Reuters disses European hockey

In an article today in Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, entitled "Gretzky accepts responsibility for the fiasco (http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1705&a=523846&previousRenderType=6)", the news agency Reuters is quoted as printing something like "An Olympic final without either Canada or USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Japan and Jamaica."

Does anyone know if this is true? I guess it must be. Anyway, it's so mindbogglingly stupid that anyone who said it should be slapped. Hard. :shakehead

If somebody said that, they should be fired on the spot.

If somebody said that, they should be fired on the spot.

Me not surprised. Here's another perl:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AulQ9rgrmoed7MflGCjwIPN7vLYF?slug=cnnsi-ahostofsurprise&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

The guy claims a heated Rus-Kaz rivalry by saying that ppl from Kaz were the 3-d rate citizens of the USSR. With 17 KAZ players being Rus citizens this is :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Me not surprised. Here's another perl:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AulQ9rgrmoed7MflGCjwIPN7vLYF?slug=cnnsi-ahostofsurprise&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

The guy claims a heated Rus-Kaz rivalry by saying that ppl from Kaz were the 3-d rate citizens of the USSR. With 17 KAZ players being Rus citizens this is :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

:biglaugh: :biglaugh:

You think that guy at least watched the highlights from the game?!

In an article today in Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, entitled "Gretzky accepts responsibility for the fiasco (http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1705&a=523846&previousRenderType=6)", the news agency Reuters is quoted as printing something like "An Olympic final without either Canada or USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Japan and Jamaica."

Does anyone know if this is true? I guess it must be. Anyway, it's so mindbogglingly stupid that anyone who said it should be slapped. Hard. :shakehead

I guess the person means that we're missing a vital component in the Olympic final; namely a North American team. This probably means less interest for the final in the hockey world at large. Same thing if you had a WC final between Japan and Jamaica; no South american or European team in the final = yawn for most people. I don't think they're dissing euro hockey per se.

Reuters is a british news agency?
Brits don't have a clue about ice hockey and winter sports.
It is so sad.

I guess the person means that we're missing a vital component in the Olympic final; namely a North American team. This probably means less interest for the final in the hockey world at large. Same thing if you had a WC final between Japan and Jamaica; no South american or European team in the final = yawn for most people.

You are reading too much into it, it's a blatant insult towards all the other teams written by a US journalist. Pretty much par for the course given the type of "journalism" we have seen so far during these Olympics from the American press.

What's particularly laughable is the implicit suggestion that the USA is on par with Canada in hockey and that all other countries are below them.

Reuters is a british news agency?
Brits don't have a clue about ice hockey and winter sports.
It is so sad.
They had Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards. ;)
A bonafide superstar!

"An Olympic final without either Canada or USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Japan and Jamaica."

Especially USA :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :clap:

This Tournament belongs to European Teams.
But NA medias still have to realize it...not that this thing shocks me though.

Pretty weird those soft euros grabbed all 4 spots for the semifinals...:shakehead

EUROPEAN HOCKEY RULES!

This is nothing. I remember when Brazil were struggling to qualify for the 2002 World Cup, Pele was quoted as saying something to the effect of 'if Brazil don't make it to the WC, it's not worth having it and they shouldn't bother playing'. Now THAT is homerism.

You are reading too much into it, it's a blatant insult towards all the other teams written by a US journalist. Pretty much par for the course given the type of "journalism" we have seen so far during these Olympics from the American press.

What's particularly laughable is the implicit suggestion that the USA is on par with Canada in hockey and that all other countries are below them.

Huh? From what I've read the American media has been exceedingly critical of the U.S. hockey team. As for being on par with the Canadian team, well that sure proved true! :biglaugh:

I guess the person means that we're missing a vital component in the Olympic final; namely a North American team. This probably means less interest for the final in the hockey world at large. Same thing if you had a WC final between Japan and Jamaica; no South american or European team in the final = yawn for most people. I don't think they're dissing euro hockey per se.

But if the final had been between Canada and the USA it'd still be missing a vital component (a European team), but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't say that then...

In an article today in Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, entitled "Gretzky accepts responsibility for the fiasco (http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1705&a=523846&previousRenderType=6)", the news agency Reuters is quoted as printing something like "An Olympic final without either Canada or USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Japan and Jamaica."

Does anyone know if this is true? I guess it must be. Anyway, it's so mindbogglingly stupid that anyone who said it should be slapped. Hard. :shakehead

From a North American perspective, this is true.

Nobody on this side of the pond will care. Just as nobody in Europe cares a whole lot when it is Canada vs USA in a final.

But if the final had been between Canada and the USA it'd still be missing a vital component (a European team), but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't say that then...

Well I would. I know some people who wanted this to happen before the tournament started (admittedly not very hockey-savvy people who thought there was a good chance this would happen) but I was strongly against it. From a Canadian standpoint we got our revenge on them in 2002 (for 96) and that's over with. I would have welcomed a final between Canada and Russia/Czechs/Sweden.

Here is the one you are referring to.

http://www.torino2006.org/ENG/OlympicGames/news/news_eng161881.html

And yeah it is a crap article. I guess this reporter expected that U.S and Canada would just walk into the finals. I guess they forgot world cup.....since it seems he really thought losing to Finland was such a surprise this time...

From a North American perspective, this is true.

Nobody on this side of the pond will care. Just as nobody in Europe cares a whole lot when it is Canada vs USA in a final.

