swiss relagated

kazakstans victory over denmark sealed relagation for both the swiss and denmark.
its nice to see a promoted team finally stick around... but i feel for the switzerland, because had they won the shootout against finland the tournament could of gone an entirely different direction.

I'm sure this is a big blow to the Swiss junior program as well, they've been around a long time in the top division. I expect to see them back in 2010. In the meantime, Kazakhstan gets a chance to see what they can do with guys who have been there before, and if not, we get to see the same in 2010 from Latvia or Germany.

Didn´t the swiss junior program produce some nice talents a couple of years ago. Did they all bust?

I like Bykov, though. I think he might end up a good player in Europe in the future.

too bad....

does anyone know why cunti didnt play???

Wow. That's pretty major. They seemed like they were really on the rise for a while.

Wow. That's pretty major. They seemed like they were really on the rise for a while.

not really. This is the 6th straight year they have been in the relegation round.

not really. This is the 6th straight year they have been in the relegation round.

Yeah, but they often seemed to end up there as sort of the "odd team out," as shown by their having stuck in the main tournament for so long.

It kinda is too bad that the games against non-relegation teams don't game, shouldn't it play into some plus minus system?

It kinda is too bad that the games against non-relegation teams don't game, shouldn't it play into some plus minus system?

it is fine how it is. Either way, Switzerland would not have avoided relegation.

Is this the Swiss team which the great, fantastic Russians beat with 5-4?
Yes, Russians are great, Sweden can give up the semi now. :sarcasm:

Time to expand the U20 elite to 12?

Time to expand the U20 elite to 12?

Why? Just to keep Switzerland and other mid-table nations from having a realistic chance at being relegated?

Switzerland got a "loser point" and lost everything else in regulation. They will probably get a win over Denmark tonight, but seeing as that's the only win they would get, they deserve to be relegated.

Time to expand the U20 elite to 12?

i think yes. if you want to give more nations the chance to develop then it would be a good idea. germany is another example. going up and down and up and down. when being up they play good hockey and give the elite teams a good fight. but when being down they destroy most of the other countries. they rather belong to the WJC than to division I. same with switzerland.

two groups of 6 teams, 5th and 6th into the relegation round and the top4 of each group play real quarterfinals. 2 quarterfinals like it is now always make me laugh somehow. ;)

It's definitely time they extend the U20 to 12 teams. There are too many nations who's development is stunted due to the revolving door of promoted teams. Although countries like Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Kazakhstan and Latvia can't compete for medals yet, they do play at a much higher level than the other teams in Division 1. They don't learn a thing by having to play the likes of Great Britain, Hungary and France. If the IIHF want's the junior sport to grow so that anyone outside of Canada gives a damn (with the possible exception of Latvia, who sell out a 10,000 seat arena for u18 and u20 division 1 tournaments), it's in their best interest to increase the number of teams that play in the top division. Apparently at last years general meeting all countries except for Canada were for this (gee, I wonder why? with them hosting the tournament every second year, it would mean more money towards hosting the event, less in their pockets)

too bad....

does anyone know why cunti didnt play???

Bob cole might have done the finals.

Ok, concering expanding to 12 teams i am not really objective( I am a German..;-) ) , but i think it's time for an expansion. Also Austria is ready for games against Sweden, Russia etc..

Bye Tronador

I am in favor of either:

a) expanding the WJC to 12 teams, or

b) keeping the 10-team format, but eliminate automatic promotions and relegations. Instead, hold a round-robin qualification tournament between the bottom two finishers in the top division and the two Division I winners. Two spots will be up for grabs, with other two playing in Division I the next year. This system would be similar to Sweden's Kvalserien.

As a previous poster stated, countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Latvia, Belarus and Austria are far superior to their typical Division I opponents (Poland, Norway, England, etc) and are capable of at least not getting blown out by the elite countries.

In my view, it does little to advance a program like Germany's when the U20 team shuttles back and forth every year.

Once a team is promoted, it deserves every opportunity to continue playing at the top level. It is also a good challenge for the top finishing Division I teams to play the bottom top division teams. Example: Germany and Latvia would make good opponents for the Swiss and Danes this year.

