2014 Winter Olympic Hockey

[Guest Sloth]

Found this on a Detroit Redwings message board. Gives an idea of where teams will be at after the Canada/Finland game.

 

#5 Russia - #12 Norway faces #4 in QF

#6 Switzerland - #11 Latvia faces #3 in QF

#7 Czech republic - #10 Slovakia faces #2 in QF

#8 Slovenia - #9 Austria faces #1 in QF

 

If Canada wins in regulation, #1 Canada, #2 Sweden, #3 USA, #4 Finland

If Finland wins in regulation, #1 Finland, #2 Sweden, #3 USA, #4 Canada

If Canada wins in OT/shootout, #1 Sweden, #2 USA, #3 Canada, #4 Finland

If Finland wins in OT/shootout, #1 Sweden, #2 USA, #3 Finland, #4 Canada

 

(These are assuming that Canada wins by less than 9 and Finland wins by less than 8)

[Eleven]

It's official. #2 seed. Let's go Slovakia!

[Guest Sloth]

It's official. #2 seed. Let's go Slovakia!

 

I like the sound of that! Don't like the idea of playing the Czech Republic.

Edited February 16, 2014 by thanes16

[LGR4GM]

Canada is your #3 seed

[bunomatic]

Yes. Doughtys been money.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Canada and Finland both look to be in Alamo mode in OT.

 

Sloppy play.

[JJFIVEOH]

That was weak.

[Eleven]

And Canada avoids that matchup that everyone outside of Canada and Russia wanted to see.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

So we got

 

Winner of Solvenia - Austria facing Sweden

 

Winner of Czech Republic - Slovakia facing the USA

 

Winner of Switzerland - Latvia facing Canada

 

and Winner of Russia - Norway facing Finland.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Yes. Doughtys been money.

 

Soft goal to win it, but I'll take it.

[dudacek]

That Canada/Finland was a game the coaches had to love: nothing but compete, and smart decision- making.

Also great evidence as to what's wrong with the big ice.

The puck was almost never between the dots. Small ice = more chances.

[Kristian]

That Canada/Finland was a game the coaches had to love: nothing but compete, and smart decision- making.

Also great evidence as to what's wrong with the big ice.

The puck was almost never between the dots. Small ice = more chances.

 

IMHO, the two are closely related.

 

You have two strong teams playing a game in which neither can really afford to lose, do you expect the puck to be in the slot much?

 

I don't think the big ice has much impact on the number of big scoring chances.

 

I do however think it takes away a some shots through traffic and soft goals on quick, surprising shots, because the puck is often further away from the net.

[Weave]

Interesting counterpoint to the NHL adopting international ice dimensions:

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl 48m

Matt Duchene on the big ice: "This is why the NHL should never go to a big ice, it'll take the scoring out of the game."

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl 47m

More Duchene on the big ice: "You're able to play way more defensive on the big ice. It makes for less offense."

[Taro T]

Interesting counterpoint to the NHL adopting international ice dimensions:

 

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl 48m

Matt Duchene on the big ice: "This is why the NHL should never go to a big ice, it'll take the scoring out of the game."

 

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl 47m

More Duchene on the big ice: "You're able to play way more defensive on the big ice. It makes for less offense."

In most sports, the smaller the playing surface is made, the more scoring you get. You're closer to scoring by default.

 

But the argument is always made that bigger ice makes for a more entertaining game. I don't buy it. If I made any change to the rink, I'd move the goalline back to 10' from the boards.

[Kristian]

In most sports, the smaller the playing surface is made, the more scoring you get. You're closer to scoring by default.

 

But the argument is always made that bigger ice makes for a more entertaining game. I don't buy it. If I made any change to the rink, I'd move the goalline back to 10' from the boards.

 

One thing we do know about the bigger ice, is that it gives the good skaters an edge, and the slowfooted players will most likely have less of a place in the game.

 

Good or bad? I guess if you're a skilled player, you would still have a place in the game, but if you're a pylon not so much.