It's not about caring, it's about ranking the hockey powers correctly. And if this reporter really is surprised USA is not in the finals, he has absolutely no clue about anything, especially hockey.

USA was #7 in my book when the olympics started, and that is pretty much where they are at now.

You are reading too much into it, it's a blatant insult towards all the other teams written by a US journalist. Pretty much par for the course given the type of "journalism" we have seen so far during these Olympics from the American press.

What's particularly laughable is the implicit suggestion that the USA is on par with Canada in hockey and that all other countries are below them.

While almost every player on the four teams remaining in the gold medal chase, Finland, Russia, Czech Republic and Sweden, earn their living in the NHL, an Olympic final without Canada or the U.S. could be compared to the soccer World Cup final between Japan and Jamaica.

Where the loss is sure to be felt in the United States is in the television ratings.

Without Canada or the United States playing for a medal, already soft Olympic TV ratings in North America are expected to plunge further.

I think this proves my point - the journalist talks about TV ratings right after "dissing" European hockey. He's just stating the obvious - not many people west of the Atlantic are going to care from now on.

"An Olympic final without either Canada or USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Japan and Jamaica."

So, have you already decided what SWE
wants to be? I think FINs have been called
the Japan of Europe. Does that mean SWE
is the Jamaica then? :)

If somebody said that, they should be fired on the spot.But before that he should be kicked in the face by Malkin :madfire:

From a North American perspective, this is true.

Nobody on this side of the pond will care. Just as nobody in Europe cares a whole lot when it is Canada vs USA in a final.

Considering Russia offers more entertaining hockey that would be a shame for anyone who enjoys good hockey.
Not only that but of the final four there's like 95% of them that are NHL players. It's not that much different than watching a game on center ice even if your team is not involved. People might not "care" as much but it will still be great hockey and well worth watching.

Jamaica is ranked 43 in the world, and is hardly comparable to any of the teams left in the olympics. If they refered to television ratings in N.A, perhaps you can make that comparision, but if you are talking about the quality if hockey, hardly.

Me not surprised. Here's another perl:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AulQ9rgrmoed7MflGCjwIPN7vLYF?slug=cnnsi-ahostofsurprise&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

The guy claims a heated Rus-Kaz rivalry by saying that ppl from Kaz were the 3-d rate citizens of the USSR. With 17 KAZ players being Rus citizens this is :biglaugh: :biglaugh:
:biglaugh: Nice research for that article

From a North American perspective, this is true.

Nobody on this side of the pond will care. Just as nobody in Europe cares a whole lot when it is Canada vs USA in a final.
Wrong, I am on this side of the pond and I still care. Not everyone in NA only cares about USA and Canada, some of us are rooting for memebers of our NHL clubs and enjoying the hockey being played regardless of the country. I will be up at 8 AM on a Sunday morning (ugh) for the gold medal game.

I care too. Frankly I find the style of hockey that Russia plays far more entertaining than North America's style.

Wrong, I am on this side of the pond and I still care. Not everyone in NA only cares about USA and Canada, some of us are rooting for memebers of our NHL clubs and enjoying the hockey being played regardless of the country. I will be up at 8 AM on a Sunday morning (ugh) for the gold medal game.
Unfortunately, I agree with Resolute. Real, hardcore hockey fans (like members of this board) will care. But I don't think the average American (Canadians are different because everyone in Canada loves hockey), run-of-the-mill hockey fan will care nearly as much as they would if either Canada or the USA were invovled.

I care too. Frankly I find the style of hockey that Russia plays far more entertaining than North America's style.
Tru dat.

I guess the person means that we're missing a vital component in the Olympic final; namely a North American team. This probably means less interest for the final in the hockey world at large. Same thing if you had a WC final between Japan and Jamaica; no South american or European team in the final = yawn for most people. I don't think they're dissing euro hockey per se.


Jamaica is kinda like Brazil in terms of excitement, and Japan aint bad either. Thing is about the FIFA World Cup and to a lesser extent the Olympic Hockey Tournament, the entire World tends to care and watch even if their country got knocked out in the group stages or didnt qualify at all. Its one of those things you watch for the beauty of the game and sheer coloussusness of the event rather than homerism for your nation.

Some Canadians here seem to be under the impression that casual American fans care more about Canada than they do about European countries. I can assure you that's definitely not the case.

The 98 gold medalist are still in the olympics, the 94 gold medalists are still in the olympics. I wonder if this guy even follows hockey ??. That's not even journalism, that sounds like a cranky teenager on a forum, disgraceful.

Considering Russia offers more entertaining hockey that would be a shame for anyone who enjoys good hockey.
Not only that but of the final four there's like 95% of them that are NHL players. It's not that much different than watching a game on center ice even if your team is not involved. People might not "care" as much but it will still be great hockey and well worth watching.
good post.

japan and jamaica would be iceland and croatia or something.

it's more like colombia vs mexico and spain vs argentina.

assuming canada=brazil, us=us. :D

Here is the actual quote, in context:

While almost every player on the four teams remaining in the gold medal chase, Finland, Russia, Czech Republic and Sweden, earn their living in the NHL, an Olympic final without Canada or the U.S. could be compared to the soccer World Cup final between Japan and Jamaica.

Where the loss is sure to be felt in the United States is in the television ratings.

