older article was interesting albeit a bit misguided.
Some samples:
What I find misleading about the article is that however hard it is for U.S. college players to raise their games to the international level, the recent U.S. college grads are still in a much better position in the World Championship prior to an Olympic year than the veteran players farther removed from college. That's always been true. It's no surprise that the U.S. won here with a big shot advantage, simply based on which country was better in U.S. college hockey in recent years. It's no surprise the U.S. won on the strength of goals by the last two Kazamaier winners and a Kaz Final 3 player. That's the way it's always been, and not just for the U.S. In 2001, when Botterill and Shewchuk were both Kaz Final 3, they each scored to lead Canada over the U.S., even though only the U.S. team had been centralized all year, and Botts was the Kaz winner and the World Championship MVP, akin to Kessell this year winning the Kaz and scoring the gold medal winning goal. Now in the Olympics, since everyone's centralized the year before, the college players are no longer at such at huge advantage over the older players, but clearly no one should be surprised to see college players dominating at this stage.
Certainly the U.S. has been better at creating opportunities for older players with the Minnesota Whitecaps and then the CWHL Boston Blades, whereas in the days of the NWHL this used to be a considerable advantage for Hockey Canada, but we're still a long way from expecting players to peak more than a year or two after college.
I was looking for something written about today's game that would give some insight into U.S. vs. Canada and tell me anything I didn't already know. I found nothing, but I did find think this older article was interesting albeit a bit misguided.
Some samples:
What I find misleading about the article is that however hard it is for U.S. college players to raise their games to the international level, the recent U.S. college grads are still in a much better position in the World Championship prior to an Olympic year than the veteran players farther removed from college. That's always been true. It's no surprise that the U.S. won here with a big shot advantage, simply based on which country was better in U.S. college hockey in recent years. It's no surprise the U.S. won on the strength of goals by the last two Kazamaier winners and a Kaz Final 3 player. That's the way it's always been, and not just for the U.S. In 2001, when Botterill and Shewchuk were both Kaz Final 3, they each scored to lead Canada over the U.S., even though only the U.S. team had been centralized all year, and Botts was the Kaz winner and the World Championship MVP, akin to Kessell this year winning the Kaz and scoring the gold medal winning goal. Now in the Olympics, since everyone's centralized the year before, the college players are no longer at such at huge advantage over the older players, but clearly no one should be surprised to see college players dominating at this stage.
Certainly the U.S. has been better at creating opportunities for older players with the Minnesota Whitecaps and then the CWHL Boston Blades, whereas in the days of the NWHL this used to be a considerable advantage for Hockey Canada, but we're still a long way from expecting players to peak more than a year or two after college.
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
Agree with you that the more recent college grads and those still in college carried the day yesterday, and I think that applied equally to both teams.
While there is little talk on this board, there is a hot debate on the Ontario Board about the state of the Canadian Team and what needs to be done to win gold next year. Similarly there are interesting and different perspective comments from the general Canadian hockey fan on the TSN report on the game. Fascinating to follow.
A few links:
http://www.tsn.ca/canadian_hockey/story/?id=420287
http://www.network54.com/Forum/679250/thread/1365552538/last-1365623865/world+game+tonight
http://www.network54.com/Forum/679250/thread/1365592005/last-1365623598/Team+Canada
Agree with you that the more recent college grads and those still in college carried the day yesterday, and I think that applied equally to both teams.
While there is little talk on this board, there is a hot debate on the Ontario Board about the state of the Canadian Team and what needs to be done to win gold next year. Similarly there are interesting and different perspective comments from the general Canadian hockey fan on the TSN report on the game. Fascinating to follow.
A few links:
http://www.tsn.ca/canadian_hockey/story/?id=420287
http://www.network54.com/Forum/679250/thread/1365552538/last-1365623865/world+game+tonight
http://www.network54.com/Forum/679250/thread/1365592005/last-1365623598/Team+Canada
Last edited:
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
Lose a hockey game by one goal and some people are looking for a bridge to jump from.
Win the same game by one goal (last year) and there's nothing but happy talk all around.
Some people need to get a grip.
Canada has been slower, if that's the appropriate description, to transition their program to younger faster players. The US took that big step in a wholesale way a few years back and some would argue that it is now paying dividends. Although, said dividends seemed non existent this time last year...which would then beg the question...well, is it or isn't it?