 

I wouldn't mind less plugs in the game, but that's just me.

[Taro T]

One thing we do know about the bigger ice, is that it gives the good skaters an edge, and the slowfooted players will most likely have less of a place in the game.

 

Good or bad? I guess if you're a skilled player, you would still have a place in the game, but if you're a pylon not so much.

 

I wouldn't mind less plugs in the game, but that's just me.

Adding a little bit more than a Chara's length on each side of the rink isn't going to increase the pace that much. Max wouldn't be an All Star on a 100' wide rink any more than he'd be on an 85' rink either.

[Kristian]

Adding a little bit more than a Chara's length on each side of the rink isn't going to increase the pace that much. Max wouldn't be an All Star on a 100' wide rink any more than he'd be on an 85' rink either.

 

Never said it would, I only said good skaters would gain an advantage, and poor skaters would be at a disadvantage.

 

I also said, if you're a good player, you're not likely to suffer much - For instance Team Canada have a couple of heavy defensemen, who are not the quickest to reach top speed, but since they can play the game, they won't suffer much, if at all, from playing on the bigger ice.

 

I don't think Max is a very good example to argue the case in question though, as he was probably the most one-dimensional player I ever saw.

 

I think guys like Mike Weber would suffer - He's serviceable on NHL ice, but would most likely suffer on the larger surface against faster players.

 

And like I said, personally I wouldn't mind seeing less plugs in the league.

 

But you don't have to make the switch to a bigger ice surface to achieve that, you just need to tell the refs to start calling all the clutch & grab BS, and interference.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Kristian

[Taro T]

Never said it would, I only said good skaters would gain an advantage, and poor skaters would be at a disadvantage.

 

I also said, if you're a good player, you're not likely to suffer much - For instance Team Canada have a couple of heavy defensemen, who are not the quickest to reach top speed, but since they can play the game, they won't suffer much, if at all, from playing on the bigger ice.

 

I don't think Max is a very good example to argue the case in question though, as he was probably the most one-dimensional player I ever saw.

 

I think guys like Mike Weber would suffer - He's serviceable on NHL ice, but would most likely suffer on the larger surface against faster players.

 

And like I said, personally I wouldn't mind seeing less plugs in the league.

 

But you don't have to make the switch to a bigger ice surface to achieve that, you just need to tell the refs to start calling all the clutch & grab BS, and interference.

Agree w/ the bolded above.

 

The problem is, without calling the clutching and grabbing, you end up with a generally dull game with limited scoring chances even when played on the larger surface w/ the best players in the world. The Canada Finland game was not particularily entertaining, but it was played on the larger ice w/out any 'plugs.'

 

The bits I saw of the US Russia game WAS entertaining, but IMHO less so than the Blackhawks-B's final this last year.

 

In most sports, when they are moved to a smaller surface scoring goes up. The NHL has issues w/ scoring, and it is counterintuitive to me that scoring will go up pulling the nets 2' further from the back boards and giving the D 7.5' extra on either side to clear the puck further from the net.

 

It is also counterintuitive, again IMHO, that if the league did go to an international sheet that they would also crack down on obstruction to drive the Mike Webers from the league. It took less than 2 years for them to move away from that the last time they tried it.

 

I still think the game would improve more by moving the goallines back by 1' to where they were in the '80's than by switching to Olympic rinks.

[Kristian]

Agree w/ the bolded above.

 

The problem is, without calling the clutching and grabbing, you end up with a generally dull game with limited scoring chances even when played on the larger surface w/ the best players in the world. The Canada Finland game was not particularily entertaining, but it was played on the larger ice w/out any 'plugs.'

 

The bits I saw of the US Russia game WAS entertaining, but IMHO less so than the Blackhawks-B's final this last year.

 

In most sports, when they are moved to a smaller surface scoring goes up. The NHL has issues w/ scoring, and it is counterintuitive to me that scoring will go up pulling the nets 2' further from the back boards and giving the D 7.5' extra on either side to clear the puck further from the net.