Without Canada or the United States playing for a medal, already soft Olympic TV ratings in North America are expected to plunge further.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060223/sp_nm/olympics_ice_hockey_men_crushed_dc;_ylt=A86.I1Sc1f 1DpNIA8Q6QFs0F;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1Ym NhdA--

Unfortunately, I agree with Resolute. Real, hardcore hockey fans (like members of this board) will care. But I don't think the average American (Canadians are different because everyone in Canada loves hockey), run-of-the-mill hockey fan will care nearly as much as they would if either Canada or the USA were invovled.


Tru dat.
I agree, hardcore hockey fans will care(like me), not sure that there are a ton of us in the USA, but I am one of them so I wasn't pleased with the generalization of NA fans.

Wrong, I am on this side of the pond and I still care. Not everyone in NA only cares about USA and Canada, some of us are rooting for memebers of our NHL clubs and enjoying the hockey being played regardless of the country. I will be up at 8 AM on a Sunday morning (ugh) for the gold medal game.

An exception does not invalidate the rule.

Ask yourself this: What will get better ratings in North America?

Canada vs the USA

Canada/USA vs Euro

Euro vs Euro

Not at all difficult to see where this writer is coming from, and he is, quite frankly, correct. His comments had absolutely nothing to do with dissing European hockey either.

An exception does not invalidate the rule.

Ask yourself this: What will get better ratings in North America?

Canada vs the USA

Canada/USA vs Euro

Euro vs Euro

Not at all difficult to see where this writer is coming from, and he is, quite frankly, correct. His comments had absolutely nothing to do with dissing European hockey either.


I bet Dollar vs Dollar gets a bigger TV audience in NA.
But it seems that Euro is stronger than either of the
NA Dollars at the moment. Even the ruble seems to beat
them. :teach:

Maybe they should always resend the Salt Lake final
to NA when the final is not between the 'most wanted'
teams by TV watchers in NA. :propeller

While almost every player on the four teams remaining in the gold medal chase, Finland, Russia, Czech Republic and Sweden, earn their living in the NHL, an Olympic final without Canada or the U.S. could be compared to the soccer World Cup final between Japan and Jamaica.

Where the loss is sure to be felt in the United States is in the television ratings.

Without Canada or the United States playing for a medal, already soft Olympic TV ratings in North America are expected to plunge further.
Comparing Russia, Czech Republic, Finland and Sweden in hockey with Jamaica and Japan in football IS an insult. If he wants to write that the interest among North Americans will be low, write that then and stop with the worthless comparisons.

As have been said, if you are a hockey fan, you will still watch the hockey finals to the last game because of the awesome display of great hockey, no matter which teams are left. I have done this when Sweden is/was eliminated and will always do.

The Olympics hockey is like the All Star games, but they really matter and the teams play to win. For most Europeans, it's even more than this: it's your country competing with the best they have against other nation teams. I think we appreciate this alot more than North America because of our culture.

Russia - Canada yesterday was as awesome as hockey can ever be and still there was only one goal. You know a hockey game has been jaw dropping if you think it was a very entertaining game with the game ending 1-0. I hope we will see just as much awesome performances by the teams and players remaining.

Still, the journalist calling the four remaining European teams for the equivalent of Jamaica/Japan, he should apologize for. He just didn't show any respect.

There'll be plenty of clueless hacks reporting on how "Olympic Hockey a total failue/Nightmare for NHL" out of Toronto and NY soon enough... if not already...

Happened in '98, it's going to happen this year...

but that reuters article brings cluelessness to a whole new level, with his World Cup comparison at least...

Still, the journalist calling the four remaining European teams for the equivalent of Jamaica/Japan, he should apologize for. He just didn't show any respect.

... or he could apply for a job at Aftonbladet.

I think we agreed last night, after quite a 'vivid'
discussion :D , that Aftonbladet's journalism is
not always very objective.

Huh? From what I've read the American media has been exceedingly critical of the U.S. hockey team.

I'm not talking about the hockey team, I'm talking about the way they have covered the games in general. Which is basically "the only thing here that matters is the X-games stuff because that's where the US is winning all it's medals" and "this sucks and no one should watch because all our hyped athletes are choking". In particular, the following quote from Bryan Gumbel is beyond tasteless:

...So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention," Gumbel said.

Comparing Russia, Czech Republic, Finland and Sweden in hockey with Jamaica and Japan in football IS an insult. If he wants to write that the interest among North Americans will be low, write that then and stop with the worthless comparisons.

The comparison was not about the talent level of these hockey nations vs those soccer nations. It was about the interest such a final would generate. The comparison is valid, even if it is exaggerated.

As have been said, if you are a hockey fan, you will still watch the hockey finals to the last game because of the awesome display of great hockey, no matter which teams are left. I have done this when Sweden is/was eliminated and will always do.

Or I can return my focus to teams I actually care about, like the Calgary Hitmen, and the AJHL Canucks and Royals. Believe it or not, there is a lot of hockey out there to be watched, followed and enjoyed. The Olympics are not the be-all-end-all of hockey.

The Olympics hockey is like the All Star games, but they really matter and the teams play to win. For most Europeans, it's even more than this: it's your country competing with the best they have against other nation teams. I think we appreciate this alot more than North America because of our culture.

I think you are a little too full of yourself.

Believe it or not, Canada and the US's teams were also our best vs the best of the rest of the world. And believe it or not, people over here were keenly interested in our teams progress, exactly as you were. Even if we had to put up with ungodly start times because of the time zone difference.

