mnstate0fhockey
New member
No disagreement there.
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.
2014 USA Olympic Hockey
- Thread starter unh1982
- Start date
No disagreement there.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
I don't think that is what he was referring to. He was referring to the style of play because of the big ice surface.
purpleinnebraska
Well-known member
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
NHL teams are also really good defensively, but you get about 5.5 goals per NHL game, and those games involve teams that are generally evenly matched. Well, not Buffalo, but you know what I mean. The US had little trouble scoring against teams that didn't really belong in the Olympics, but in games involving 2 strong teams (Swedes, Canada, US, Finns, Russians) not a single game yet has produced a 5 goal game.
I think there's an aesthetic argument to be made for Olympic size ice, but not a good argument that big ice = more scoring. And even the aesthetic argument depends on a lot of skating and passing that takes place a long way from the net. Fun to watch, but somewhat lacking in purpose. European teams that play regularly on the big ice tend to pack it in on defense, content to let the other team work it around the boards. Personally, I don't even find that to be aesthetically pleasing, scoring argument aside.
NHL teams are also really good defensively, but you get about 5.5 goals per NHL game, and those games involve teams that are generally evenly matched. Well, not Buffalo, but you know what I mean. The US had little trouble scoring against teams that didn't really belong in the Olympics, but in games involving 2 strong teams (Swedes, Canada, US, Finns, Russians) not a single game yet has produced a 5 goal game.
I think there's an aesthetic argument to be made for Olympic size ice, but not a good argument that big ice = more scoring. And even the aesthetic argument depends on a lot of skating and passing that takes place a long way from the net. Fun to watch, but somewhat lacking in purpose. European teams that play regularly on the big ice tend to pack it in on defense, content to let the other team work it around the boards. Personally, I don't even find that to be aesthetically pleasing, scoring argument aside.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
So, you think the typical NHL team is as deep defensively as a Canadian, American, Swedish, etc.. roster? I'd disagree.
I'm not making an argument that Olympic Ice increases scoring. I'm just saying pointing to the scoring in these Olympics as definitive proof to the contrary is flawed. The ice size isn't the only variable. In addition to opponents being deeper defensively, players are given a short time to develop chemistry.
In other words, I don't think the lack of scoring puts the argument to rest. But in all honesty, it doesn't matter. The NHL won't change.
Personally, I think 200x90 would be interesting to see. I think it could be the best of both worlds. But we probably won't see that either.
Last edited:
purpleinnebraska
Well-known member
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
You're right that it's not definitive proof, and I likely engaged in some hyperbole (though I still think I'm right!). And I would agree with you about the strength of the Canadian, US, and Swedish defense, but not the "etc." When I saw the Russian and Finnish rosters, I was a little surprised how mediocre the D corps were. I think almost all of the teams in the NHL have stronger D pairings than those 2 had. And those are 2 of the stronger teams in the world, and neither give up a lot of goals in these games.
You're right that it's not definitive proof, and I likely engaged in some hyperbole (though I still think I'm right!). And I would agree with you about the strength of the Canadian, US, and Swedish defense, but not the "etc." When I saw the Russian and Finnish rosters, I was a little surprised how mediocre the D corps were. I think almost all of the teams in the NHL have stronger D pairings than those 2 had. And those are 2 of the stronger teams in the world, and neither give up a lot of goals in these games.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
I agree with you that outside of Canada, the US, and Sweden the rest of the rosters weren't as deep. That said, outside of Russia, which games did the US have trouble scoring against on the big ice?
Like i said, I think there is an argument to be made that the myths about more scoring on big ice is a fallacy, but I don't think pointing to a small sample of games where other variables (depth of rosters and chemistry in short tourney) are also factors proves much.
It's an interesting discussion.
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
I guess what I was trying to articulate (which I didn't do very well) was that I don't equate scoring with any measure of making the game "better" or "worse." So I don't care if there are more or fewer goals per game on the big ice vs the "normal" ice. I'm sort of old school...I enjoy watching a great pitching matchup as much as an 11-9 home run slugfest. More is not necessarily better. If you think about it, practically all scoring is from a certain range on in, so the extraneous room being around the perimeter would not really have an impact on that. I just think it's a better game because there is more "end to end" action and the game has more continuity and speed. One of the guys on a local Boston radio show this afternoon was "disappointed" in the Canadians because he said they "packed it in" and played a defensive game (a not so veiled shot at Claude Julien, whose style he does not like). But I wanted to say, "What game were YOU watching?" If you call continuous rushes up the ice and great scoring chances "packing it in," then you need to go find another sport. Without Quick, Canada would have had six goals. So just because it's 1-0 you can't say it was a "defensive" game; ergo...this game doesn't prove anything about any correlation between the size of the ice and the style of play OR the scoring. You can play any style on any ice; my point is that to me, it is ALWAYS a more exciting game when there is more speed. The one unique thing about this sport that NO other sport can duplicate is the speed and movement, because of the fact that it is played on ice with skates. No matter how fast someone can run in football or basketball, it's not the same. I still maintain the NHL rinks are too small for the size and speed of today's players and everything gets clogged up. I suppose if one roots for a less-talented team that might be good, but from a purist's viewpoint, I don't see how anyone can't think that it's a better game on the big ice.
