Germany, Belarus, Switzerland: Emerging Hockey Nations?

In the wake of recent results at the World Juniors, will anyone agree that these mentioned nations are emerging hockey powers? or at least hockey nations?
This year, Germany defeats USA, Slovakia (both big 7 nations)
This year, Belarus defeats Finland (a team that had tukka rask in net) also defeated the only gold medal winning US jr. squad a couple of years back.
This year, the Swiss just defeated the guys who edged the Finns, not to mention, tied the Americans last year, defeated the olympic canadian, czech teams. they also defeated a world championship russian team a few years back.

Does anyone notice the trend here???
Agree or Disagree?

In the wake of recent results at the World Juniors, will anyone agree that these mentioned nations are emerging hockey powers? or at least hockey nations?
This year, Germany defeats USA, Slovakia (both big 7 nations)
This year, Belarus defeats Finland (a team that had tukka rask in net) also defeated the only gold medal winning US jr. squad a couple of years back.
This year, the Swiss just defeated the guys who edged the Finns, not to mention, tied the Americans last year, defeated the olympic canadian, czech teams. they also defeated a world championship russian team a few years back.

Does anyone notice the trend here???
Agree or Disagree?




I agree. Germany and Switzerland have been around for a while but never really had competitive teams, but this obviously changing. Both countries have promising prospects that will help them at the international level (for Germany- Greiss, Goc, Gogulla, Shutz, Ehroff, Schubert... for Switzerland- Cunti, Berra, Romy, Sprunger, Simek). Switzerland is still by far the most competitive of the 3, but that could change.
Also, dont forget Latvia, they too are on the rise

I also have to say the more and more the hockey powers meet the germans, swiss or belorussians, the games are not as big of a blowout anymore. I remember last year at the world juniors the canadians had a tough fight with the swiss though they won 4-3. (the most goals allowed for the canadians in that tournament!!!even the americans didn't score that much!). YEARS AGO, The Elite nations would sleep on the job and still crush those nations like 7-0 or so.

during the germany/usa game i remember i heard gord miller mention something that the german and belarus wins don't matter towards relegation. it's only the record vs. the other "relegation eligible teams" that matters. is this true? that's pretty absurd if it is. theoretically could this mean germany could've won their division and still be relegated if they lose the wrong game?

also, are the big nations eligible to be relegated if they do poorly? how does a country become "relegation exempt"? or does this exist? i've tried to dig up an iihf rulebook on this, but no luck so far.

In the wake of recent results at the World Juniors, will anyone agree that these mentioned nations are emerging hockey powers? or at least hockey nations?
This year, Germany defeats USA, Slovakia (both big 7 nations)
This year, Belarus defeats Finland (a team that had tukka rask in net) also defeated the only gold medal winning US jr. squad a couple of years back.
This year, the Swiss just defeated the guys who edged the Finns, not to mention, tied the Americans last year, defeated the olympic canadian, czech teams. they also defeated a world championship russian team a few years back.

Does anyone notice the trend here???
Agree or Disagree?

Fluke's victories! It's nice to see upset win sometimes but he is just a fluke win.. And it's gonna always be that way...

Kazackstan beats Canada in 98's Where they are now?

during the germany/usa game i remember i heard gord miller mention something that the german and belarus wins don't matter towards relegation. it's only the record vs. the other "relegation eligible teams" that matters. is this true? that's pretty absurd if it is. theoretically could this mean germany could've won their division and still be relegated if they lose the wrong game?

also, are the big nations eligible to be relegated if they do poorly? how does a country become "relegation exempt"? or does this exist? i've tried to dig up an iihf rulebook on this, but no luck so far.

You end up in the relegation round by finishing in the bottom two of your group. The only game that carries over is the one against the other team headed to the relegation round. So if Switzerland and Belarus end up 4th and 5th in group B, the only game that will carry over is the 4-1 win for Switzerland. If Finland and Belarus finish 4th and 5th, the only game that will carry over is the 4-3 Belarussian win. There's no way you could win your group and and still be relegated.

All teams are eligible to be relegated, there are no exemptions.

during the germany/usa game i remember i heard gord miller mention something that the german and belarus wins don't matter towards relegation. it's only the record vs. the other "relegation eligible teams" that matters. is this true? that's pretty absurd if it is. theoretically could this mean germany could've won their division and still be relegated if they lose the wrong game?

also, are the big nations eligible to be relegated if they do poorly? how does a country become "relegation exempt"? or does this exist? i've tried to dig up an iihf rulebook on this, but no luck so far.