Talk about delusions of superiority... :shakehead

Russia - Canada yesterday was as awesome as hockey can ever be and still there was only one goal. You know a hockey game has been jaw dropping if you think it was a very entertaining game with the game ending 1-0. I hope we will see just as much awesome performances by the teams and players remaining.

Actually, it was 2-0, and the game was pretty weak relative to past Canada-Russia games. They can't all be classics though.

Still, the journalist calling the four remaining European teams for the equivalent of Jamaica/Japan, he should apologize for. He just didn't show any respect.

He didn't call the four remaining teams the equivalent of Jamaica/Japan, so get over yourself. He was referring to North American fan interest, not the teams themselves.

The comparison was not about the talent level of these hockey nations vs those soccer nations. It was about the interest such a final would generate. The comparison is valid, even if it is exaggerated.
It can easily be interpreted as a comparison of talent level. If he didn't mean that, it could easily be misinterpreted as a comparison of talent level. It was just an awful comparison. Japan - Jamaica in football = weak, uneven and quite boring football game, not involving much skill, apart from some Japanese players. Jamaica is a very weak football team, Japan a middle team. Jamaica and Japan in a World Cup final would be a HUGE upset, thus you can interpret comparing four European hockey nations left in the tournament as a huge upset.

If he wants to make a comparison, why not just claiming "would show as much interest from the N. American audience as watching paint dry."

I think you are a little too full of yourself.

Believe it or not, Canada and the US's teams were also our best vs the best of the rest of the world. And believe it or not, people over here were keenly interested in our teams progress, exactly as you were. Even if we had to put up with ungodly start times because of the time zone difference.

Talk about delusions of superiority... :shakehead
It's NOT about superiority. This is just how it is and it's about interest. Europeans are just more fanatical about it. You see ZERO posts from Europeans about:
"I don't care, I just hope my NHL team stars aren't injured."
"Ban NHL players in Olympics! Play with amateurs instead."

The average North American:
"Olympics? What is that? Is that going on right now?"

The average North American media:
"Olympics? What is that? Is that going on right now?"

If you don't believe me, watch your own media and compare it with European media. It's a big difference in both interest and coverage. Again, I'm not looking down on any country or claiming the European way is "better", I'm just stating this is just how it is. As a general, Europeans are more interested in national sports and N.Americans are more focused on club sports.

Actually, it was 2-0, and the game was pretty weak relative to past Canada-Russia games. They can't all be classics though.
Sorry, of course it was 2-0. As for the game being weak, that's your subjective analysis. I thought it was a great battle involving alot of skill.

He didn't call the four remaining teams the equivalent of Jamaica/Japan, so get over yourself. He was referring to North American fan interest, not the teams themselves.
Again, Europeans are more interested in national sports, N. Americans in club sports. Even if the hockey final is Canada - USA, TONS of European hockey fans still watch it. The average European hockey fan is more interested in the games not involving his own nation than what the N. American equivalent is.

Guys, don't argue with Resolute. It's not worth it, you're wasting your time. See some of his past comments ...

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if he were stockwizard or his brother.

Guys, don't argue with Resolute. It's not worth it, you're wasting your time. See some of his past comments ...

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if he were stockwizard or his brother.

stockwizard is wealthmanager, if you hadn't figured that out already.

Anyone who doesn't think that Jamaica-Japan comparison wasn't meant to be insulting is clueless. Why didn't he say France-Germany if his intention was to illustrate interest in North America? Because his intention was to insult the European teams and make it sound like they are beneath almighty Canada and the USA.

I also have to laugh at the notion of "North American TV ratings" as if they all get calculated together or something. To clear up a few misconceptions:

1. Canadian TV ratings are nothing compared to those in the USA in terms of total viewers. TSN are always bragging about how their big WJC games draw record-breaking numbers for them. Those numbers are about the same as a bad episode of WWE Raw down here. This is simple population numbers. The highest-rated broadcasts of some US shows draw more viewers than the entire population of Canada.

2. TV ratings in the USA would be no higher for Canada-Finland than for Russia-Finland. Contrary to what some want to believe, casual Americans are not fans of "North American teams", they are fans of "American teams". When I watch the hockey games here my roommates ask me how the USA did. They couldn't care less about Canada. I suspect that in Canada, a USA-Sweden final would do no better TV-wise than a Finland-Sweden final.

An Olympic final without either Canada or USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Canada and the USA.

An Olympic final without either Canada or USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Canada and the USA.

I'm not sure what is more pathetic:

1. That people actually believe this.

or

2. That the US World Cup team has a legitimately good chance at finishing 8th or better, which would tie or beat the 8th place performance of the Olympic hockey team. (note: this is not meant to reflect badly on the men's soccer team, it's meant to reflect badly on the other one).

An Olympic final without either Canada or USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Canada and the USA.

:biglaugh:

This post owns! :bow:

I'd put it this way : An Olympic final opposing Canada to the USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Canada and the USA

I'm not sure what is more pathetic:

1. That people actually believe this.

or

2. That the US World Cup team has a legitimately good chance at finishing 8th or better, which would tie or beat the 8th place performance of the Olympic hockey team. (note: this is not meant to reflect badly on the men's soccer team, it's meant to reflect badly on the other one).

Hell the men's soccer team was in the top 8 last World Cup for the U.S. And that was just as good as the men's hockey team in Nagano

This is nothing. I remember when Brazil were struggling to qualify for the 2002 World Cup, Pele was quoted as saying something to the effect of 'if Brazil don't make it to the WC, it's not worth having it and they shouldn't bother playing'. Now THAT is homerism.

