Olympic/International Ice/game > NHL ice/game

[grnmtnvt 18]

Another good one, talking about a point made earlier. There's a wider ice surface, but because of the shorter offensive zone the scoring area is smaller between dots where most goals are scored and there's more boring board play and with a larger neutral zone less play in the offensive zone. Boring defensive hockey- like virtually all of the olympic tournament- and my favourite team won! haha

“So we spent all this time talking about the ice being way bigger, but the scoring areas inside the dots is smaller,” said Babcock.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/is-the-sochi-olympics--big-ice--a-problem-for-nhl-players-105705400.html

[DigiV 6]

You guys are funny, that's exactly the type of crap i'd expect to hear. For example, Zach Parise lol. His entire game is an NHL style game, are you kidding me? He doesn't fly up and down the ice with the puck. The guy is a hustler, his game is about peskiness and grunt work. Hands? This article was a joke right?

And the second article points out exactly what i've been saying.. a guy like Kessel is a bawler in the NHL but on big ice he's a completely different beast. You can actually see how much of a better skater and puck handler he is. I've never seen him look so good, his skating skills shine. Same with Carter on Canada.

Guys that looked like shit were guys that aren't used to actually skating with the puck for more than a second. That's the NHL game, jittery, combative, ugly nonsense. That's what Canadians have always liked. Go back and read what happened when the Russians and Europeans first came over to play, Canada was stunned.

You know why you see people coming back trying to defend the NHL ice? Because a lot of people see what i see. A better looking game, a game that could really take off for the masses here in the states if these guys got a little bit more breathing room. Not asking Olympic size ice, offensive zone dimensions could even stay the same, but just a bit more room. Finish style.

It would do wonders for this league. It's a shame we may never know.

[DigiV 6]

deleted.

[grnmtnvt 18]

hahaha, Kessel didn't show anything in the Olympics he doesn't show on a nightly basis in the NHL- have you ever watched a Leafs game? He's second in goals and points and scored ANOTHER highlight real goal last night, this isn't new. Parise's game has nothing to do with peskiness or grunt work. He scored 45 goals 2-3 years ago and is on pace for 35 this year- he has an exceptional one-timer and release. Carter did nothing new also. He lead the West in scoring last season but most people don't watch the west and don't see it. Ovie, Malkin, Datsyuk- where were they? Hossa? Landescog? Kovalchuk? Useless in these international defensive schemes. All that skill and big ice and they pitched a snooze fest. You would think Finland would have demonstrated all their skill- all their games which I watched, everyone was BORING and the same with Sweden. Neutral zone game with boring board play. No flow, no demonstrations of skill, just play on the half boards.

Where are all these people complaining about the NHL ice? Beyond you, I see no pro, coaches, or fans coming out complaining that the NHL game is stifling their style and no one complaining that the NHL game is hard to watch now that the NHL tournament is done. Please, find me someone online asking for the same thing? Your generalizations about Canadians say you know very little about the hockey community in Canada or NA and are making unfair sweeping generalizations about a large group of people. If we are going to slag on countries style of play, lets not use the 60s & 70s. The team Canada put into the Olympics this year was not smashing people into the boards and running goalies, it was skill at its best and sadly, that skill was using stiffling D that international ice requires- and it's boring. No Canadians were complaining ANYWHERE saying man, I love winning that gold in such dominating fashion AND I want to keep that style of play. Find me a Team Canada fan that enjoyed watching this tournament more than the last? Virtually none, why, it was too defensive and lacked the offensive style that is more entertaining. And to be fair, no European team even showed that much dazzling skill either. Russia was a dud, Finland/Sweden played their neutral zone puck control game, Czech/Slovakia just couldn't skate with the bigger teams, and all else just played the 1-4 trap and collapsed on the goalie. If you took away the national flags on these teams, most hockey watchers would have fallen asleep.

It is hardly sad that the NHL dimensions won't change, it's in the fans best interest. Dollars speak volumes in a free market and we know which product is entertaining more people.

[IPv6Freely 2088]

More than anything I'm just amused at the implication that Canadians don't know what they're talking about when it comes to hockey.