I guess what I was trying to articulate (which I didn't do very well) was that I don't equate scoring with any measure of making the game "better" or "worse." So I don't care if there are more or fewer goals per game on the big ice vs the "normal" ice. I'm sort of old school...I enjoy watching a great pitching matchup as much as an 11-9 home run slugfest. More is not necessarily better. If you think about it, practically all scoring is from a certain range on in, so the extraneous room being around the perimeter would not really have an impact on that. I just think it's a better game because there is more "end to end" action and the game has more continuity and speed. One of the guys on a local Boston radio show this afternoon was "disappointed" in the Canadians because he said they "packed it in" and played a defensive game (a not so veiled shot at Claude Julien, whose style he does not like). But I wanted to say, "What game were YOU watching?" If you call continuous rushes up the ice and great scoring chances "packing it in," then you need to go find another sport. Without Quick, Canada would have had six goals. So just because it's 1-0 you can't say it was a "defensive" game; ergo...this game doesn't prove anything about any correlation between the size of the ice and the style of play OR the scoring. You can play any style on any ice; my point is that to me, it is ALWAYS a more exciting game when there is more speed. The one unique thing about this sport that NO other sport can duplicate is the speed and movement, because of the fact that it is played on ice with skates. No matter how fast someone can run in football or basketball, it's not the same. I still maintain the NHL rinks are too small for the size and speed of today's players and everything gets clogged up. I suppose if one roots for a less-talented team that might be good, but from a purist's viewpoint, I don't see how anyone can't think that it's a better game on the big ice.
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
I heard that same comment (ironic isn't it?) and was screaming the same thing at my car radio. The aggravating part is he had no problem with Julien's Bruins winning a 1-0 game to reach the Cup finals a few years back. As he would say....FRAUD
I heard that same comment (ironic isn't it?) and was screaming the same thing at my car radio. The aggravating part is he had no problem with Julien's Bruins winning a 1-0 game to reach the Cup finals a few years back. As he would say....FRAUD
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
The differences in crease rules play a far greater role in goals scored than ice size does.
I've had this argument earlier in the year, and I don't care to delve back into it. All I will say is that if people think the argument for Olympic ice is that it increases scoring (or the argument against is that it decreases scoring) then they are missing the point. Number of goals scored really isn't (or shouldn't be) part of the debate.
The differences in crease rules play a far greater role in goals scored than ice size does.
I've had this argument earlier in the year, and I don't care to delve back into it. All I will say is that if people think the argument for Olympic ice is that it increases scoring (or the argument against is that it decreases scoring) then they are missing the point. Number of goals scored really isn't (or shouldn't be) part of the debate.
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
Agreed...as I said before, for me it's a much more exciting game on the larger sheet whether there is one goal or ten goals.
Agreed...as I said before, for me it's a much more exciting game on the larger sheet whether there is one goal or ten goals.
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
And funny, because your login name seems strangly similar to who we're referring to....
And funny, because your login name seems strangly similar to who we're referring to....
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
Couldn't disagree any more. All you need to do is watch the USA /Canada game from 2010 compared to today. Larger service equals less physical, more defenseman playing between the dots and more shots being taken from wide angles. Also a lot of continuous puck possession that leads to less quality scoring chances. Very hard to come from behind. Has any team comeback from a 2 goal deficit in these Olympics?
Couldn't disagree any more. All you need to do is watch the USA /Canada game from 2010 compared to today. Larger service equals less physical, more defenseman playing between the dots and more shots being taken from wide angles. Also a lot of continuous puck possession that leads to less quality scoring chances. Very hard to come from behind. Has any team comeback from a 2 goal deficit in these Olympics?
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
could have just typed, "ok. hockey"
hate to say Finland has better skilled play makers. Perhaps my college could do the same from a nation of 5 million .
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
finland very well may have beaten sweden had rask played...was out with illness
usa hockey has goaltending, we have defense (studs like trouba and jones on the rise)...but our best offensive players are exposed when the chips are down. the preliminary goal totals were very misleading. don't have enough guys with the complete package necessary to make a difference in these types of games.
finland very well may have beaten sweden had rask played...was out with illness
usa hockey has goaltending, we have defense (studs like trouba and jones on the rise)...but our best offensive players are exposed when the chips are down. the preliminary goal totals were very misleading. don't have enough guys with the complete package necessary to make a difference in these types of games.