1. It’s rather easy to improve from bad to average. All of the bottom teams
are not bad anymore (even Slovenia and Austria were not easy to play against).
2. It’s more easy to improve from average to good (France, Norway, Denmark) than from good to
very good and it’s most difficult to improve from very good to high-end and the
downfall from high-end to good goes very fast if you play not with your very
best players.
3. The high-end hockey-nations need their very best players and some sort
of professional preparation to beat the good and very good hockey-nations with
a certain probability. It’s not enough anymore to expect a gold medal with just
off hand chosen players and experiments. High-end hockey-nations had to accept silver-medals
to Slovakia in 2012 and Switzerland in 2013.
4. The level-difference between the very best and the next best and the
following nations became smaller (Switzerland did win 9 in a row, France did
beat Russia).
5. Not everything is explainable and predictable in the world of hockey.
Did anybody predict that Switzerland will win silver with 9 wins in a row and
not even one of these wins was a steal?
6. For smaller hockey-nations it is significantly easier to compete in a
senior WC than in juniors because for a competitive senior-national-team you
need „just“ one or two really good players from each age-group and if you do
your homework even very small countries can „produce“ 30-50 competitive players.
7. Switzerland did not only get excellent results, it was also most
surprising the way they played and how they could play on this very high level
for the whole tournament.
8. Roman Josi is on the verge of becoming a star player in the NHL and John
Gibson is already close to the NHL. He has everything a future above average
NHL-goalie needs to have.
9. In some cases it is really the superstar-players what makes the
difference (Sedins)
10. With approx. 75% probability the team who scores the first goal will win
the game but this did tell probably already former IIHF World Championships.
SOME SWISS THOUGHTS:
The
good:
We did win 9 consecutive games and all of them
were deserved wins, not even one steal. Of course we were a little bit lucky vs
CAN and CZE (Quarter-Final) but also in these games it was not really a steal.
Even as a neutral observer I would have to respect the attractive up-tempo
style with optimistic approaches, brave attacks and players full of confidence
and with decent skills. Four different and useful units resulted in a very
balanced team. I never followed a Swiss team with all needed ingredients to
become successful and attractive: Good goaltending, clever defense with Josi
and Diaz as high-end players. Physical presence up front (Walker, Moser) a
powerforward who crashes the net (Niederreiter), some spark and magic (Cunti),
a very productive player (Hollenstein), a scorer (Suri), a dangerous weapon on
the powerplay (Gardner), speed (most players), clever, desperate and
high-energy-play without the puck (the whole team), very good coaching and a true hero in every
aspect (Seger). Nothing was missing. To make it short and simple: To watch
Switzerland playing in this WC was just a beauty!
The
bad:
I can’t think of bad things about the Swiss team
in this competition, even if I try to be very critical. It was just positive,
plain positive! There are just maybe some negatives: Usually people have the
tendency to stay very uncritical in the case of a big success. E.g. it would be
a huge mistake to think that the Swiss program is just fine. On the
junior-level we are not very close to the very best, there is some sort of
stagnation and people in power should do everything trying to improve our
junior-program, to improve it from good to very good (e.g. not to dismiss the
planned hockey-academy in Winterthur, not to cut money from the
national-junior-teams, not to refuse participations in great
junior-hockey-tournaments esp. in NA, implement some new strategies and maybe
add the one or the other high-end-hockey-teacher to the federation-staff. I
hope that the clubs support the federation in trying to improve from good to
very good. We Swiss hockey observers have to stay self-critical and modest: In
hockey we have every year a world championship and the same goes for the U20
and U18-programs. This was the first medal since ages and although I was so impressed
we have to confirm this result a couple of times in the next 10 years. Only if
we can do this we can tell that we did catch up with the very best. Success is a big trap. Success leads to handicapped learning. We are not allowed to get fooled from this trap. Next year’s
Olympics and the 2016 World Cup – if Switzerland will be invited – will be the
next true measure-sticks as are all the upcoming U20- and U18-WC-tournaments.