 

It is also counterintuitive, again IMHO, that if the league did go to an international sheet that they would also crack down on obstruction to drive the Mike Webers from the league. It took less than 2 years for them to move away from that the last time they tried it.

 

I still think the game would improve more by moving the goallines back by 1' to where they were in the '80's than by switching to Olympic rinks.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the league would clamp down any, I just think a guy like Weber would be exposed on the larger surface, cause he isn't a partculary good skater, and also lacks the skills of a top 4 d-man.

[Taro T]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the league would clamp down any, I just think a guy like Weber would be exposed on the larger surface, cause he isn't a partculary good skater, and also lacks the skills of a top 4 d-man.

I expect the league would allow a bit more interference go if they did go to the larger sheet because let's face it - the guys running the league love the Hal Gills of this world. But even if they didn't, and the league did move towards more mobile D, the overall skill level of the league eould not be Canada - Finland, and that was dull. If that could be dull, I'm not looking forward to Isles Panthers on ~20,000 sq ft of rink in mid-February. ;)

[Kristian]

I expect the league would allow a bit more interference go if they did go to the larger sheet because let's face it - the guys running the league love the Hal Gills of this world. But even if they didn't, and the league did move towards more mobile D, the overall skill level of the league eould not be Canada - Finland, and that was dull. If that could be dull, I'm not looking forward to Isles Panthers on ~20,000 sq ft of rink in mid-February. ;)

 

Perhaps, but bear in mind the two teams we saw have exactly 3 games together, to their credit.

 

I expect both to get better as their tournament progresses.

 

And who looks forward to an Isles - Panthers game on any surface? :flirt:

Edited February 17, 2014 by Kristian

[bunomatic]

I expect the league would allow a bit more interference go if they did go to the larger sheet because let's face it - the guys running the league love the Hal Gills of this world. But even if they didn't, and the league did move towards more mobile D, the overall skill level of the league eould not be Canada - Finland, and that was dull. If that could be dull, I'm not looking forward to Isles Panthers on ~20,000 sq ft of rink in mid-February. ;)

 

I've heard it before and it won't happen but if you want to open up the game get rid of the coaches. Yesterday coach talked of playing a patient game because of Finlands stifling style and the fact that the Finns were waiting for Canada to make a mistake so they could make them pay. In essence Canada with loads of offensive talent has to play down to their opponents level rather than opening the game up and dictating play. Defense seems to win championships so thats how the teams will play. Also the point about calling the holding etc. is spot on. I was surprised with all of the grabbing and holding by both sides in that game. It seems the refs are afraid to change the outcome.

[Kristian]

I've heard it before and it won't happen but if you want to open up the game get rid of the coaches. Yesterday coach talked of playing a patient game because of Finlands stifling style and the fact that the Finns were waiting for Canada to make a mistake so they could make them pay. In essence Canada with loads of offensive talent has to play down to their opponents level rather than opening the game up and dictating play. Defense seems to win championships so thats how the teams will play. Also the point about calling the holding etc. is spot on. I was surprised with all of the grabbing and holding by both sides in that game. It seems the refs are afraid to change the outcome.

 

That game was partcularly bad, and as coincidence would have it, once of the refs was Canadian.

 

I saw a ton of crosscheckings, blatant interferences at the blueline and slashings go uncalled as well but yesterdays game, IMHO, is not indicative of how the tournament has been called so far.

[millbank]

On Women's side, U.S 6 - Sweden - 1. In game U.S had first 26 shots on goal, ended up out shooting Sweden 70 - 9.

Edited February 17, 2014 by millbank

[Sabres Fan in NS]

On Women's side, U.S 6 - Sweden - 1. In game U.S had first 26 shots on goal, ended up out shooting Sweden 70 - 9.

 

Sounds like a typical Sabre game SOG total. Of course, the Sabres would have the 9.