Ultimately, every one benefits, including the NHL teams scouting and drafting the top players from the bubble teams. For instance, Danish players such as Lars Eller and Mikkel Boedker should be playing against top division opponents who will push them to elevate their games rather than running roughshod over Division I opponents who simply can't compete against them.

I am in favor of either:

a) expanding the WJC to 12 teams, or

b) keeping the 10-team format, but eliminate automatic promotions and relegations. Instead, hold a round-robin qualification tournament between the bottom two finishers in the top division and the two Division I winners. Two spots will be up for grabs, with other two playing in Division I the next year. This system would be similar to Sweden's Kvalserien.

As a previous poster stated, countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Latvia, Belarus and Austria are far superior to their typical Division I opponents (Poland, Norway, England, etc) and are capable of at least not getting blown out by the elite countries.

In my view, it does little to advance a program like Germany's when the U20 team shuttles back and forth every year.

Once a team is promoted, it deserves every opportunity to continue playing at the top level. It is also a good challenge for the top finishing Division I teams to play the bottom top division teams. Example: Germany and Latvia would make good opponents for the Swiss and Danes this year.

Ultimately, every one benefits, including the NHL teams scouting and drafting the top players from the bubble teams. For instance, Danish players such as Lars Eller and Mikkel Boedker should be playing against top division opponents who will push them to elevate their games rather than running roughshod over Division I opponents who simply can't compete against them.

The only problem with the qualification tournament is that it would require those countries' players to be away from their home clubs for a longer period of time. CHL teams would be less likely to draft imports who could be gone for as long as 1 1/2 months of the season. The only way this would work is to have the tournament in the fall before the season begins, but that would mean the players are out of peak physical shape, and it would mean they're more exhausted than their regular season counterparts come playoff time.

It kinda is too bad that the games against non-relegation teams don't game, shouldn't it play into some plus minus system?

I agree with this, too.

Last year, for instance, Germany beat Team USA but received no credit for it once relegation play started.

The only problem with the qualification tournament is that it would require those countries' players to be away from their home clubs for a longer period of time. CHL teams would be less likely to draft imports who could be gone for as long as 1 1/2 months of the season. The only way this would work is to have the tournament in the fall before the season begins, but that would mean the players are out of peak physical shape, and it would mean they're more exhausted than their regular season counterparts come playoff time.

Good points. However, I think it's the most equitable arrangement if you don't expand the elite tourney to 12 teams.

It's definitely time they extend the U20 to 12 teams. There are too many nations who's development is stunted due to the revolving door of promoted teams. Although countries like Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Kazakhstan and Latvia can't compete for medals yet, they do play at a much higher level than the other teams in Division 1. They don't learn a thing by having to play the likes of Great Britain, Hungary and France. If the IIHF want's the junior sport to grow so that anyone outside of Canada gives a damn (with the possible exception of Latvia, who sell out a 10,000 seat arena for u18 and u20 division 1 tournaments), it's in their best interest to increase the number of teams that play in the top division. Apparently at last years general meeting all countries except for Canada were for this (gee, I wonder why? with them hosting the tournament every second year, it would mean more money towards hosting the event, less in their pockets)
Your opinion is the opinion of a true hockeyfan. The guys who say 10 teams or less, is only thinking about short term money, and metal.

From a Canadian perspective I am not sure how adding 2 bad teams and increasing the number of blowouts will make the product any better, just watering it down.

But it does seems that the bottom teams are getting better, so maybe it is time to expand, and you are certainly right that expansion is best for the development of the game in those countries and that is the real point of the tournament.

Adding teams doesn't necessarily mean more blowouts.

Look at Germany last year.
They lost two rather close ones against Canada and Sweden (both ended 1-3), beat the USA in overtime and Slovakia in regulation. In fact, if Sweden had won the OT against team USA, instead of losing it, Germany would have advanced to the next round and the USA would have had to play in the relegation round.

The Germans were almost devastated by missing the next round by so little, and didn't get anything done against Belarus and Switzerland, so they were relegated.

Relegate 1 team or go to 12. The current system is just not good enough.

I wouldn't mind seeing more teams added. Even if there are blowouts, these other countries get to measure themselves to the elite countries, at least on a semi-consistent basis. Eventually those blowouts become closer games and then wins. Let's see what some of these other countries can do when they can build from one year to the next.