Actually, you misquoted Pele. What he really said was a World Cup without Brazil is like Olympic hockey without Canada and the USA. :sarcasm: :(

"An Olympic final without either Canada or USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Japan and Jamaica."

Especially USA :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :clap:


oh from new zeland :dunno:

The Olympics hockey is like the All Star games, but they really matter and the teams play to win. For most Europeans, it's even more than this: it's your country competing with the best they have against other nation teams. I think we appreciate this alot more than North America because of our culture.

.

Sorry, cant follow you with that one. I think its as big of an ordeal to your countrymen as it is to ours. Even the average person who isnt a hockey fan in NA has been paying attention to the hockey, if you ask me its the most important event in the olympics

I believe it attempted to measure or rate such final as an object of interest to those who live in North America, since team USA can't compare to Russia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Canada or Suomi, It doesn't belong to the top five. Also, hockey shouldn't be compared to footy, there's no country in hockey world that would produce so much talent like Brazil when it comes to football, I don't believe that Canadians will go all uninterested by the Olympic games final as I realize they actually like and understand the game. Not sure about US fans, although it only took a neutral fan to notice that in Salt Lake city, team USA had way too much luck as far as judges decisions and it seemed as if couple of people(outside the rink) were determined to do whatever it takes to get US hockey team to the finals, the finals itself was clearly full of refree's bias, I was rooting for Canada. And we all know the loss is always sort of difficult to bear, fortunately when played outside the states, the main purpose of Olympic games is not to see either Canada or USA win the hockey tournament.

Me not surprised. Here's another perl:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AulQ9rgrmoed7MflGCjwIPN7vLYF?slug=cnnsi-ahostofsurprise&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

The guy claims a heated Rus-Kaz rivalry by saying that ppl from Kaz were the 3-d rate citizens of the USSR. With 17 KAZ players being Rus citizens this is :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

I don't think he claimed that people from kaz were 3rd rate citizens, rather that they were looked as 3rd rate citizens by people of the old Soviet Union...

Maybe 17 Kaz players do indeed have Russian citizenship, but I think the point is that they were playing with the pride of Kazakhstan people who were once considered 3rd rate by the ancestors of the people they were playing.
I'm not knowledgable about Russian-Kazakhstan relations, but I think you are missing the point Eliot was trying to make...

In short, he wasn't dissing the people of Kazakhstan

That is just my take on the article.

It can easily be interpreted as a comparison of talent level. If he didn't mean that, it could easily be misinterpreted as a comparison of talent level. It was just an awful comparison. Japan - Jamaica in football = weak, uneven and quite boring football game, not involving much skill, apart from some Japanese players. Jamaica is a very weak football team, Japan a middle team. Jamaica and Japan in a World Cup final would be a HUGE upset, thus you can interpret comparing four European hockey nations left in the tournament as a huge upset.

If he wants to make a comparison, why not just claiming "would show as much interest from the N. American audience as watching paint dry."


It's NOT about superiority. This is just how it is and it's about interest. Europeans are just more fanatical about it. You see ZERO posts from Europeans about:
"I don't care, I just hope my NHL team stars aren't injured."
"Ban NHL players in Olympics! Play with amateurs instead."

The average North American:
"Olympics? What is that? Is that going on right now?"

The average North American media:
"Olympics? What is that? Is that going on right now?"

If you don't believe me, watch your own media and compare it with European media. It's a big difference in both interest and coverage. Again, I'm not looking down on any country or claiming the European way is "better", I'm just stating this is just how it is. As a general, Europeans are more interested in national sports and N.Americans are more focused on club sports.




Sorry, of course it was 2-0. As for the game being weak, that's your subjective analysis. I thought it was a great battle involving alot of skill.


Again, Europeans are more interested in national sports, N. Americans in club sports. Even if the hockey final is Canada - USA, TONS of European hockey fans still watch it. The average European hockey fan is more interested in the games not involving his own nation than what the N. American equivalent is.

Ok, no your not making any sense. Every option you chose to backup your arguement has been false. Our media (north america) has been all over the olympics. Between usa network, msnbc, nbc, and other new coverage. Its on all day. I really wanna know where your getting your statistics from?
Im just argueing my opinion that on this side of the pond the olympics do matter. Just to have an idea to say where clueless about the olympics is clueless it self.

Me not surprised. Here's another perl:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AulQ9rgrmoed7MflGCjwIPN7vLYF?slug=cnnsi-ahostofsurprise&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

The guy claims a heated Rus-Kaz rivalry by saying that ppl from Kaz were the 3-d rate citizens of the USSR. With 17 KAZ players being Rus citizens this is :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

I'm really not sure on the politics of this, but perhaps they chose to play for kaz much like players who had played for czechoslovakia could choose either slovakia or the czech replublic once the two countries split?

I would imagine it's fairly common for people from kazakstahn to have dual citizenships with russia, as most of their population now is as a result of growth caused by russian immigration to the area after it was conquered. I don't know how many native kazakhs are on the team, but I'd be interested to know.

Does anyone have any info on this?

I don't think he claimed that people from kaz were 3rd rate citizens, rather that they were looked as 3rd rate citizens by people of the old Soviet Union...

Maybe 17 Kaz players do indeed have Russian citizenship, but I think the point is that they were playing with the pride of Kazakhstan people who were once considered 3rd rate by the ancestors of the people they were playing.
I'm not knowledgable about Russian-Kazakhstan relations, but I think you are missing the point Eliot was trying to make...