And how is it that Canada completely rolls over Finland and the USA just beats them? Because every day is a different day with individuals and groups (teams) which is why they play the games instead of mailing them in. Anything can happen on any given day...the question really is how likely is it?
Lose a hockey game by one goal and some people are looking for a bridge to jump from.
Win the same game by one goal (last year) and there's nothing but happy talk all around.
Some people need to get a grip.
Canada has been slower, if that's the appropriate description, to transition their program to younger faster players. The US took that big step in a wholesale way a few years back and some would argue that it is now paying dividends. Although, said dividends seemed non existent this time last year...which would then beg the question...well, is it or isn't it?
And how is it that Canada completely rolls over Finland and the USA just beats them? Because every day is a different day with individuals and groups (teams) which is why they play the games instead of mailing them in. Anything can happen on any given day...the question really is how likely is it?
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
While I agree that one game or even one season does not constitute a trend, the numbers do not lie. Canada has won the main event only 2 times since the mid 2000's, with US winning 5 of last 7 worlds. In Addition, on average US U18 has been better than Canada U18 since that started up in 2008. Those are two trends you cannot ignore if you are serious about keeping pace with the latest developments. Having said that, the skill level and depth continues to get better year after year, on both sides of the border, and this is very encouraging for the health of the game as a whole going forward.
While I agree that one game or even one season does not constitute a trend, the numbers do not lie. Canada has won the main event only 2 times since the mid 2000's, with US winning 5 of last 7 worlds. In Addition, on average US U18 has been better than Canada U18 since that started up in 2008. Those are two trends you cannot ignore if you are serious about keeping pace with the latest developments. Having said that, the skill level and depth continues to get better year after year, on both sides of the border, and this is very encouraging for the health of the game as a whole going forward.
Last edited:
NUWH DogHouse
The Voice From Above
granddaddyscout
Registered User
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
While the US has dominated in the World Cups, Canada has dominated the Olympic Gold Medal Podium. Canada seems to use the World Games to maximize their preparation for the Olympics, often leaving high end healthy players at home in favor of providing opportunities to lesser known players to compete at that level.
While the US has dominated in the World Cups, Canada has dominated the Olympic Gold Medal Podium. Canada seems to use the World Games to maximize their preparation for the Olympics, often leaving high end healthy players at home in favor of providing opportunities to lesser known players to compete at that level.
Last edited:
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
Don't believe that for a minute. Then they would have left a injured Wickenheiser at home, or at least not dressed.
Two Olympics ago was 2006. That was the peak of Canada's power, when they were the most dominant, and did not even face the US in the medal round. Yes they won in 2010 on home soil, and it was an epic episode of possum. They used their home ice to an advantage, going off to play boys teams DURING the Olympics to stay sharp, and spring a new tender out.
Next year promises to be EPIC again, but right now you'd have to favor the US with their superior speed that they showed in the final. Lots can change in a year as the past has proven, so either way something to look forward too.
Don't believe that for a minute. Then they would have left a injured Wickenheiser at home, or at least not dressed.
Two Olympics ago was 2006. That was the peak of Canada's power, when they were the most dominant, and did not even face the US in the medal round. Yes they won in 2010 on home soil, and it was an epic episode of possum. They used their home ice to an advantage, going off to play boys teams DURING the Olympics to stay sharp, and spring a new tender out.
Next year promises to be EPIC again, but right now you'd have to favor the US with their superior speed that they showed in the final. Lots can change in a year as the past has proven, so either way something to look forward too.
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
After some searching found it:
http://host.madison.com/sports/coll...cle_fec67064-2c2f-11e0-a5c2-001cc4c002e0.html
Answer: January 2011, UW beat UM in front of 10,668 fans.
Does anyone know the attendance of the Vancouver and Salt Lake finals, I'd figure they would be high ?
After some searching found it:
http://host.madison.com/sports/coll...cle_fec67064-2c2f-11e0-a5c2-001cc4c002e0.html
Answer: January 2011, UW beat UM in front of 10,668 fans.
Does anyone know the attendance of the Vancouver and Salt Lake finals, I'd figure they would be high ?
