[GDT] Ongoing 2025 WJC Game Day Thread

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Junglist

They lost to Latvia, it hasnt worked.

With their back up G...not sure what you are even arguing about. Even with that loss, they are leading their pool.

The fact is...they have surrendered exactly 2 goals against in 185 minutes of hockey.

IF, and its a big one, that continues, they will win easy. Is that not what you want?

[Junglist]

Originally Posted by transplant99

With their back up G...not sure what you are even arguing about. Even with that loss, they are leading their pool.

The fact is...they have surrendered exactly 2 goals against in 185 minutes of hockey.

IF, and its a big one, that continues, they will win easy. Is that not what you want?

They should beat a team like Latvia by 10.

[transplant99]

Whoosh.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Junglist

They should beat a team like Latvia by 10.

The US only beat them 5-1

Some of these teams seem to be getting more competitive and they play a hard working, tight defensive system that can keep them in games a lot of the time.

[Junglist]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Whoosh.

Nah, I didnt miss anything.

Whoosh, on your part.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Who else were they supposed to play?

I don't know what their game will translate too against the US or Sweden but right now, this team was clearly built as a 200' grind em down group and it has worked....that much is pretty hard to dispute when your starting G hasn't given up a goal in 2 games.

I would think that "fans" would want to see that continue because in order to win...it has to.

It reminds me a bit of the Olympic club that went to Sochi. Only scored 14 goals in 5 games (6 in one against Austria) barely beat Latvia, barely beat Norway and then won the semi 1-0 against the US.

Yet, that was one of the most stifling/dominantly defensive clubs ever assembled anywhere....never felt like they were in trouble because they only surrendered 3 goals against in those 5 games.

There are different ways to win. One just isn't as sexy as the others.

That's what it reminds me of too.

That team left guys like Giroux, Eric Staal, Hall, and Seguin at home, scratched Subban most games, but were dominant defensively and won the tournament.

But I'm still not sure taking guys like Kunitz or Marleau over Giroux or Staal was the right decision even though they won. In the end that team probably ended up relying on Price more than it needed to and was a bit lucky that they won 1-0 against USA with Price getting a 31 save shutout.

And personally I look back at the 2002 and 2010 teams a lot more favourably than I do the 2014 team because as a fan seeing the best players playing together and against each other is what makes these tournaments fun.

And for every 2014 team that wins that way, you have a 2006 team that loses in embarrassing fashion because you took Ryan Smith, Shane Doan and Kris Draper over Sydney Crosby, Eric Staal, and Jason Spezza.

As you said though there are different ways to win, and in the end if you win it doesn't matter and luck plays a big factor in it all in the end too, but I'd rather take the best players and end up winning or losing than take a team trying to win a certain way and end up winning or losing.

Historically for hockey Canada they've won and lost both ways but I'd argue there are a lot more question marks if you lose with the team that left some of their best players at home, and generally those teams are led by coaches that think they know better than others.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Junglist

Nah, I didnt miss anything.

Whoosh, on your part.

LOL...you missed the ENTIRE point.

THIS team is not built to score 10 goals in a game. They are built to be doing exactly what they have...thus far.

If you have all the missing offensive guys mentioned on this team, then you arent winning the way this club is going to because you would not be playing to their strengths.

Again, Im not a Dave Cameron cheer leader here, but the reality of the situation is what he has intended to do...he is accomplishing. Its not even debatable at this point.

NY eve game will tell us a lot IMO.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Who else were they supposed to play?

I don't know what their game will translate too against the US or Sweden but right now, this team was clearly built as a 200' grind em down group and it has worked....that much is pretty hard to dispute when your starting G hasn't given up a goal in 2 games.

I would think that "fans" would want to see that continue because in order to win...it has to.

It reminds me a bit of the Olympic club that went to Sochi. Only scored 14 goals in 5 games (6 in one against Austria) barely beat Latvia, barely beat Norway and then won the semi 1-0 against the US.

Yet, that was one of the most stifling/dominantly defensive clubs ever assembled anywhere....never felt like they were in trouble because they only surrendered 3 goals against in those 5 games.

There are different ways to win. One just isn't as sexy as the others.

Out of thanks, but excellent post.

[midniteowl]

Was that George who got a shutout again tonight?

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

Was that George who got a shutout again tonight?

Yup!

[dieHARDflameZ]

Imagine being the CHL reigning defenseman of the year and not being invited to represent your country. Bush league.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That's what it reminds me of too.

That team left guys like Giroux, Eric Staal, Hall, and Seguin at home, scratched Subban most games, but were dominant defensively and won the tournament.