In short, he wasn't dissing the people of Kazakhstan

That is just my take on the article.

Uhh??? What the hell are you talking about? The guy knows zip, same as you, and he is making idiotic claims to just spice up an article. This is the cheapest sensationalism :madfire:

:biglaugh:

This post owns! :bow:

I'd put it this way : An Olympic final opposing Canada to the USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Canada and the USA


Oh.. oh.. If you didn't watch last WC US team played great there and eventually lost 1-0 only to Germany (WC finalist). :teach: :clap:

I'm really not sure on the politics of this, but perhaps they chose to play for kaz much like players who had played for czechoslovakia could choose either slovakia or the czech replublic once the two countries split?

I would imagine it's fairly common for people from kazakstahn to have dual citizenships with russia, as most of their population now is as a result of growth caused by russian immigration to the area after it was conquered. I don't know how many native kazakhs are on the team, but I'd be interested to know.

Does anyone have any info on this?

There's no politics. All, without a single exception, of these players are Russians and Ukrainians who were born in Northern Kazakhstan which for about 1.5 centuries has been populated by Russians predominantly. They are playing for Kazahstan because they are not good enough to play for Russia, or because they just want to represent Ust-Kamenogorsk which is and has been a hockey hotbed.

Uhh??? What the hell are you talking about? The guy knows zip, same as you, and he is making idiotic claims to just spice up an article. This is the cheapest sensationalism :madfire:

In my post I admitted that I did not know very much about the political situation, but I gave my take on what I thought he was trying to say in the article...

No where in that article did he call people from Kazakhstan 3rd rate, that was the point of my post. Maybe he was wrong and they weren't looked upon as 3rd rate citizens or whatever, but the point is that the author of the article didn't call them 3rd rate like you said he did in your initial post.

There's no politics. All, without a single exception, of these players are Russians and Ukrainians who were born in Northern Kazakhstan which for about 1.5 centuries has been populated by Russians predominantly. They are playing for Kazahstan because they are not good enough to play for Russia, or because they just want to represent Ust-Kamenogorsk which is and has been a hockey hotbed.

That was my assumption, I know a bit about russian expansion into the northern kazakh arable land.

Any idea if any are 'native' kazakhs?

That was my assumption, I know a bit about russian expansion into the northern kazakh arable land.

Any idea if any are 'native' kazakhs?

None.

That was my assumption, I know a bit about russian expansion into the northern kazakh arable land.

Any idea if any are 'native' kazakhs?
as far as i know, there are no native kazakhs in the Kazakhstan team...

thanks for the info.

Some of my favourite parts about the olympics is learning about these other national teams.

i love how a common idea on this board is that the reason USA/Canada were eliminated is because they don't care, and euro teams have more national pride. So did this national pride develop after 2002 or soemthing :dunno:

i love how a common idea on this board is that the reason USA/Canada were eliminated is because they don't care, and euro teams have more national pride. So did this national pride develop after 2002 or soemthing :dunno:
yes, roughly the same time selanne became skilled.

Oh.. oh.. If you didn't watch last WC US team played great there and eventually lost 1-0 only to Germany (WC finalist). :teach: :clap:

Here are a few teams that would be a favorite against the U.S in ANY betting company

Brazil
Argentina
Germany
Holland
Italy
France
Czech
Sweden
Spain
England


And I could think of plenty of countries where you are on par. It's difficult to determine whoever is best out of Ivory Coast, US, Ukraine, Ghana, Australia, Paraguay, Serbia & montenegro, Japan etc. because it's all fresh kids on the block in major competition.

Here are a few teams that would be a favorite against the U.S in ANY betting company

Brazil
Argentina
Germany
Holland
Italy
France
Czech
Sweden
Spain
England


And I could think of plenty of countries where you are on par. It's difficult to determine whoever is best out of Ivory Coast, US, Ukraine, Ghana, Australia, Paraguay, Serbia & montenegro, Japan etc. because it's all fresh kids on the block in major competition.
Wicked post.

In an article today in Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, entitled "Gretzky accepts responsibility for the fiasco (http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1705&a=523846&previousRenderType=6)", the news agency Reuters is quoted as printing something like "An Olympic final without either Canada or USA is like a FIFA World Cup final between Japan and Jamaica."

Does anyone know if this is true? I guess it must be. Anyway, it's so mindbogglingly stupid that anyone who said it should be slapped. Hard. :shakehead
"That's just ignorant" - Michael 'Jefferson'

japan and jamaica would be iceland and croatia or something.


Croatia? In football?
The 98 World Cup 3rd place team?
The team that beat the country in your avatar (that would be Sweden) every time they've played in the last 2 years (that would be 3 times, two times away)? And the team that qualified for every major championship since 96 except for the EURO 2000?

Yeah. Hate to break it to you, but there are very few European countries that have a better track record than Croatia in the last 10 years. And Sweden isn't one of them. :p:
I have no idea how Sweden got to be so overrated in soccer. :dunno:

Croatia? In football?
The 98 World Cup 3rd place team?
The team that beat the country in your avatar (that would be Sweden) every time they've played in the last 2 years (that would be 3 times, two times away)? And the team that qualified for every major championship since 96 except for the EURO 2000?