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
I chuckled when reading some of the comments in the articles you posted above. If you hadn't seen the game or even knew the final score you would think Canada lost by 10 goals! Yes, they did get outplayed in this game and they did lose, but they were very much in it until the final horn sounded. Credit the USA for playing their best game of the tournament...Amanda Kessel was quoted as saying this. As I said earlier, if the U.S. had played like they did against Finland - barring some miracle - they would have lost. But they responded with a tremendous effort, used their speed to their advantage and cut down on the number of turnovers especially in their defensive zone. But as satisfying as the win was, it's still just one game. I have no doubt that Canada will learn from this and will be a tougher opponent in Sochi.
I chuckled when reading some of the comments in the articles you posted above. If you hadn't seen the game or even knew the final score you would think Canada lost by 10 goals! Yes, they did get outplayed in this game and they did lose, but they were very much in it until the final horn sounded. Credit the USA for playing their best game of the tournament...Amanda Kessel was quoted as saying this. As I said earlier, if the U.S. had played like they did against Finland - barring some miracle - they would have lost. But they responded with a tremendous effort, used their speed to their advantage and cut down on the number of turnovers especially in their defensive zone. But as satisfying as the win was, it's still just one game. I have no doubt that Canada will learn from this and will be a tougher opponent in Sochi.
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
Answering my own questions after some research:
Feb 21 2002 Salt lake City, UT - Final US vs Canada: 8,599
Feb 20 2006 Turin, Italy - Final Canada vs Sweden: 6,664
Jan 01 2010 Ottawa, ON - US vs Canada Exhibition: 16,347
Feb 18 2010 Vancouver, BC - Final, US vs Canada: 16,805
Jan 30 2011 Madison, WI - UW vs Minnesota: 10,668
Jan 28 2012 Madison, WI - UW vs Benmidji: 12,402 Highest in US and College hockey.
Apr 04 2012 Ottawa, ON - Finland vs Canada Worlds: 18,013
P.S...Added the Jan 28, 2012 College record setter.
Answering my own questions after some research:
Feb 21 2002 Salt lake City, UT - Final US vs Canada: 8,599
Feb 20 2006 Turin, Italy - Final Canada vs Sweden: 6,664
Jan 01 2010 Ottawa, ON - US vs Canada Exhibition: 16,347
Feb 18 2010 Vancouver, BC - Final, US vs Canada: 16,805
Jan 30 2011 Madison, WI - UW vs Minnesota: 10,668
Jan 28 2012 Madison, WI - UW vs Benmidji: 12,402 Highest in US and College hockey.
Apr 04 2012 Ottawa, ON - Finland vs Canada Worlds: 18,013
P.S...Added the Jan 28, 2012 College record setter.
Last edited:
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
Clearly some of the comments are a passionate and emotional over reaction by some, but there are also some valid criticism's raised in some comments. It was a big topic of discussion on the local sports station this morning, which is pretty much wall to wall hockey talk every morning from 6 to 9am. (Ain't Canada grand ?
)
As any Canuck fan, was disappointed with yesterday's outcome. Already mentioned in an earlier post that the US was full value for the win, so congrats to them.
I'll be all in, all red, cheering for the maple leaf next year.
Clearly some of the comments are a passionate and emotional over reaction by some, but there are also some valid criticism's raised in some comments. It was a big topic of discussion on the local sports station this morning, which is pretty much wall to wall hockey talk every morning from 6 to 9am. (Ain't Canada grand ?
)As any Canuck fan, was disappointed with yesterday's outcome. Already mentioned in an earlier post that the US was full value for the win, so congrats to them.
I'll be all in, all red, cheering for the maple leaf next year.
Hux
Alfond to Ridder & rinks in between
No, they did a count of those who were in the seats for the women's game. The total ticket sales for the event were over 38k.
Last edited:
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
http://www.collegehockeystats.net/1112/boxes/wbmjwis1.j28
No, 12,402 turned out for the same event the following season versus Bemidji State:
http://www.collegehockeystats.net/1112/boxes/wbmjwis1.j28
Re: 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship
Even though the final score was close, it was clear from the game and shot totals that the U.S. was had significantly better skaters -- still close enough that a few bounces and goaltending can make a difference in the score, but the U.S. is better, so Canada has reason to be concerned.