Those wins will not matter if they end up in the relegation round and lost to the team in their division that also heads to the relegation round. That result carries over, they then play the two teams that missed the playoffs from the other division. The top 2 teams stay up and the bottom two go down. Belarus beat the Us 2 years ago but that win did nothing for them other than the fact it was damn nice to crush the US on their home ice and get a win fro their program.
There are no teams exempt from relegation. If Germany stay up and Slovakia or the US are one of the bottom 2 - they are going down.

You end up in the relegation round by finishing in the bottom two of your group. The only game that carries over is the one against the other team headed to the relegation round. So if Switzerland and Belarus end up 4th and 5th in group B, the only game that will carry over is the 4-1 win for Switzerland. If Finland and Belarus finish 4th and 5th, the only game that will carry over is the 4-3 Belarussian win. There's no way you could win your group and and still be relegated.

All teams are eligible to be relegated, there are no exemptions.

Sorry you got your post in while I was writing mine:)

....All teams are eligible to be relegated, there are no exemptions.Unless you are hosting the next year.

In the wake of recent results at the World Juniors, will anyone agree that these mentioned nations are emerging hockey powers? or at least hockey nations?
This year, Germany defeats USA, Slovakia (both big 7 nations)
This year, Belarus defeats Finland (a team that had tukka rask in net) also defeated the only gold medal winning US jr. squad a couple of years back.
This year, the Swiss just defeated the guys who edged the Finns, not to mention, tied the Americans last year, defeated the olympic canadian, czech teams. they also defeated a world championship russian team a few years back.

Does anyone notice the trend here???
Agree or Disagree?Emerging - Yes, but it will still take time.

Upsets like these are still going to be against the norm (unfortunately) for the time being, but they will slowly rise in frequency.

Also, don't mix Slovakia in with the Top-6 at the U-20 level. Their junior system is in heavy decline (see: http://www.internationalhockeygang.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4396 ). The German victory today vs Slovakia was NOT an upset.

Plus, other than Belarus in SLC 2002, we still need to see an upset during a playoff stage.

Correct me if I´m wrong, but I heard somewhere that only one team will be relagated this year and in the future.

Also, Germany, Switzerland and Belarus are certainly getting better and it´s good to see. It will be a lot easier for them to have sucess on the men´s level than age divisions. You only need to produce 23 good players over a 15 year span to have a shot at an Olympic medal. Heck if you look at the Czec. Republic´s roster for the ´98 olympics they only have about 10 good players and one phenomenal goalie.

Well Swiss and Germany are sort of emerging, even though they were always that lower echelon of good teams since the 80's for sure. Belorus' was always good (and now will get better as they are allowed to field their first team in russian premiere league), 'cause they got to play in Soviet Chempionship, so did Kazahstan (they are allowed to field 2 teams in russian premiere league, note not super league), Latvija and Ukraine benefited from that too.

As far as I know they are very responsible about hockey in Belorus'. I know Swiss are taking the game seriusly also. As for Germany, I don't really know anything about their league.

during the germany/usa game i remember i heard gord miller mention something that the german and belarus wins don't matter towards relegation. it's only the record vs. the other "relegation eligible teams" that matters. is this true? that's pretty absurd if it is. theoretically could this mean germany could've won their division and still be relegated if they lose the wrong game?

also, are the big nations eligible to be relegated if they do poorly? how does a country become "relegation exempt"? or does this exist? i've tried to dig up an iihf rulebook on this, but no luck so far.

The two teams in each pool that don't make the knockout round have to play each other in a four-team pool and two teams are relegated from that pool.

in other words, if Germany makes the knockout round they don't have to worry about being relegated

Well Swiss and Germany are sort of emerging, even though they were always that lower echelon of good teams since the 80's for sure. Belorus' was always good (and now will get better as they are allowed to field their first team in russian premiere league), 'cause they got to play in Soviet Chempionship, so did Kazahstan (they are allowed to field 2 teams in russian premiere league, note not super league), Latvija and Ukraine benefited from that too.
Yes, they players in Belarus will have better competition, BUT, there is a requirement by the Russian league that the players in the league apply for Russian citizenship in order not be counted as imports. With this now, many Kazakh players have now stated they will no longer play for the Kazakh national team.....so I'm not sure that this is a good thing.

It will help the players from Belarus, but that won't matter if they don't play for the national team.

Correct me if I´m wrong, but I heard somewhere that only one team will be relagated this year and in the future.That is incorrect. Denmark and Kazakhstan have already won their respective qualifying tournaments (Div I) and both will be with the elite next year in the Czech Republic. 2 will be relegated from this tournament.