But I'm still not sure taking guys like Kunitz or Marleau over Giroux or Staal was the right decision even though they won. In the end that team probably ended up relying on Price more than it needed to and was a bit lucky that they won 1-0 against USA with Price getting a 31 save shutout.

And personally I look back at the 2002 and 2010 teams a lot more favourably than I do the 2014 team because as a fan seeing the best players playing together and against each other is what makes these tournaments fun.

And for every 2014 team that wins that way, you have a 2006 team that loses in embarrassing fashion because you took Ryan Smith, Shane Doan and Kris Draper over Sydney Crosby, Eric Staal, and Jason Spezza.

As you said though there are different ways to win, and in the end if you win it doesn't matter and luck plays a big factor in it all in the end too, but I'd rather take the best players and end up winning or losing than take a team trying to win a certain way and end up winning or losing.

Historically for hockey Canada they've won and lost both ways but I'd argue there are a lot more question marks if you lose with the team that left some of their best players at home, and generally those teams are led by coaches that think they know better than others.

Yeah i dont disagree with any of this other than the bolded....because thats what worked for them to win the Gold. I refuse to criticize success personally.

I think the opposite comparison was the 87 Canada Cup roster.

I would argue that was the most purely offensively talented group this country has ever assembled.

They won of course but it was nail biting crazy 6-5 games in the best of 3 final with 2 going to OT.

Point being though, that was really how the game was at that time. Wide open offensive push, defense be damned hockey. We were really good at it too. Also maybe the single most entertaining tournament I ever witnessed in any sport to this day.

But thats not the game anymore. Even in the playoffs now, if you cant grind it out, up and down the ice, you aren't gonna win. That's how coaches operate now and this iteration of TC is an example. Whether it works or not remains to be seen but its pretty easy to see what/why Cameron has done what he has even if i disagree with him on some of the choices.

[Enoch Root]

In fairness, that was one of Russia's best teams ever, as well (87)

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In fairness, that was one of Russia's best teams ever, as well (87)

No question.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yeah i dont disagree with any of this other than the bolded....because thats what worked for them to win the Gold. I refuse to criticize success personally.

I think the opposite comparison was the 87 Canada Cup roster.

I would argue that was the most purely offensively talented group this country has ever assembled.

They won of course but it was nail biting crazy 6-5 games in the best of 3 final with 2 going to OT.

Point being though, that was really how the game was at that time. Wide open offensive push, defense be damned hockey. We were really good at it too. Also maybe the single most entertaining tournament I ever witnessed in any sport to this day.

But thats not the game anymore. Even in the playoffs now, if you cant grind it out, up and down the ice, you aren't gonna win. That's how coaches operate now and this iteration of TC is an example. Whether it works or not remains to be seen but its pretty easy to see what/why Cameron has done what he has even if i disagree with him on some of the choices.

I'm actually not sure this is true...and even if it is then it doesn't explain leaving off Misa and Parekh who just proved they could win by winning the memorial cup.

Colorado won a cup without grinding very much at all, Tampa won back to back. You can't be soft but in the end skill can still win.

In the end my personal feeling on this is that coaches like these types of teams better because they feel like they have more control over a team that is more of a defensive grind it out team than a team that's more of a purely talented team made up of the best players. In the end it's what the coach wants to have control over.

But as a fan I don't want to see that TBH. In the end winning or losing is made up of a lot of different factors...roster, coaching, reffing, luck, other results, etc and this iteration of Canada might win, or the iteration of Canada with Sennecke, Misa, Yakemchuk, and Parekh might have won - both have a chance at success.

But as a fan in these major international tournaments I don't want to see Chris Kunitz playing with Crosby instead of Claude Giroux, or Kris Draper on a team instead of Sydney Crosby.

I want to see the best players playing together and Canada being entertaining. Canada winning the tournament by playing like they are some underdog team that needs to grind their way to victory is boring to me, even if they end up winning.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yeah i dont disagree with any of this other than the bolded....because thats what worked for them to win the Gold. I refuse to criticize success personally.

I think the opposite comparison was the 87 Canada Cup roster.

I would argue that was the most purely offensively talented group this country has ever assembled.

They won of course but it was nail biting crazy 6-5 games in the best of 3 final with 2 going to OT.

Point being though, that was really how the game was at that time. Wide open offensive push, defense be damned hockey. We were really good at it too. Also maybe the single most entertaining tournament I ever witnessed in any sport to this day.

But thats not the game anymore. Even in the playoffs now, if you cant grind it out, up and down the ice, you aren't gonna win. That's how coaches operate now and this iteration of TC is an example. Whether it works or not remains to be seen but its pretty easy to see what/why Cameron has done what he has even if i disagree with him on some of the choices.