Yeah. Hate to break it to you, but there are very few European countries that have a better track record than Croatia in the last 10 years. And Sweden isn't one of them. :p:
I have no idea how Sweden got to be so overrated in soccer. :dunno:

How we got to be so overrated ?. To be honest here, Sweden - Croatia in Stockholm was a definite draw. Zlatan scored a goal that the ref disallowed for absolutely no reason. First the ref indicated it was a goal, the linesman as well. Then the ref suddenly changed his mind, God knows why. In the game in Croatia, neither team was the least bit impressive. Too bad Mellberg wanted to be Michael Jordan and stood for the worst case of handball I've ever seen.

You think Croatia getting 3rd in 98 is impressive, you don't think Sweden finishing 3rd in 94 is impressive ?. Playing the European Cup final in 92. In 2002 Sweden finished 1st in an insane group, consisting of Sweden, Argentina, England and Nigeria.


Just a sidenote but I read it just the other week, as far as England goes, in the last 10 matches, Sweden has 4 wins, 6 draws, England has 0 wins. England has not beaten Sweden since 1968.


Maybe your grade of Sweden is just you wanting to say something negative since a Swede did the same about Croatia but you are as far off as the Swede who compared Croatia to Iceland. Sweden has a solid team and so does Croatia.

I'm not sure what is more pathetic:

1. That people actually believe this.

or

2. That the US World Cup team has a legitimately good chance at finishing 8th or better, which would tie or beat the 8th place performance of the Olympic hockey team. (note: this is not meant to reflect badly on the men's soccer team, it's meant to reflect badly on the other one).
Well, the US world cup team HAS this chance.

Here are a few teams that would be a favorite against the U.S in ANY betting company

Brazil
Argentina
Germany
Holland
Italy
France
Czech
Sweden
Spain
England


And I could think of plenty of countries where you are on par. It's difficult to determine whoever is best out of Ivory Coast, US, Ukraine, Ghana, Australia, Paraguay, Serbia & montenegro, Japan etc. because it's all fresh kids on the block in major competition.
You probably know it doesn`t work this way. They have to be in the top 2 of their group to advance. In the KO round anzthing can happen. As for Spain is sure to beat them, I`m not so sure about that. They have a reputation to choke in important games (no offense to Spanish people, they probably know best).

Reuters is a british news agency?
Brits don't have a clue about ice hockey and winter sports.
It is so sad.

That comment's as stupid as the original offending one.

Secondly Reuters is originally a German company.

Croatia? In football?
The 98 World Cup 3rd place team?
The team that beat the country in your avatar (that would be Sweden) every time they've played in the last 2 years (that would be 3 times, two times away)? And the team that qualified for every major championship since 96 except for the EURO 2000?

Yeah. Hate to break it to you, but there are very few European countries that have a better track record than Croatia in the last 10 years. And Sweden isn't one of them. :p:
I have no idea how Sweden got to be so overrated in soccer. :dunno:

We have one of the best qualification results(WC and EC) in europe during the last years. You really should look more carfully on the statistics. I'm not saying Croatia isn't a good team, but Sweden are right up there with them.

i love how a common idea on this board is that the reason USA/Canada were eliminated is because they don't care, and euro teams have more national pride. So did this national pride develop after 2002 or soemthing :dunno:
No one has said anything about more pride, just more interest, even if the own nation is eliminated. And no way in hell some team is eliminated because of interest.

Secondly Reuters is originally a German company.Finally someone says this.

And now there seems to be hard debate about soccer.

"isnt it, wasnt it. Far cry from small boys in the park, jumpers as goalposts..."

jesus, this thread is so pathetic.

who gives a .... if the remaining games are not popular in North America?

in the end, the only reason they want Europeans to know that they don't care, is because they're trying to reduce the importance of this tournament because Canada finished 7th and the USA 8th. Period.

That's as far as it goes. Losers don't like losing so they're making their loss look unimportant. Actually it's even worse than making excuses.

Reuters is a british news agency?
Brits don't have a clue about ice hockey and winter sports.
It is so sad.


stop being patronising.

There are plenty of Brits who have a clue. Despite the fact it's not a 'big' sport here - due to the fact we ain't a cold weather nation.

What you say would be like me saying Finns don't have a clue about football, because your national team, and league is such a poor standard.

Stop with the sweeping generalisations.

jesus, this thread is so pathetic.

who gives a .... if the remaining games are not popular in North America?

in the end, the only reason they want Europeans to know that they don't care, is because they're trying to reduce the importance of this tournament because Canada finished 7th and the USA 8th. Period.

That's as far as it goes. Losers don't like losing so they're making their loss look unimportant. Actually it's even worse than making excuses.

:handclap: :teach: :handclap: :clap: :handclap:

Stop with the sweeping generalisations.

Second that. :clap:

jesus, this thread is so pathetic.

who gives a .... if the remaining games are not popular in North America?

in the end, the only reason they want Europeans to know that they don't care, is because they're trying to reduce the importance of this tournament because Canada finished 7th and the USA 8th. Period.

That's as far as it goes. Losers don't like losing so they're making their loss look unimportant. Actually it's even worse than making excuses.

:bow:

Guys, don't argue with Resolute. It's not worth it, you're wasting your time. See some of his past comments ...

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if he were stockwizard or his brother.

You still crying becuase I dont consider the Russians the greatest team on earth?

Perhaps you should actually, I don't know, try adding something to the debate? For someone on a hockey forum, I dont think I've once seen you actually talk hockey.