This tourney has never been about the product, it's about development.

Relegate 1 team or go to 12. The current system is just not good enough.

If they only relegate one team, the IIHF would have to revamp their entire international tournament ladder from Divisions I to III, and they would have to do it at all levels (Mens, Womens, U20, U18).

To go to 12 teams while keeping the same system across the board, what would have to happen is that one year, nobody gets relegated while promotions still take place. That would have to happen in all Divisions, which would leave two less teams in Division III for the following season. Currently, the U20 Division III tournament has 6 teams. Going down to 4 teams for Division III would provide some instability as it's never known how long countries like Armenia and Turkey will be able to register teams at the U20 level.

The only suggestion I see as feasible is having a 4-team event between the 9th and 10th placed Top Level teams from the previous year against the two Division I winners from the previous year. That said, as mentioned, it would have to happen during the off-season.

Look at the U-18 Worldcup, were the team from CZE was relegated last year...so i really think it's time for an expansion!

Bye Tronador

which other team is staying up with Kazak?

which other team is staying up with Kazak?

The Slovaks.

Look at the U-18 Worldcup, were the team from CZE was relegated last year...so i really think it's time for an expansion!

Bye TronadorAgreed, but as mentioned above (and quoted below), the Canadian Hockey Federation is one of the main fighter's against expansion.

It's definitely time they extend the U20 to 12 teams. There are too many nations who's development is stunted due to the revolving door of promoted teams. Although countries like Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Kazakhstan and Latvia can't compete for medals yet, they do play at a much higher level than the other teams in Division 1. They don't learn a thing by having to play the likes of Great Britain, Hungary and France. If the IIHF want's the junior sport to grow so that anyone outside of Canada gives a damn (with the possible exception of Latvia, who sell out a 10,000 seat arena for u18 and u20 division 1 tournaments), it's in their best interest to increase the number of teams that play in the top division. Apparently at last years general meeting all countries except for Canada were for this (gee, I wonder why? with them hosting the tournament every second year, it would mean more money towards hosting the event, less in their pockets)

Apparently at last years general meeting all countries except for Canada were for this (gee, I wonder why? with them hosting the tournament every second year, it would mean more money towards hosting the event, less in their pockets)

Er, I'm not sure I follow. Expanding from 10 to 12 would likely mean going from a 20 game round robin + 5 medal round games, 2 placement matches, and 4 consolation matches... a 12-team format would have, what, a 30 game round robin, 7 medal round games, 3 placement matches, and 4 consolation matches?

Why would the one country that can sell 18k+ to every game (by forcing package deals that make people buy Latvia v Denmark to get Canada v Russia) be argued as being money-driven in being opposed to a proposal that would turn 31 gates into 44?

Switzerland has had a really good run as a mid-tier team that can surprise a team. They won bronze in 1997, and finished fourth in 2002 (I think they beat the eventual gold medallist Russians in the 2002 round-robin). And they've usually been competitive. You don't see the Swiss get blown out very often.

I don't think the tournament needs 12 teams. We don't need two more Denmarks each year. Keep it at 10 until 10 teams are consistently competitive. They increased to 10 teams in 1995-96 because they went to two pools, with the gold medal game. Plus, Czechoslovakia had just split up, resulting in two quality teams, and suddenly the Swiss were competitive, so you had eight good teams.

I think they need to revamp the relegation format. Two options:

1) Go back to one-team relegation. Slovakia would have been relegated with their disasterous ninth place finish in 2000 if they relegated two teams back then. I think they switched to two-team relegation in 2002-03. Return to one team, and Switzerland would stay in.
2) Have a play-in series four-to-eight weeks before the tournament. Either a round-robin with the bottom two from the main pool and the top two from the relegation pool, with the top two teams advancing. Or have a best-of-three between last place from the WJC the year before, and the top team from the relegation pool.

This tournament isn't a charity case. Increase the tournament to 12 teams, and you'll see results like France in 2002 and Japan in 1993.