Again, excellent post. I can see why some are bewildered by the omission of players like Greentree, Misa, Sennecke, and Yakemchuk- but players like Parascak, Cristall, and yes- even Parekh, won't help much in a tourney like this, playing the style they want to play.

I know I'll get ripped for this post, but it's true.

[indes]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That's what it reminds me of too.

That team left guys like Giroux, Eric Staal, Hall, and Seguin at home, scratched Subban most games, but were dominant defensively and won the tournament.

But I'm still not sure taking guys like Kunitz or Marleau over Giroux or Staal was the right decision even though they won. In the end that team probably ended up relying on Price more than it needed to and was a bit lucky that they won 1-0 against USA with Price getting a 31 save shutout.

And personally I look back at the 2002 and 2010 teams a lot more favourably than I do the 2014 team because as a fan seeing the best players playing together and against each other is what makes these tournaments fun.

And for every 2014 team that wins that way, you have a 2006 team that loses in embarrassing fashion because you took Ryan Smith, Shane Doan and Kris Draper over Sydney Crosby, Eric Staal, and Jason Spezza.

As you said though there are different ways to win, and in the end if you win it doesn't matter and luck plays a big factor in it all in the end too, but I'd rather take the best players and end up winning or losing than take a team trying to win a certain way and end up winning or losing.

Historically for hockey Canada they've won and lost both ways but I'd argue there are a lot more question marks if you lose with the team that left some of their best players at home, and generally those teams are led by coaches that think they know better than others.

Couldn't agree more. Hockey Canada has been obsessed with recreating the 2014 olympics and playing "perfect hockey" since it happened. Even though that 2014 team was stacked and the players just played a great two way game, which is different than just having two way players, which is what TC seems to think will work. There wasn't a guy on the 2014 team who wouldn't be out first shift in OT on their team, you definitely can't say the same for this WJC squad. Play a two way game, sure. But who do you lean on when you need a goal to break through a stifling defense? I'm probably looking at the OHL leading scorer or some top 10 draft picks, not 3 guys with 50 points in the last 3 years.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'm actually not sure this is true...and even if it is then it doesn't explain leaving off Misa and Parekh who just proved they could win by winning the memorial cup.

Colorado won a cup without grinding very much at all, Tampa won back to back. You can't be soft but in the end skill can still win.

In the end my personal feeling on this is that coaches like these types of teams better because they feel like they have more control over a team that is more of a defensive grind it out team than a team that's more of a purely offensively talented team.

But as a fan I don't want to see that TBH. In the end winning or losing is made up of a lot of different factors...roster, coaching, reffing, luck, other results, etc.

But as a fan in these major international tournaments I don't want to see Chris Kunitz playing with Crosby instead of Claude Giroux, or Kris Draper on a team instead of Sydney Crosby.

I want to see the best players playing together and Canada being entertaining. Canada winning the tournament by playing like they are some underdog team that needs to grind their way to victory is boring to me, even if they end up winning.

It's very true, that's why teams load up on muscle (and pay a premium for it) going in to the playoffs. Those teams you mentioned had size and plenty of pushback in their rosters. Skill and speed still rule, but you need to be able to fight in the trenches, or you're done in the playoffs.

[GirlySports]

Iginla was a 4th liner in 2010 but he was out there in overtime of the final. You need pure gamebreakers in certain situations in knockout tournaments.

Tuesday will be interesting because you expect Finland to be sitting on 8 points. So Canada and US will be for 1st or 3rd!

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Sandman

It's very true, that's why teams load up on muscle (and pay a premium for it) going in to the playoffs. Those teams you mentioned had size and plenty of pushback in their rosters. Skill and speed still rule, but you need to be able to fight in the trenches, or you're done in the playoffs.

Size and talent is what you need, not a bunch of big guys that are just big. (And being strong defensively is still a talent)

Size alone is useless. Tampa, Colorado, Vegas, and Florida are teams that were big and talented. They didn't have any size that was size for the sake of being big.

Guys like Sennecke, and Yakemchuk that were left off the team are actually the type of guys those NHL teams are looking for in terms of size and skill and why they were top 10 picks.

Honestly don't see any real reason those guys didn't get a real look at being on this team.

With Parekh I can kind of see it. He's not huge, he takes a lot of risks, but in terms of Parekh not being able to play a winning style...the kid just played 30 minutes a night, had 5 points and was +6 on the way to Saginaw winning the Memorial Cup...I have a feeling he's intelligent enough to play within the structure of a winning team for team Canada.