Also, Germany, Switzerland and Belarus are certainly getting better and it´s good to see. It will be a lot easier for them to have sucess on the men´s level than age divisions. You only need to produce 23 good players over a 15 year span to have a shot at an Olympic medal. Heck if you look at the Czec. Republic´s roster for the ´98 olympics they only have about 10 good players and one phenomenal goalie.The '98 Czech team purposfully chose only 10 or so NHLers because they thought that having some players from their domestic leagues would help with team chemistry. It was not due to any lack of depth at the NHL level.

The Swiss have been Emerging since 1995, with some minor setbacks and disappointments though.

Germany's been a spoiler for top teams in all age brackets.

Belarus, never watched them play.

The Swiss have been Emerging since 1995, with some minor setbacks and disappointments though.

Germany's been a spoiler for top teams in all age brackets.

Belarus, never watched them play.

Belarus could be a very exciting team to watch in a few years. The Kostitsyn brothers, Grabovsky, Steafanovich, and Zhakarov are all offensive threats and will only get better for their country,

Not sure about Belarus and Germany yet, but Switzerland is already hockey nation in my opinion. Almost every last WHC they prove it. They are not top-tier team, but they are dangerous opponent for every team in men hockey.

The '98 Czech team purposfully chose only 10 or so NHLers because they thought that having some players from their domestic leagues would help with team chemistry. It was not due to any lack of depth at the NHL level.

Shenanigans!

I beseech you to name other players from the Czec. Rep. who were in the NHL that could have been on that team.

In the wake of recent results at the World Juniors, will anyone agree that these mentioned nations are emerging hockey powers? or at least hockey nations?
This year, Germany defeats USA, Slovakia (both big 7 nations)
This year, Belarus defeats Finland (a team that had tukka rask in net) also defeated the only gold medal winning US jr. squad a couple of years back.
This year, the Swiss just defeated the guys who edged the Finns, not to mention, tied the Americans last year, defeated the olympic canadian, czech teams. they also defeated a world championship russian team a few years back.

Does anyone notice the trend here???
Agree or Disagree?

powers no? 1 game upsets does not make a power, especially at the junior level.
consistently in 5-10 place?
yes, maybe...

Shenanigans!

I beseech you to name other players from the Czec. Rep. who were in the NHL that could have been on that team.

Patrik Elias
Radek Dvorak
Radek Bonk
Michal Grosek
Bobby Holik (he is now US citizen)
Robert Kron
Pavel Kubina (NHL/AHL)
Stanislav Neckar
Frantisek Musil (NHL/IHL)
Vaclav Prospal
Michal Sykora (played in 2002 olympics)
Petr Sykora
Vaclav Varada (NHL/AHL)
Roman Turek

Yes, they players in Belarus will have better competition, BUT, there is a requirement by the Russian league that the players in the league apply for Russian citizenship in order not be counted as imports. With this now, many Kazakh players have now stated they will no longer play for the Kazakh national team.....so I'm not sure that this is a good thing.

It will help the players from Belarus, but that won't matter if they don't play for the national team.

But if those players have a dual citizenship, then they would still be eligible to represent Belarus as long as they don't play for Russia first.

But if those players have a dual citizenship, then they would still be eligible to represent Belarus as long as they don't play for Russia first.That is not they way I understand this:- Finally, players from the former Soviet Republics will also be counted as foreign players. Again the opposition from the clubs proved strong. According to the compromise proposal, players with dual citizenship will not be counted as foreigners if they renounce their right to play for their non-Russian national team. These players must send a letter of intent to the IIHF.Kazakh goalie Vitaly Eremeev has already done this.....

That is not they way I understand this:Kazakh goalie Vitaly Eremeev has already done this.....

Yes a tricky matter, as teams in Russia are now allowed three players that play for other national teams, no matter whether they have Russian citizenship or not. Those places are usually taken up by Chehs, Slovaks, sometimes finns and swids or even canadiens. For former soviet republics players it became very hard to crack the team as they are counted as foriegners, so they have to wave the right to play for their countries. Now if all these players still play for a Belorussian team they don't have to wave anything, only if they catch the eye of bigger RSL teams, as the team from Minsk will play in Premiere League, just like the two teams from Kazahstan.

For this tournament and the Olympics I'd only invite the big seven plus one of the emerging nations.
Do a round robin where every team plays each other once.
Top four play in the semi-finals.
One final game, no bronze medal game (just awarded based on points).