But again, people need some perspective, and to understand the differences between Olympics and World Championships and NCAA hockey and post-NCAA hockey. Canada has ALWAYS carried a much older roster since the dawn of NCAA hockey and the oldest players always get criticized for hanging around too long. It used to be the Canada could be older because it's older players were actually pretty good, the U.S. couldn't maintain as much depth among older players, and the Canadian college-aged players used to be at least on par with the Americans' college-aged players if not better.
Now Canada clearly has less depth in terms of college-aged players, and if that persists, that'll make it much, much harder for Canada to win World Championships, because it's always the college players who are most game-ready for these World Championships. I don't know the details of why Canada's producing relatively fewer top NCAA players than in the past, but it sounds right that it's about the U.S. doing a relatively better job of development at younger age levels than it used to.
But when it comes to the Olympics, it could be a different story. We haven't ever seen recent U.S. college graduates make nearly as large a difference in U.S. Olympic outcomes. Now some of this is just that 2002 the U.S. college game wasn't as big and the U.S. was centralized two years anyway, and the 2006 U.S. team was a mess for other reasons. But I think there are good reasons for this more generally. First, centralization prior to the Olympics raises the older players to an environment that puts them on a much more level playing field with the younger players. Second, the experience factor may be relatively more important for an Olympic gold medal game than a World Championship gold medal game. Those college players have done a couple World Championships by now but it'll be their first Olympics - though experience clearly isn't an enormous factor since Canada has had pre-NCAA players like Piper and Philip-Poulin make a big impact in both gold medal wins over the U.S. At the same time, it could also be true that the NCAA game is now so good now we could see this change in 2014, and you did see Agosta lead the Olympics in scoring last time around.
Addendum:
-- Obviously some recent college players had/will have Olympic experience, like Agosta in 2010 or the Lams in 2014.
-- Canada has won the last two U-18 worlds so they're not a total disaster, but U.S. did win 3 of 4 before that, and that success has projected forward well. And it's unclear if that Canada present success in Worlds will project out in the same way, if that success was due to say, goaltending, where the depth isn't as important.
Even though the final score was close, it was clear from the game and shot totals that the U.S. was had significantly better skaters -- still close enough that a few bounces and goaltending can make a difference in the score, but the U.S. is better, so Canada has reason to be concerned.
But again, people need some perspective, and to understand the differences between Olympics and World Championships and NCAA hockey and post-NCAA hockey. Canada has ALWAYS carried a much older roster since the dawn of NCAA hockey and the oldest players always get criticized for hanging around too long. It used to be the Canada could be older because it's older players were actually pretty good, the U.S. couldn't maintain as much depth among older players, and the Canadian college-aged players used to be at least on par with the Americans' college-aged players if not better.
Now Canada clearly has less depth in terms of college-aged players, and if that persists, that'll make it much, much harder for Canada to win World Championships, because it's always the college players who are most game-ready for these World Championships. I don't know the details of why Canada's producing relatively fewer top NCAA players than in the past, but it sounds right that it's about the U.S. doing a relatively better job of development at younger age levels than it used to.
But when it comes to the Olympics, it could be a different story. We haven't ever seen recent U.S. college graduates make nearly as large a difference in U.S. Olympic outcomes. Now some of this is just that 2002 the U.S. college game wasn't as big and the U.S. was centralized two years anyway, and the 2006 U.S. team was a mess for other reasons. But I think there are good reasons for this more generally. First, centralization prior to the Olympics raises the older players to an environment that puts them on a much more level playing field with the younger players. Second, the experience factor may be relatively more important for an Olympic gold medal game than a World Championship gold medal game. Those college players have done a couple World Championships by now but it'll be their first Olympics - though experience clearly isn't an enormous factor since Canada has had pre-NCAA players like Piper and Philip-Poulin make a big impact in both gold medal wins over the U.S. At the same time, it could also be true that the NCAA game is now so good now we could see this change in 2014, and you did see Agosta lead the Olympics in scoring last time around.
Addendum:
-- Obviously some recent college players had/will have Olympic experience, like Agosta in 2010 or the Lams in 2014.
-- Canada has won the last two U-18 worlds so they're not a total disaster, but U.S. did win 3 of 4 before that, and that success has projected forward well. And it's unclear if that Canada present success in Worlds will project out in the same way, if that success was due to say, goaltending, where the depth isn't as important.
Last edited: