11/05/24
April 27, 2003
"We didn't play the Danish for 57 years,": and it caught up with the US with a vengeance as the Danes beat them 5-2 in the opening round of the IIHF World Championship (Danish recap). It was the Danish team's first appearance in the tournament since losing 47-0 to Canada in 1949 in the worst lost ever at the championship. How could this be a bad omen for the Danes?
posted by kirkaracha to hockey at 09:42 AM - 16 comments
I've always had a problem with the Danes. If it's not their big dogs or their pastries, it's their hockey team. It's always something with the Danish.
posted by Samsonov14 at 11:46 AM on April 27, 2003
(Oh, and welcome aboard, Eirixon.)
posted by Samsonov14 at 11:46 AM on April 27, 2003
thnx, Samsonov
posted by Eirixon at 11:53 AM on April 27, 2003
Until they move the championships after the Stanley Cup playoffs conclude, I consider them irrelevant. The best competitiors from the US, Canada, Sweden, Russia, and so on are either in the Stanley Cup playoffs or are coming off the grind of the season. If they moved them to say, late July-early August, then they would get better media coverage here in the US and Canada, especially with only baseball mid-season and football training camps to compete for attention. Makes a lot of sense to me!
posted by jasonbondshow at 12:19 PM on April 27, 2003
The World Championships are the NIT to the Stanley Cup's NCAA tournament.
posted by andrewraff at 12:54 PM on April 27, 2003
agreed. the only thing that really matters internationally for the A pool tier of countries is the World Cup or the old Canada Cup - some tournament that draws the best each country has to offer. i would like to see an every World Cup every 4 years of hockey like they have in football/soccer. i guess the problem is the top of the top tier has 4 or 5 teams in there that are pretty much on par with each other, and then the drop off is distinct to the next 4 or 5 teams and then you get into the B tier and until you can field a good 16 teams i guess the idea won't work. though there are 16 teams in the world championships this year, who knows. still, i am not ready to welcome hockey in july/august. i love hockey, but i also love going outside in the summer.
posted by gspm at 01:36 PM on April 27, 2003
There's an outside now?
posted by Samsonov14 at 03:12 PM on April 27, 2003
There is no outiside yet. Outside begins no later than june 9th (aka the latest possible end date for Stanley Cup finals).
posted by gspm at 05:13 PM on April 27, 2003
the only thing that really matters internationally for the A pool tier of countries is the World Cup I disagree. World Juniors are big, too. At least, they are here. And I disagree about the irrelevance of the World Championships. Maybe they're irrelevant in the US, but they matter here -- and I don't doubt that they matter in Europe. Sure, they're eclipsed by the playoffs, but they still get televised here and they do get media coverage. Having your "best competitors" occupied with the NHL playoffs is an excuse, IMO. There's plenty of other players to go around. Sure, some might have a slight advantage here and there -- but that's the way it goes every year. Anyway, it is a major win for Denmark. I couldn't help but snicker when I heard about it.
posted by mkn at 05:36 PM on April 27, 2003
Not that it matters, but did anyone notice the second comment? SWITZERLAND? I'm biting my lip.
posted by garfield at 09:12 PM on April 27, 2003
Switzerland is a much better team Denmark, though. At least, as far as I know. Did they have Aebischer in net? Or did he stay in Colorado?
posted by mkn at 12:08 AM on April 28, 2003
ok. perhaps I should qualify that the only thing that matters for a couple of teams at the top of the A pool tier (Canada and the US) is not the IIHWC. for what it is worth, the countries at the lower end of the IIHWC pool A probably are sending pretty strong teams since I don't think there are many Danish or Japanese players tied up in the NHL. yes, the Juniors are big in Canada too, I wouldn't dispute that. That does matter to Canada and their send their best team. I think it was a great and famous win for the Danes and it certainly adds some drama to the tournament if the possibility exists that the USA is bumped down into the B pool. But to consider that the USA couldn't field one of the 16 best teams in the world? That is nuts. It would only show that the IIWHC doesn't receive much attention from Canada and the US, and, no, I can't say that they are the be all and end all of international hockey... but to be the be the best you've got to beat the best? any hockey tournament that the Canadians have only won twice since 1961 is obviously not a true test of hockey supremacy! I didn't mean to dismiss the tournament out of hand, but, hey, now I am paying attention to it. Sweden beats Belarus and Salo sits, Denmark described as scrappy but lose 6-1 to Russia.
posted by gspm at 01:38 AM on April 28, 2003
any hockey tournament that the Canadians have only won twice since 1961 is obviously not a true test of hockey supremacy! Well, the Big Red Machine aka USSR were a major player back then.
posted by Eirixon at 02:53 AM on April 28, 2003
Also, in all fairness, international hockey was never on the Canadian radar until the Summit Series with the Soviets. It was NHL or bust. The importance of international hockey success as part of the Canadian hockey identity has only emerged in the last 20 years.
posted by mkn at 04:29 AM on April 28, 2003
I think this is example #3245 of the phrases "Anything can happen." and "That's why they play the games."