[News] Sean Monahan injured; out for World Cup

[btimbit]

But the Olympics, players give it their all. This, guys are turning down invites and choosing to rest with minor injuries, like the all-star game.

It hasn't started yet, so who knows, maybe it will turn out to be amazing hockey with guys giving 110%, like the Olympics. It's not even that I'm 100% pro olympics, they have their problems too. I just want a tournament where the best players around the world come and give it their all. If the World Cup turns into that, then great! I'd love for that to happen. But I don't expect it.

[PepsiFree]

More-so than the Olympics, structurally.

I don't think I've seen a tournament where there is zero controversy over who gets chosen for the teams.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'd also like a better reason to be dismissive than "this isn't best on best"

This is best in best more-so than the Olympics are. This just isn't "the best of each country vs the best of country" this is "the best hockey players vs the best hockey players separated into regional based all-star teams"

Which is a massive deal breaker for many, many fans, as evidence by the responses online. You nailed it with your "regional based all star teams" comment. I actually think that's the best way to describe this "tournament", except the regions overlap.....

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, that's fair. Just in a scenario where it's best-on-best, you stand a higher chance of achieving that by including the top 60 North Americans and the top 20 Europeans, rather than the top 40 North Americans (team Canada and USA) and then, say, the top 20 players from Denmark, or Norway, or Slovakia, etc.

I'm not saying it's an amazing system. But you're going to get better teams matching up against better teams. Closer to best-on-best than we've seen anytime recently.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I feel like I've stepped into an alternate reality where the Canada Cup and World Cup wasn't a highly anticipated best-on-best international tournament featuring the best players in the world playing their hearts out. Where the '87 Canada Cup - regarded by many people, including Gretzky, as the best hockey they've ever seen played - didn't happen. Where the '96 World Cup wasn't the inauguration of an era when Canada and the U.S. became bitter hockey rivals.

Just because something doesn't have any personal history with you doesn't mean it doesn't have any history. Best-on-best international hockey happened before professionals started participating in the Olympics. And it was fantastic hockey.

Ah sorry, how could I forget Canada eking out that win over North America in the '87 Canada Cup. A rivalry for the ages.

[doctajones428]

The only teams missing that were in the old World Cup are Germany and Slovakia, and they are sending all of their NHLers except for two or three. I don't see how sitting guys like Kopitar, Josi, Anderson and Zuccarello so Goc, Jurco and a bunch of nobodies can play instead would make the tournament any better.

Anyone remember the United European Team in the '92 Olympics? Did that make the Olympics nothing more than a throw away event that no one cared about?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

The only teams missing that were in the old World Cup are Germany and Slovakia, and they are sending all of their NHLers except for two or three. I don't see how sitting guys like Kopitar, Josi, Anderson and Zuccarello so Goc, Jurco and a bunch of nobodies can play instead would make the tournament any better.

Not better. Just don't call it a World Cup. Because it's not.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Not better. Just don't call it a World Cup. Because it's not.

So taking the Slovanian, Swiss, Dutch, Austrian, Nord and French players out of the tournament would make it more worldly?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Not better. Just don't call it a World Cup. Because it's not.

They should call it the Canada Cup.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

So taking the Slovanian, Swiss, Dutch, Austrian, Nord and French players out of the tournament would make it more worldly?

Having them play for their own nations would make it a world cup. Anything else and it's just not. Just like MLB and NFL champions are not "world champions".

The fact that one of the USAs best players will be playing for a different team is a good example of the farcical nature of the whole thing. YOu don't think Gaudreau would rather play and win for USA. Do you think he really gives a crap about taking home a world cup for Team NA U23?

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Having them play for their own nations would make it a world cup. Anything else and it's just not. Just like MLB and NFL champions are not "world champions".

The fact that one of the USAs best players will be playing for a different team is a good example of the farcical nature of the whole thing. YOu don't think Gaudreau would rather play and win for USA. Do you think he really gives a crap about taking home a world cup for Team NA U23?

Yeah, I do. He wouldn't be going at the risk of getting injured and missing a big fat contract if he didn't

[Coach]

Look, I'm not saying the hockey won't be good, or that you or I can't enjoy it.

It's just not a world tournament. No other world tournament has a format like this. No other world tournament would have players playing against their own nations. It just straight up doesn't make sense.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It's just not a world tournament. No other world tournament has a format like this. No other world tournament would have players playing against their own nations. It just straight up doesn't make sense.

Except for the FIFA World Cup where the UK fields 4 teams, and the Olympics where people compete for different countries all the time.

But other than those two...

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except for the FIFA World Cup where the UK fields 4 teams, and the Olympics where people compete for different countries all the time.

But other than those two...

Are any of them playing against the UK?

If they have citizenship in separate nations, yes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Are any of them playing against the UK?



If they have citizenship in separate nations, yes.

Well yes. Because they're all part of the U.K. Would you deem a Quebec team and an Ontario team more worthy of a "World Cup" qualification? Not to mention the multiple territories of countries that compete against the countries they're part of.

But that citizenship is for Olympic purposes only.

[nik-]

Well considering that they're provinces of a country and not separate countries like Wales et al are, that would be pretty silly.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well yes. Because they're all part of the U.K. Would you deem a Quebec team and an Ontario team more worthy of a "World Cup" qualification?

But that citizenship is for Olympic purposes only.

They play for the region they were born in, and thus not against it. It's kind of a special case and I don't think the single straw man of "well the UK aren't separate countries...sort of...." thing holds as much weight. If FIFA all of a sudden decided that they were going to make a team with all players U23 and combine NA into one team to help it be more competitive, everyone in the soccer world would find it absolutely ridiculous. I don't understand the problem with some nations stronger than others. FIFA champions usually end up as one of 5 or 6 nations, no different. And, again, no players are playing against their own nations, particularly ones that would make their team if they were "old enough".

If every province of Canada participated in a world cup separately, with no team representing Canada itself, I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it in that context. It would be weird and I wouldn't like it, but again, the UK is kind of anomaly of sovereignty.

So the athletes competing for multiple countries don't have legitimate citizenship for those nations? They get them before the Olympics and and renounce them after?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'd also like a better reason to be dismissive than "this isn't best on best"

This is best in best more-so than the Olympics are. This just isn't "the best of each country vs the best of country" this is "the best hockey players vs the best hockey players separated into regional based all-star teams"

It's not the best on best though, not even close. You can't have a best on best when Subaan is sitting out while some other scrub plays for another team's defence.

At least in the Olympics it's the best countries vs the best countries. This isn't even that. It's not the best countries going up against each other and it's not even the best players playing each other.

Having said that, I can't wait to watch the World Cup.

[PepsiFree]

I don't know why I'm bothering. I don't care either way about the World Cup. I just find some of the complaints are pretty far reaches.

Most of them are irrelevant. Who cares if they call it a World Cup and have a mixed country team. Who cares if there's no history. Who cares if it's not a very specific version of best on best.

It's a hockey tournament for profit and entertainment put on by the NHL which showcases most of the very best hockey talent in the world. It's not more than that or less than that. TBH I feel just as stupid defending it as I would complaining about it.

[calgaryblood]

I certainly don't care. I've been waiting for this tournament all summer. I think people will change their tunes once the games get instense and they see how much the players care.

I hope Gaudreau puts on a show.