Every game would be worth watching!

I think Germany and Switzerland especially are on their way up. The Swiss always seem to put together great efforts with minimal NHL talent, while the Germans are gradually increasing the number of NHL calibre prospects that they churn out.

Germany and Switzerland have the wealth to do it. Belarus i'm not too sure about. Sadly money is a huge factor in hockey more so than other sports in terms of cost for a little leaguer.

Switzerland's had a modicum of success at the WJC. They've been in the main pool since the 1995-96 tournament, and have been rarely in danger of relegation. They won a bronze in 1997, and I believe they finished fourth in 2002. While they aren't a perennial hockey power, they're competitive on an annual basis, and have pulled out several upsets in recent years. They have more medals than Sweden since 1996.

I don't know if this is a breakout year of Germany or not. They've been around for a long time, but have been in and out of relegation. They're usually moderately competitive, but not good enough to stick in the A pool. They wouldn't be the first surprise team to advance to the next round.

Belarus has been on the cusp for a while. They served notice with a win over the Americans in Grand Forks. Of the three teams, this would be the one that would best fit the description of a growing hockey country.

A lot of posters cite Belarus and Germany as examples that the tournament should be expanded to 12 teams. I disagree, as there isn't that 11th country that would be competitive on an annual basis. I think the better solution is to revamp the relegation format. Germany and Belarus will likely have better teams than the teams that come out of Division A.

they've been the same for the past half decade. Germans Swiss and Belarussians. Its just that for years hockey can be a close game, doesent matter how mismatched the teams are. Swiss is still way behind, due to their lack of Swiss players in the NHL. German's have some respect witha handful of NHLers.

For this tournament and the Olympics I'd only invite the big seven plus one of the emerging nations.
Do a round robin where every team plays each other once.
Top four play in the semi-finals.
One final game, no bronze medal game (just awarded based on points).

Every game would be worth watching!
Ah, no!

First of all, this is not an invitational tournament, it is a World Championship (ie, qualfications apply)

The 2nd tier nations need a chance to play the elite. That is how the sport progresses and grows.

If you keep it as as elitest club, then there is no point in the lower division World Championships. Every other sport has at least double the # of teams participating than have a legitimate shot at winning. There is no reason hockey should be any different.

Belarus has been on the cusp for a while. They served notice with a win over the Americans in Grand Forks. Of the three teams, this would be the one that would best fit the description of a growing hockey country.Except hockey is in a weird situation in that country. The dictator loves the sport, and encourages its growth with rinks being built etc....however, once he is no longer in power, who knows how that will change...

A lot of posters cite Belarus and Germany as examples that the tournament should be expanded to 12 teams. I disagree, as there isn't that 11th country that would be competitive on an annual basis. I think the better solution is to revamp the relegation format. Germany and Belarus will likely have better teams than the teams that come out of Division A.With teams at the 2nd tier and in an age restricted event, no team will be competitive on an annual basis. As I mentioned in a post above, this is perhaps the best crop of Junior players from that country ever. However, the current IIHF format has 2 teams swapping yearly between the Elite/Div I, Div I/II, and Div II/III. Given this format, Germany and Belarus have been yo-yoing between the elite and Div I for the past few years.

The arguments for expanding the elite division to 12 teams (no more) boil down to these:

The gap between the original 6 elite teams (going back to the U20s of the 70s) - Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic and USA - and the next - Switzerland, Slovakia, Germany, Belarus, Latvia, Denmark, Norway and Kazakhstan* - has closed a bit in the past 10-15 years. This, by itself warrants an expansion.

The present system is really messed up. It is creating the well known yo-yo effect where some teams, Germany and Belarus in particular, (well, well known to those who follow international hockey) bounce up and down between the elite division and division I. Decreasing the number of elite teams to 8 is no solution. This will only cause other teams - Slovakia and Switzerland - to bounce up and down.

An expansion to 12 teams will probably help the 'next' teams to close the gap even further. You always gain experience by playing against stronger teams. It may also help to promote youth development as well as the game in general in the 'next' countries. Further, it will geographically widen the elite nations' scouting of talents.

If the Senior level can have 16 at the elite level, the U20 can accomodate 12.

Denmark and Kazakhstan should not be virtually guaranteed to be relegated after only 1 year. And if one of them do pull off an upset and cause an regular elite nation to relegate to Div I, then that nation will simply make mince-meat of that Div I group the following year, denying the other Div I teams in that group a chance at promotion. This would be IMO worse than having a 12 team elite group were we would see the odd-blowout.