I think they need to revamp the relegation format. Two options:

1) Go back to one-team relegation. Slovakia would have been relegated with their disasterous ninth place finish in 2000 if they relegated two teams back then. I think they switched to two-team relegation in 2002-03. Return to one team, and Switzerland would stay in.
2) Have a play-in series four-to-eight weeks before the tournament. Either a round-robin with the bottom two from the main pool and the top two from the relegation pool, with the top two teams advancing. Or have a best-of-three between last place from the WJC the year before, and the top team from the relegation pool.

This tournament isn't a charity case. Increase the tournament to 12 teams, and you'll see results like France in 2002 and Japan in 1993.

I highlited my reasons against Option 1 in my last post. The IIHF is not going to revamp their entire system from scratch again. This suggestion is ignoring the fact that Divisions II and III exist.

Option 2 provides a problem which cause a problem with clubs who would be forced to let players go for a combined 6-8 weeks instead of the month they do already for this tournament. I like the idea of a round robin between the bottom two from the top tournament and the two Division I winners, but it has to be held during the off-season, likely during August or early September.

Look at the U-18 Worldcup, were the team from CZE was relegated last year...so i really think it's time for an expansion!

Why? Just because the Czech U18 team didn't play well enough to stay up? Why should the typical international hockey elite teams essentially be exempt from relegation?

So the Swiss are relegated...

Well, had they won in the shootout against the Finns and edged the Kazaks, we would've been in the medal rounds but instead we go... 4-3 to the Finns; 4-2 to USA; 3-1 to Kazaks and 4-3 to Russians; and also add in those further losses to the Danes and Slovaks, yikes! This is a fatal blow for the Swiss program. I feel sorry for my boys.

So the Swiss are relegated...

Well, had they won in the shootout against the Finns and edged the Kazaks, we would've been in the medal rounds but instead we go... 4-3 to the Finns; 4-2 to USA; 3-1 to Kazaks and 4-3 to Russians; and also add in those further losses to the Danes and Slovaks, yikes! This is a fatal blow for the Swiss program. I feel sorry for my boys.

Fatal blow?? Are you suggesting that the Swiss U20 program is going to free-fall now (like for example Ukraine's)?

Being relegated didn't have much negative impact on Germany, it won't have much impact on the Swiss either.

They will be back in the top-group after destroying Div I next year.

Being relegated didn't have much negative impact on Germany, it won't have much impact on the Swiss either.

They will be back in the top-group after destroying Div I next year.
I agree there is no way the Swiss team will not contend for promotion next year.

They will destroy the rest of their Division I group - however they will be in Belarus's group. Belarus has the potential for upset.

Switzerland has had a really good run as a mid-tier team that can surprise a team. They won bronze in 1997, and finished fourth in 2002 (I think they beat the eventual gold medallist Russians in the 2002 round-robin). And they've usually been competitive. You don't see the Swiss get blown out very often.

I don't think the tournament needs 12 teams. We don't need two more Denmarks each year. Keep it at 10 until 10 teams are consistently competitive. They increased to 10 teams in 1995-96 because they went to two pools, with the gold medal game. Plus, Czechoslovakia had just split up, resulting in two quality teams, and suddenly the Swiss were competitive, so you had eight good teams.

I think they need to revamp the relegation format. Two options:

1) Go back to one-team relegation. Slovakia would have been relegated with their disasterous ninth place finish in 2000 if they relegated two teams back then. I think they switched to two-team relegation in 2002-03. Return to one team, and Switzerland would stay in.
2) Have a play-in series four-to-eight weeks before the tournament. Either a round-robin with the bottom two from the main pool and the top two from the relegation pool, with the top two teams advancing. Or have a best-of-three between last place from the WJC the year before, and the top team from the relegation pool.

This tournament isn't a charity case. Increase the tournament to 12 teams, and you'll see results like France in 2002 and Japan in 1993.

Sorry, but what's so wrong or bad, if there 1-2 big losses in such a tournament?I am sure about it, if the Canadiens or Russians would be relegated, they would cry loudly to expand the youth tournament, so i have the feeling some of you do not want to make this sport more popular.
We are not talking about adding teams like South-Afrika or Turkey...in my opinion it's time for an expansion. Concerning the attendance, countries like Latvia or Germany has a great potential of fans, there are lot's of Germans living in Canada and the USA, who would like to watch such games..

Bye Tronador

Sorry, but what's so wrong or bad, if there 1-2 big losses in such a tournament?I am sure about it, if the Canadiens or Russians would be relegated, they would cry loudly to expand the youth tournament, so i have the feeling some of you do not want to make this sport more popular.
We are not talking about adding teams like South-Afrika or Turkey...in my opinion it's time for an expansion. Concerning the attendance, countries like Latvia or Germany has a great potential of fans, there are lot's of Germans living in Canada and the USA, who would like to watch such games..

Bye Tronador
If Canada were to be relegated, I would be yelling and screaming, but not at the relegation format. I'd be really ticked off at the performance. You'd see a national inquiry into the Canadian developmental system.

It's unfortunate that a consistently competitive team like the Swiss had to be relegated. Switzerland's been a good team for over a decade. But they have nobody to blame but themselves, for losing to the Kazakhs.

If the Kazakhs can prove that they are now going to be consistently competitive, I'd be all for increasing the tournament to 12 teams after next year. But they have to be competitive next year, like they were this year. Give me 10 consistently competitive teams in junior hockey, and I'll gladly support a 12-team tournament. Give me 12 consistently competitive teams (and I think we're closer to 12 than you might think, because a lot of those European nations are making big strides), and I'll support a 14-team tournament.

I've seen too many teams in this tournament who have no place in this tournament. Norway in 2006. Ukraine in 2004. France in 2002. Japan in 1993. At this stage, it's still not worth it.

I think the biggest problem is with the relegation format itself. Revamp relegation, and the Swiss and the Germans will be in the big pool each year, and other countries can develop their systems from outside of the big pool, like the Swiss did in the mid 90s.

If Canada were to be relegated, I would be yelling and screaming, but not at the relegation format. I'd be really ticked off at the performance. You'd see a national inquiry into the Canadian developmental system.

It's unfortunate that a consistently competitive team like the Swiss had to be relegated. Switzerland's been a good team for over a decade. But they have nobody to blame but themselves, for losing to the Kazakhs.

If the Kazakhs can prove that they are now going to be consistently competitive, I'd be all for increasing the tournament to 12 teams after next year. But they have to be competitive next year, like they were this year. Give me 10 consistently competitive teams in junior hockey, and I'll gladly support a 12-team tournament. Give me 12 consistently competitive teams (and I think we're closer to 12 than you might think, because a lot of those European nations are making big strides), and I'll support a 14-team tournament.

I've seen too many teams in this tournament who have no place in this tournament. Norway in 2006. Ukraine in 2004. France in 2002. Japan in 1993. At this stage, it's still not worth it.

I think the biggest problem is with the relegation format itself. Revamp relegation, and the Swiss and the Germans will be in the big pool each year, and other countries can develop their systems from outside of the big pool, like the Swiss did in the mid 90s.

I agree with you. I dont think we are ready to expand to 12 quite yet, but it might not be far off. That France 02 team is the one team that really makes a good case for a 4 team qualification tournament to determine the final 2 entries into the tournament. They won the B pool the previous year with a veteran squad, and returned only 1 player I think. I still remember Canada beating them 15-1 in the opening game of the tournament. I also think that maybe relegating only 1 team is maybe a good idea.

too bad....

does anyone know why cunti didnt play???

Cunti wasn't eligible to play in the NCAA because the league ruled that he'd already played unter a pro contract while playing in the second highest Swiss League. And as you all know you have to be amateur to play in the NCAA....

He's now with the Chicago Steel in the USHL. Because he hasn't played that many Games he decided to skip the WJC.
Don't know what's wrong with that kid!? He's so talented, but man I'd like to know what's going on in his head!?

Dunno if it would have changed anything on the outcoming for the swiss?

This tournament isn't a charity case. Increase the tournament to 12 teams, and you'll see results like France in 2002 and Japan in 1993.


Typical Canadian opinion. Only top division matters. So blowouts in the top division are bad, but blowouts in Division 1 are ok? Anything to keep other countries from developing and stealing "Canada's game" right? :shakehead

Teams like Swizterland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, etc are much closer in talent level to the top division than they are to division 1. So the blowouts are far worse the way it is now.