[chippa13 1844]

Forget it, fellas, he's going to cling to his opinion like grim death. Facts be damned. If international ice is such a boon to skill players then Kovalchuk should be lighting up the KHL, however, his 16 goals in 44 games says differently. That translates to almost 30 goals over an 82 game season. Less than what he did in any full NHL season that he played except his rookie year, when he had 29.

[grnmtnvt 18]

I hate to keep this going guys, but this is a fun read: http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/big-ice-a-big-failure-when-it-comes-to-creating-offense/

Favourite paragraph: "But, by far, the biggest culprit in dragging the tournament down was the international-sized ice surface. After watching Sochi 2014, it would be impossible for anyone to continue to perpetuate the myth that a larger ice surface would create more offense. The Canadian team, which allowed three goals in the tournament and outchanced its opponents badly, proved beyond any doubt that the extra 3,000 square feet afforded by the big ice is largely wasted space."

[CommodoreColt 19]

I hate to keep this going guys, but this is a fun read: http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/big-ice-a-big-failure-when-it-comes-to-creating-offense/

Favourite paragraph: "But, by far, the biggest culprit in dragging the tournament down was the international-sized ice surface. After watching Sochi 2014, it would be impossible for anyone to continue to perpetuate the myth that a larger ice surface would create more offense. The Canadian team, which allowed three goals in the tournament and outchanced its opponents badly, proved beyond any doubt that the extra 3,000 square feet afforded by the big ice is largely wasted space."

I read that as well and thought there were some good observations made about Olympic ice. I found the comparison to soccer fields and the low pace/scoring of matches to be a good (not perfect, but still quite good) aid to visualize the points being made about open vs. confined space. Definitely a recommended read for anyone with a post in this thread.

I have read that many arena rinks in Finland are somewhere in between NHL dimensions and Olympic dimensions. Something to watch out for us observers who want to pay a little more attention to the European game to draw a better conclusion about large and small ice surfaces.

Personally, watching the Olympic tournament I observed less risky, daring offense and more idle puck moving and waiting around the boards and blueline... quite a bit like soccer, actually. I want to watch a lot more European pro games to see if I'm really seeing what's going on.

[DigiV 6]

This is all completely ludicrous and shows how ridiculous people can be.

So, because this tournament was a low scoring affair it automatically negates all the other tournaments held previously? all the tournaments and olympics previously held on larger ice? Get the f/ck out. Seriously, these guys are concluding all this based on 1 tournament? That article obviously has a bone to pick with the tons of people urging the NHL to attempt a bigger ice experiment.

i don't know why this automatic conclusion that more goals=more entertaining game??? where does this come from? I don't care if there are 20 goals a game if it the game itself is boring to watch, or just not very engaging to casual viewers. This analogy with soccer is so goddamn garbage considering soccer is the most popular sport ON THE PLANET by a long shot and it is the lowest scoring out of all major sports. Hilarious.

I'm watching the heritage classic right now.. look at the size of this ice in respect to the rest of the stadium, it really shows you how goddamn small it is. Here are full grown men, some of the best athletes in the world, confined to this tiny damn space... wtf? It looks like a postage stamp. Been watching a solid 10min here and i've seen nothing even close to what i saw in Sochi (even between the lesser teams). No one skates with the damn puck, they cross center of the ice and they have to dump it in. It's a dump in 90% of the time, this is supposed to be what good hockey is?

[chippa13 1844]

You don't like it. We get it. Stop watching. You won't be missed.

[chk hrd 164]

You have told everyone your opinion from watching the game Olympic vs NHL. Have you ever actually played on both? Regardless of the size the NHL coaches would find a way to minimizes scoring chances for the other team. In the NHL the game wouldn't change much because of the size. It would be played the NHL way, not the International style. The extra width wouldn't have much effect except maybe for some passing. You won't get many scoring chances from the wall. The depth you loose on the blue would hurt D scoring chances. Yes players are bigger, stronger, faster but when you play the game there is still a lot of ice to work with.

[wrangler 157]

I don't see anyone being convinced to change his mind here. This thread looks more like venting, at this point.

[CommodoreColt 19]

The MSH Official Confirmation Bias Thread

[grnmtnvt 18]

THERE IS NO BIAS HERE...