Yes, you will see some blow-outs in the first couple of years, but that is how the sport grows, it worked with basketball, and even hockey's senior World Championships 2nd tier are closer than when it orginally expanded to 16 teams.

*with SUI and SVK at the head of this class, but it is closer than you think. At the U20 tournament in Germany last month, here were the results:
Slovakia - Norway 2-3ot (2-1,0-0,0-1,0-1)
Germany - Switzerland 2-1 (0-1,1-0,1-0)
Switzerland - Slovakia 3:2 (1:1,0:1,2:0)
Germany – Norway 4-0 (1-0,0-0,3-0)
Norway - Switzerland 3:4 (0:1,2:2,1:1)
Slovakia - Germany 2:5 (2:1, 0:4, 0:0)

I don't know if this is a breakout year of Germany or not. They've been around for a long time, but have been in and out of relegation. They're usually moderately competitive, but not good enough to stick in the A pool. They wouldn't be the first surprise team to advance to the next round.

This is just a good age group for Germany imo but I don't believe that this is a sign that hockey is going to get bigger or better here.
I don't see any signs for it.

Ah, no!

First of all, this is not an invitational tournament, it is a World Championship (ie, qualfications apply)

The 2nd tier nations need a chance to play the elite. That is how the sport progresses and grows.

If you keep it as as elitest club, then there is no point in the lower division World Championships. Every other sport has at least double the # of teams participating than have a legitimate shot at winning. There is no reason hockey should be any different.

A) Fine, hold a qualification tournament where the winner gets a spot in the big tournament.

B) In the WJC 2nd tier nations get to play 3 or 4 games a year against BIG 7 clubs. Do you really think that is going to have a meaningful impact on their growth? Development has to start at home, not from this tournament.
The sport is what it is, this whole progress and grow thing is delusional. Do you think anyone in Germany is watching?

C) Hockey is elitist, you need snow and ice and money to play. Not a whole lot of countries have got that. Plus the sports market in Europe is already pretty saturated.

Except hockey is in a weird situation in that country. The dictator loves the sport, and encourages its growth with rinks being built etc....however, once he is no longer in power, who knows how that will change...

With teams at the 2nd tier and in an age restricted event, no team will be competitive on an annual basis. As I mentioned in a post above, this is perhaps the best crop of Junior players from that country ever. However, the current IIHF format has 2 teams swapping yearly between the Elite/Div I, Div I/II, and Div II/III. Given this format, Germany and Belarus have been yo-yoing between the elite and Div I for the past few years.

The arguments for expanding the elite division to 12 teams (no more) boil down to these:

The gap between the original 6 elite teams (going back to the U20s of the 70s) - Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic and USA - and the next - Switzerland, Slovakia, Germany, Belarus, Latvia, Denmark, Norway and Kazakhstan* - has closed a bit in the past 10-15 years. This, by itself warrants an expansion.

The present system is really messed up. It is creating the well known yo-yo effect where some teams, Germany and Belarus in particular, (well, well known to those who follow international hockey) bounce up and down between the elite division and division I. Decreasing the number of elite teams to 8 is no solution. This will only cause other teams - Slovakia and Switzerland - to bounce up and down.

An expansion to 12 teams will probably help the 'next' teams to close the gap even further. You always gain experience by playing against stronger teams. It may also help to promote youth development as well as the game in general in the 'next' countries. Further, it will geographically widen the elite nations' scouting of talents.

If the Senior level can have 16 at the elite level, the U20 can accomodate 12.

Denmark and Kazakhstan should not be virtually guaranteed to be relegated after only 1 year. And if one of them do pull off an upset and cause an regular elite nation to relegate to Div I, then that nation will simply make mince-meat of that Div I group the following year, denying the other Div I teams in that group a chance at promotion. This would be IMO worse than having a 12 team elite group were we would see the odd-blowout.

Yes, you will see some blow-outs in the first couple of years, but that is how the sport grows, it worked with basketball, and even hockey's senior World Championships 2nd tier are closer than when it orginally expanded to 16 teams.