How can we compete against the very best? After this tournament I’m more
optimistic, I guess we can stay competitive even against the very best. Can we
win a game vs a top nation with their very best players? I guess, yes we can!
Can we win consecutive games vs top-nations with their very best players? Maybe
I’m too negative but to be honest: No, I don’t think so yet... but this team
has now the chance to prove me wrong, it already did prove me wrong in this
sensational IIHFWorlds 2013.
https://twitter.com/thomasroost
Thomas Roost, 20th May 2013
On the very top level of games, there is still one rule used by the successful teams: "Defense first!"
ReplyDeleteBe patient and wait for your chance to offend. Roman Josi showed it several times. But when he attacked, the foreign attackers often forget to do their backchecking and the backs were overrun by Josi, because they covered their forward and left Josi alone. But this only works, when a offensive back may trust his forward teammates to cover 'his' back.
After the first goal, the trailing team has to be more offensive to equal the game. For a short time, this isn't a big deal. But when the team couldn't show the reaction in 2-3 minutes and score this taktic may evolve in a impatient and headless gamestyle. Players tend to be selfish and try it on their own. The game become more faulty and hasty.
The swiss national team showed it in 9,3 of 10 games very well. They stayed calm and wordly-wise. They played unimpressed their system and fighted from minute 1 to 60 as a whole team.
After the 10minute penalty against Ambühl the team wasn't integer for too long "at this high level" and their power decreased too fast to do the difference and control the game. And Henrik sedin didn't need a second invitation to score in powerplay and brought sweden in front.
The swiss tried several time to equal the game, but has already used all fortune in the nine previous games or in other words: "Cinderella has left the building". And then came the crucial situation where vauclair lost the puck at the blue line to landeskog > 1:3. Sweden played on time. The swiss tried and tried, but if you don't score then the others will.
Conclusion: Switzerland played a fabulous game but Cinderella doesn't like checks to the head.
Thank you, Anonymus, for your appreciated detailed game-analyses, but one more thing: Not only Cinderella doesn't like checks to the head... I hope nobody does.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right. I don't like Checks to the head too. I'd rather like to see healthy players compete each other in a fair and sporty way.
ReplyDeleteBut this has to do with respect, and respect begins with strikeing with the stick. I know, to disturb a player with the stick is essential and doing this as long as it became annoying beside "Trash Talk" to provoke the player to take penalties is a part of the game. But how hard do you have to hit to break a stick? Fingers and Forearm may break the same way and the players know. Then it's just a matter of time until the last respect is lost and checks to the head are done. The rise of pain: Finger, Forearm, Head!
The referees has the order to not interfere the gameplay. Therefore they only interrupt with penalties when it tends to get out of control.
But each referee has another interpretation of this. Some has zero tolerance others do tolerate more at the beginning and are fussy to the end or vice versa. But as long as there aren't any strict international rules/guidelines how to handle penalties, there will always be players trying to cheat (hidden strike to finger/forearm). And Following the cause will lead us to the overreaction "Check to the Head".
IMHO the referees should nip the things in the bud.
To be honest: I wouldn't like to be a hockey-referee. He has to decide in a split-second something what happens very fast from two players who want to deke out eachother and want very often also to deke out the referee... Don't get me wrong: This is the players job, I don't blame them at all... but this tells at least partly how extremely difficult the job of a referee is...
ReplyDeleteSorry to highjack the discussion and intervening so late. It’s a little bit off-topic in regards to the original article (which is great by the way), but I would like to comment on Anonymous’s intervention on reffing:
ReplyDeleteCalling penalties is a soft science. There's a contradiction between strict rules/guidelines and making a call. It's about "feeling" the game. A lot of factors intervene. Don't forget, the ref has only one chance to see the action. If he hasn't the perfect viewing angle, he'll be in doubt and it's human to not blow the whistle. Plus a lot of fans/media/” experts” don't want the ref to intervene, forgetting that a non-intervention might have a higher impact on the outcome of the game. But that’s another issue. Refs that try to be “strict” have no chance to survive in the current setup.