I suppose you are an example of those fantastic Euro sports fans that the other poster was talking about. Nothing but insults and delusions of superiority.

How we got to be so overrated ?. To be honest here, Sweden - Croatia in Stockholm was a definite draw. Zlatan scored a goal that the ref disallowed for absolutely no reason. First the ref indicated it was a goal, the linesman as well. Then the ref suddenly changed his mind, God knows why. In the game in Croatia, neither team was the least bit impressive. Too bad Mellberg wanted to be Michael Jordan and stood for the worst case of handball I've ever seen.

Still stands: They played three games, Croatia won all three. Two of them in Sweden. :dunno:

You think Croatia getting 3rd in 98 is impressive, you don't think Sweden finishing 3rd in 94 is impressive ?. Playing the European Cup final in 92. In 2002 Sweden finished 1st in an insane group, consisting of Sweden, Argentina, England and Nigeria.

Germany beat Sweden 3-2 in the semi-final. Then lost to Denmark 2-0 in the final on John Jensen and Kim Vilfort goals. (but Tomas Brolin played one hell of a tournament)


Just a sidenote but I read it just the other week, as far as England goes, in the last 10 matches, Sweden has 4 wins, 6 draws, England has 0 wins. England has not beaten Sweden since 1968.

Croatia has NEVER lost a competitive game on home turf. :dunno:


Maybe your grade of Sweden is just you wanting to say something negative since a Swede did the same about Croatia but you are as far off as the Swede who compared Croatia to Iceland. Sweden has a solid team and so does Croatia.

Nah. I didn't say Sweden was poor or anything. I said they're were overrated by some people (and that will happen when you have Larrson and Ibrahimovic on your team). They certainly do not belong among the favourites, but among the dark horses (along with Croatia, and a team like Serbia and Montenegro, which someone in another post placed in the same sentence with Ivory Coast).
As for their results, since 94, they missed EURO 96, missed France 98 (I think, can't remember them playing... Or if they did, they missed the 2nd round... But IIRC they missed it... Went out with 3 defeats in Euro 2000, lost in 2nd rounds in 2002 and 2004 (which are actually not bad results at all)...
So solid, but nothing spectacular, IMO.
But a very good, tough team, nonetheless.


Well this thread sucked anyway, so why not take it off topic... :D

In the US, unless a NA athlete or team is involved, the media will adopt an attitude of negativity and indifference. One exception - they love hot chicks regardless of nationality (Kournikova and Sharapova are the biggest examples of that).

In the US, unless a NA athlete or team is involved, the media will adopt an attitude of negativity and indifference. One exception - they love hot chicks regardless of nationality (Kournikova and Sharapova are the biggest examples of that).

Who doesn't love hot chicks? :)

Well this thread sucked anyway, so why not take it off topic... :D

I stand corrected on the 92, I lived in Göteborg at the time and just at the stadium. Though I was a lad and my memory served me horribly then.

Well yes the result stands but the result in Sweden but it wasn't fair since there was nothing wrong with Zlatans goal. Yes I rememberthat the Croatian - Swedish match would be a legendary match if one team won because Croatia had never lost a match on their home turf and Sweden had never lost a match.......(fill me in becuase I can't remember). On Fifa.com, every team in "our" group got to make a prediction for the group winner and every single team except Croatia predicted Sweden. I believe Sweden is a stronger team than Croatia but we will have to agree to disagree. I have respect for the Croatian national team and they are definetly not a medium footballing nation.

Reuters is a british news agency?
Brits don't have a clue about ice hockey and winter sports.
It is so sad.

What an absolutely stupid post that is :madfire:

You do realise three things:

1. Britain won the GOLD MEDAL in the Olympic Ice Hockey in 1936

2. We have a fully professional Hockey league in Britain

3. A BRITISH Ice Hockey referee was in charge of the Women's Olympic Bronze Medal match in Turin a couple of days ago

Add to that Alain Baxter winning the Bronze in the Slalom at Salt Lake in 2002, Torville & Dean in 1984, and the British Curlers taking the gold medal in Salt Lake in 2002...

What an absolutely stupid post that is :madfire:

You do realise three things:

1. Britain won the GOLD MEDAL in the Olympic Ice Hockey in 1936

2. We have a fully professional Hockey league in Britain

3. A BRITISH Ice Hockey referee was in charge of the Women's Olympic Bronze Medal match in Turin a couple of days ago

Add to that Alain Baxter winning the Bronze in the Slalom at Salt Lake in 2002, Torville & Dean in 1984, and the British Curlers taking the gold medal in Salt Lake in 2002...

I apologise all brits about my post.
It was, of course, a stupid generalisation. My intention was not to downplay british sport.

However, i want to say that:
1. The reuters article was out of line.
2. BBCWorld's olympic coverage has been bad.
3. I know very well that Great Britain won olympic gold in 1936. What i have read about it, it was genuinely a british team. Not at all so much canadian as people usually think.

The main BBC had over 100 hours of mainstream coverage on the Winter Games this year.

Add to that the 250 or so hours of coverage on their extra Interactive service - I don't consider that to be too shabby.

The only reason the BBC World coverage may be deemed "bad" is that it's only carried to other countries outside of Britain - and the host broadcasters of those countries (SVT, NRK, CBC, NBC, YLE, etc.) would provide the main coverage for these people

Soccer sucks

Alain Baxter lost his bronze cause of doping

Alain Baxter lost his bronze cause of doping

Wrong

He was cleared of doping in October 2002