*with SUI and SVK at the head of this class, but it is closer than you think. At the U20 tournament in Germany last month, here were the results:
Slovakia - Norway 2-3ot (2-1,0-0,0-1,0-1)
Germany - Switzerland 2-1 (0-1,1-0,1-0)
Switzerland - Slovakia 3:2 (1:1,0:1,2:0)
Germany – Norway 4-0 (1-0,0-0,3-0)
Norway - Switzerland 3:4 (0:1,2:2,1:1)
Slovakia - Germany 2:5 (2:1, 0:4, 0:0)

Don't mistake improvements in coaching with improved player development. The apparent improvement in these nations is due more to the trap than better players. I'm more worried that Slovakia may be slipping out of the picture. Hockey will always be a fringe sport in these other countries, but Slovakia has a history of producing big players.
I think the answer is in keeping players in Europe for as long as possible before they go to the NHL. Even better, how about a Euro Super League:
Moscow, St. Petersburg, Helsinki, Stockholm, Prague, Bratislava might be a good start.

No, the improvement has nothing whatsoever to do with the trap, as it was used in the past few years as well.

The Germans have improved quite a bit, but the main reason why they are competitive, is that this is simply their best age-group in years, maybe decades.
They won't be quite as good next year, with their whole first line gone. There simply isn't anyone good enough to replace them.


There will never be a real European super league, there is jsut no interest in it. People like tradition, they don't support a new team, if they can support a team in the top national league with lots of history behind it.

A) Fine, hold a qualification tournament where the winner gets a spot in the big tournament.Why? You are limiting the number of chances these 2nd tier teams have vs the elite.

B) In the WJC 2nd tier nations get to play 3 or 4 games a year against BIG 7 clubs. Do you really think that is going to have a meaningful impact on their growth? Development has to start at home, not from this tournament.
The sport is what it is, this whole progress and grow thing is delusional. Do you think anyone in Germany is watching?You are missing half the picture. Yes, devolpment does have to start at home, but they also need games vs the elite to guage their progress. Whether anyone in Germany is watching is a different issue and irrelevant to this discussion. European support for the U20s is historically low, that is why this tournament is now in Canada every 3rd year.

C) Hockey is elitist, you need snow and ice and money to play. Not a whole lot of countries have got that. Plus the sports market in Europe is already pretty saturated.Oh really? Then explain how the Czech Republic and Slovakia have produced hockey stars..
Prague has similar weather to Vancouver (ie, not much snow, and no frozen lakes). You don't need snow and ice, you only need ice rinks. In fact, Vancouver's weather itself is not what some here claim as "hockey-inducing" - that does not affect the people's love for the sport here. As for a saturated market argument - that is a cop-out. Every sport has the opportunity to grow, and usually at the expense of other sports. Basketball's popularity is rising in many European countries now.

With regards to Slovakia, their junior league is in a grave state at the moment. If you are interested in reading about Slovakia's situation further, click here (More troubles ahead for Slovakia's Junior program?) (http://www.internationalhockeygang.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4396)

Don't mistake improvements in coaching with improved player development. The apparent improvement in these nations is due more to the trap than better players. I'm more worried that Slovakia may be slipping out of the picture. Hockey will always be a fringe sport in these other countries, but Slovakia has a history of producing big players.
I think the answer is in keeping players in Europe for as long as possible before they go to the NHL. Even better, how about a Euro Super League:
Moscow, St. Petersburg, Helsinki, Stockholm, Prague, Bratislava might be a good start.No, the improvement has nothing whatsoever to do with the trap, as it was used in the past few years as well.

The Germans have improved quite a bit, but the main reason why they are competitive, is that this is simply their best age-group in years, maybe decades.
They won't be quite as good next year, with their whole first line gone. There simply isn't anyone good enough to replace them.

There will never be a real European super league, there is jsut no interest in it. People like tradition, they don't support a new team, if they can support a team in the top national league with lots of history behind it.
Yes, part of the answer is keeping the European players in Europe longer.

However, with regards to a Euro-League - that is NOT going to happen. You are superimposing North American thinking to Europe. As Sanderson mentiond - they, they simply don't care about cities outside of their own country. People in Prague don't care to play Stockholm or Moscow. They want to play local teams like Kladno etc. This is the same everywhere in Europe.

Well, i think some people have mentioned it all, more or less, but the biggest problem for the second tier teams, in my opinion, is their reluctant attitude towards offensive play.
Sure, they don't posses the same skill as the "big seven" and it's players, but if they always play defensively, how are they supposed to develop creative players? As long as they lack creative players, they aren't going to handle the puck-possession game, which is vital in order to succeed in modern hockey. Thats why teams like Germany once in a while will get some fluke wins, but in the long run, they can never be competitive.