As a ref, you won't be able to educate grown-up men. It has to start at the earliest age. And again, it won't be the ref's primary role to educate the kids. It's the coach’s role to "punish" a kid when misbehaving. By ”punishing” I mean: taking the kid out of the game phase, even if the ref hasn't blown the whistle (and heck, play outnumbered and risk to take a goal - it will be a good lesson). Then let him sit for the remainder of the shift and explain calmly what went wrong and why you pulled him of the ice.
Instead I see U8 coaches trying to win games by giving ”special treatment” to the best opposing player. I have seen skilled U8 and U10 players, being slashed to the head, just to try to stop them from scoring. Justified by coaches arguing “that’s hockey”, supported by “get him!” yelling parents.
Refs in those categories are 13-16 year old kids, doing their best for a sandwich, getting cheated on by the coach, yelled at by parents and coaches. I have seen a kid ref at a two day U10 tournament, doing a great job, and being yelled at in the final game by a grown-up coach, like you won’t believe it. The kid was in tears during the rest of the game but pulled it through. I found him crying in the changing room, sobbing “never again!”. That kid had everything to be a great ref, he was destroyed in one minute by an adult.
Unfortunately it has become less rewarding to be a coach at the youth level for various reasons. The same is probably also true for reffing. I expect things to get worse in the future.
Dear Piccolo
ReplyDeleteIt made me really sad to read your comment. You're absolutely right when you say the kids have to be better educated by coach/parents.
The parents today often do not take time for their own children and doesn't care about a good breeding. They put them in day care, feed them in the evening and bring them to bed. Where is the time to impart ethic values?
Has the teacher at school time for this? Has the Coach time for this? Yes they have - as we all have if we do, but it's not their job!
The parents should teach their children right from wrong. But what if they themself are wrong? What if they aren't well treaten by the society and teach them, that real life is hard and just the strong will survive? Don't get me wrong - i don't think this is the way to go, but i'm analysing the situation right now, as i observe it.
But back to the main topic. The rules/guidelines i mentioned could help the refs to be strict. If there is no space left between the rules, there will be no coaches trying to benefit by interpretation of the rules. For example if the rule would be "Don't drink and drive" it should mean 0% alcohol in blood. Not one glass of beer - don't even a little one. No alcohol means no alcohol. You still may try to cheat, but this depend on two factors:
- How great is the chance to get caught?
- what's the consequence?
If you can't increase the chance to catch someone cheating, then you have to increase the penalty and/or sanctions.
As long as the loss of cheating is less then its reward, it still brings 'profit'.
If for example a top 5 team employ 1-2 cheap agressiv players, just to take out as much as possible strategic top players from the competing teams it still count - why? Let's take a check to the head. The "cheap" agressor get locked for 5-10 games. 5-10 games in the regular season is nothing compared to the longtime injury taken by the top player. Peraps he plays in about 5-10 games too, but he'll play damaged with a higher risk for a greater injury the next time.
You write: "Refs that try to be “strict” have no chance to survive in the current setup."
And this mean to me, that you agree with me. You just argue "in the current setup".
If the current setup is wrong, it needs to be changed.
Any idea?
Hello,
ReplyDeleteby setup I actually meant media, spectators and society in general, to some degree players and coaches as well.
My idea? Every single player has to ref 10 games per season in the lower or youth divisions. Every single spectator 5 games at U8.
Lack of refs solved, respect issues solved, fitness issues of Swiss population solved, Switzerland is undefeated world and olympic champion from 2019-2029, because they have become a skating nation like the people in Mystery, Alaska. ;-)
hi
ReplyDeletecreative approach, but not really realistic.
Prof. Players can't ref 10 games/year.. (NLA/NLB) perhaps this would work for lower/junior level.
spectators didn't know the rules right, how would they be able to ref even a u8 game?! I don't know how much (percent) of swiss-spectators actually could skate. As you can see, the intersection of possible refs decrease!
But perhaps it would be possible to recruit some good refs if you give them the right incentives. For example a vip-lounge-ticket for NLA-Hockey Games.