Well, i think some people have mentioned it all, more or less, but the biggest problem for the second tier teams, in my opinion, is their reluctant attitude towards offensive play.
Sure, they don't posses the same skill as the "big seven" and it's players, but if they always play defensively, how are they supposed to develop creative players? As long as they lack creative players, they aren't going to handle the puck-possession game, which is vital in order to succeed in modern hockey. Thats why teams like Germany once in a while will get some fluke wins, but in the long run, they can never be competitive.

I think that's really a problem for our young German players. We produce decent defensive and 2-way-players but nearly no creative forwards with good hands. And if we have these player's they have to often some bad habits...for example Greilinger or Hackert who could be a beast (well, in the DEL), if he would play a more motivated brand of hockey IMO. Thats why I'm so in love with Gawlik, Schuetz and Gogulla. IMO they seemed to be our most complete line at the B-WC in Amiens. We need more of them! But too many of our clubs go with foreign players in the first two lines and with the German players beeing more complementary players with nearly no time on the pp.

I think that's really a problem for our young German players. We produce decent defensive and 2-way-players but nearly no creative forwards with good hands. And if we have these player's they have to often some bad habits...for example Greilinger or Hackert who could be a beast (well, in the DEL), if he would play a more motivated brand of hockey IMO. Thats why I'm so in love with Gawlik, Schuetz and Gogulla. IMO they seemed to be our most complete line at the B-WC in Amiens. We need more of them! But too many of our clubs go with foreign players in the first two lines and with the German players beeing more complementary players with nearly no time on the pp.

I agree. I think it was a very good decision on Schütz' part to go to St. John. It helped him develop his attacking game.

I think that that more clubs in the DEL should follow they exemple of Berlin, who has a tremandous junior systeme. Seven of this year players playes for Berlin in the DEL. The probleme in Europe is not the skill level of the players but the lack of good coaches.

Why? You are limiting the number of chances these 2nd tier teams have vs the elite.



I find the games are not entertaining. For 50 years we have been trying to grow the sport, and it's still the same 6 or 7 countries that are producing the stars. We would be far better off to figure out how to help Slovakia than worry about these developing nations. Slovakia has produced more stars than all those other countries combined.

You are missing half the picture. Yes, devolpment does have to start at home, but they also need games vs the elite to guage their progress.


What are we gauging here? Player development, or the ability for an inferior group of athletes to play a defensive style which makes them look a lot better than they actually are. A far better barometer is to look at how many good adult players these countries are producing. There are a few, but the list is very short, and I would argue that the WJC had little or zero impact on those who did make it.


Oh really? Then explain how the Czech Republic and Slovakia have produced hockey stars..
Prague has similar weather to Vancouver (ie, not much snow, and no frozen lakes). You don't need snow and ice, you only need ice rinks. In fact, Vancouver's weather itself is not what some here claim as "hockey-inducing" - that does not affect the people's love for the sport here.

Gee, you make a good point. Why don't I check on-line to verify that.....
Wait, Prague on average is 4 or 5 degrees colder than Vancouver in the winter. There are plenty of cheap outside rinks there.

Hockey is not as popular in Vancouver as the rest of the country, and I think that is partly due to the climate. I can give you a list as long as my arm as to why there would be more hockey fans in Vangroovy than Berlin. Starting with you are one city with moderate temperatures, in a cold country that is mad about Hockey, and a large number of your residents are originally from other parts of Canada.

I think that that more clubs in the DEL should follow they exemple of Berlin, who has a tremandous junior systeme. Seven of this year players playes for Berlin in the DEL. The probleme in Europe is not the skill level of the players but the lack of good coaches.

I agree with you regarding the coaches. The junior system of Mannheim and Köln are equally well run. And elsewhere in Germany the clubs work on improving their Systems.

I think it's not the case that this U20 generation just happens to be competetive. It's not an exception. Hockey is somewhat booming among kids (especially in the Berlin area) and we will see players of equal talent to Schütz, Gogulla and Gawlik in the coming years. Thomas Oppenheimer of Frankfurt comes to mind right away.

Of course there will be ups and downs but the talent level is gradually improving.

Btw.: According to recent surveys icehockey is the second most popular team sport in Germany (above Handball and Basketball). So it's not that much of a second-rate sport here. And we do have snow every once in a while.

Well, i think some people have mentioned it all, more or less, but the biggest problem for the second tier teams, in my opinion, is their reluctant attitude towards offensive play.
Sure, they don't posses the same skill as the "big seven" and it's players, but if they always play defensively, how are they supposed to develop creative players? As long as they lack creative players, they aren't going to handle the puck-possession game, which is vital in order to succeed in modern hockey. Thats why teams like Germany once in a while will get some fluke wins, but in the long run, they can never be competitive.

They only play defensively against the top-teams.
The goal in games is to win, you can't win against superior talent by playing like they do. As long as a team is in danger of relegation, they won't go for a shoot-out against teams like Canada or Russia.

You don't see Germany sit back in div I games, as in those games, they are the superior team.

Players don't get creative or not just because of their teams style of play in 6-10 u20-games per year. They develope their creativity over all the years in the junior-leagues. Unless the coaching at younger ages sets it sight more at developing individual skill, that won't change.


Hockey is the no.2 in Germany when it comes to attendance and perhaps overall popularity, but it isn't even close to the other sports when it comes to the number of players. It's way too expensive, so parents rather let their children play football, tennis, handball or basketball.
Apart from that, not all areas of Germany really get all that much snow, some of them are lucky if the lakes are frozen maybe once a year for a few days, if at all.

Last year I got to play hockey only once, and that was on a frozen football-field.

Yes, part of the answer is keeping the European players in Europe longer.

However, with regards to a Euro-League - that is NOT going to happen. You are superimposing North American thinking to Europe. As Sanderson mentiond - they, they simply don't care about cities outside of their own country. People in Prague don't care to play Stockholm or Moscow. They want to play local teams like Kladno etc. This is the same everywhere in Europe.

I hate comparing Hockey to Soccer, but have you ever heard of something called UEFA?

I don't buy that a Euro League with guys like Ovechkin, Jagr, Chara, Selanne, and Forsberg would be a bust. I wouldn't start with a team in Germany by the way.

I agree that it won't happen, but it's because the existing leagues in Europe don't want it, not to mention the NHL, not because it wouldn't work.

I wouldn't start with a team in Germany by the way.


Why?

I don't buy that a Euro League with guys like Ovechkin, Jagr, Chara, Selanne, and Forsberg would be a bust. I wouldn't start with a team in Germany by the way.


Attendance - European Leagues 2005/2006

Regular season averages:

DEL (Germany) 6076
SM-liiga (Finland) 4997
Extraliga (Czech Republic) 4461

I hate comparing Hockey to Soccer, but have you ever heard of something called UEFA?

I don't buy that a Euro League with guys like Ovechkin, Jagr, Chara, Selanne, and Forsberg would be a bust. I wouldn't start with a team in Germany by the way.

I agree that it won't happen, but it's because the existing leagues in Europe don't want it, not to mention the NHL, not because it wouldn't work.

The soccer comparison doesn't work, as all the soccer teams still play in national leagues. Only a handful of teams play some CL or UEFA-Cup games in international competition.

They had all kinds of similar competitions in hockey, and it failed miserably every time.

It wouldn't work because fans aren't interested in a league created from scratch, playing against opponents they don't care about. Especially if the teams they follow are still around, which they would be.

Of course it might work, if for some unknown reason the NHL and all the European leagues would cease to exist, but that's not a point worth discussing.

Why?

I don't want to get to off topic here but I would start with an eight team league:
Stockholm
Helsinki
Prague
Bratislava
Moscow
St. Petersburg
Gothenburg
Omsk

I think there are enough European players to create an eight team league that would easily rival the NHL. I would choose these cities because hockey is popular there, a lot of good players come from these countries, and they have a sufficient population / economy to support a team.

Once the league was established I might consider expanding to Berlin and Zurich, if there was interest.

They had all kinds of similar competitions in hockey, and it failed miserably every time.

It wouldn't work because fans aren't interested in a league created from scratch, playing against opponents they don't care about. Especially if the teams they follow are still around, which they would be.

Of course it might work, if for some unknown reason the NHL and all the European leagues would cease to exist, but that's not a point worth discussing.

Exactly.
People in Cologne would rather see their team play local rivals and German teams than Jokerit Helsinki or CSKA.

The soccer comparison doesn't work, as all the soccer teams still play in national leagues. Only a handful of teams play some CL or UEFA-Cup games in international competition.

They had all kinds of similar competitions in hockey, and it failed miserably every time.

It wouldn't work because fans aren't interested in a league created from scratch, playing against opponents they don't care about. Especially if the teams they follow are still around, which they would be.

Of course it might work, if for some unknown reason the NHL and all the European leagues would cease to exist, but that's not a point worth discussing.

I agree that this is a pipe dream, but here is what you would have to do:

1. If the money and quality of play were equal, then Europeans would rather play in Europe.
2. If the stars come back so will the fans. I don't doubt that a Euro-wide minor league would fail.