[DigiV 6]

You have told everyone your opinion from watching the game Olympic vs NHL. Have you ever actually played on both? Regardless of the size the NHL coaches would find a way to minimizes scoring chances for the other team. In the NHL the game wouldn't change much because of the size. It would be played the NHL way, not the International style. The extra width wouldn't have much effect except maybe for some passing. You won't get many scoring chances from the wall. The depth you loose on the blue would hurt D scoring chances. Yes players are bigger, stronger, faster but when you play the game there is still a lot of ice to work with.

I have played on both, at a younger age in my prime and now playing mens league. The time i played a month in europe when i was younger was awesome, the adjustment was substantial but when i came back i found myself to be much faster (initially).

I would never want to play on an olympic size ice now, hell no. Too big for your average mens league game. But like i said i'm not really venting about having olympic size ice, i'm talking about an increase to the NHL size which to me is too small for the pros. An in-between compromise would be the best middle ground for the league. I don't think styles would change too much, it would give guys just a bit more room to skate.

[Hordie Gowe 17]

The ice in the nhl needs to get bigger cuz if the KHL starts getting better that league will take over

Take over where? Europe? North America? I'll find some streams and contact Direct TV to find the programming so I can start having KHL viewing in my establishments during the day. I'm sure we will pack them in for the Lev V Spartak tilt because it is played on international ice. I'm already looking forward to buying a new boat to cruise the lake this summer from this sure fire venture, I'll make sure to name the boat "Kontinental". It will be just a matter of time until we watch tape delayed KHL games instead of the Detroit Red Wings live and I'm just happy to get in on this on the ground floor. Now off to the marina, the only question is how big of a Four Winns boat should I get, tough decisions to make.....

[DigiV 6]

Take over where? Europe? North America? I'll find some streams and contact Direct TV to find the programming so I can start having KHL viewing in my establishments during the day. I'm sure we will pack them in for the Lev V Spartak tilt because it is played on international ice. I'm already looking forward to buying a new boat to cruise the lake this summer from this sure fire venture, I'll make sure to name the boat "Kontinental". It will be just a matter of time until we watch tape delayed KHL games instead of the Detroit Red Wings live and I'm just happy to get in on this on the ground floor. Now off to the marina, the only question is how big of a Four Winns boat should I get, tough decisions to make.....

As facetious as i was being... lets continue to play along.

Russia has what? 130 million something people in that country? All that love hockey. Throw in the entire nation of Sweden, Finland, Czech, Slovakia, all big hockey countries and it's not that far off to assume a european hockey league becoming a real threat to the NA game. Futbol doesn't need america to be the biggest and most popular game in Europe, or in the world, and hockey could reasonably become a huge entity, so big it becomes the second most popular sport in europe.

Don't be fooled by the recent surge in profits and viewership in the NHL, it's still a long ways off from contesting the other three major sports in North America.

[tareatingrat 4]

The MSH Official Confirmation Bias Thread

Isn't that every forum thread, ever? Or...the Internet in general?

:) Made me laugh.

Anyway, I thought the international ice would have made for a better game. I was bored out of my mind watching these Olympics, so my mind has changed a bit in that regard.

I do, however, prefer watching more of a skilled game without all of the obstruction and interference that normally accompanies a game.

[grnmtnvt 18]

If arena capacity and attendance is any indication of Russia's love of hockey and the ability of the KHL to compete- the 5500 average attendance league wide last year and the fact that only 8/28 stadiums have a capacity larger than 10,000 puts it in a completely other class of revenue base. People may love hockey in Russia, but it's a business and the money just isn't there beyond the billionaires that prop up the league. SKA St. Petersburg has the highest average attendance in the KHL and that's 9,400. Compare that to the NHL, with Chicago at 22,900 being the highest and a league average of 17,700, you can't even compare the support of the two leagues on the attendance factor, let alone the value of tv contracts and mechandise sales. And, there's potential grassroots growth in lots of markets in the US (California, Pacific Northwest, Pennsylvania/Virginia/NC and the Midwest). If they can't sell hockey in Russia now...why would it get any better?

Sweden, Finland, Czech and Slovakia combined are smaller than California in population (30 million to 38 million for CA) and that's a far more emerging hockey market with potential for growth (LA, Anaheim, San Jose) than the established markets of those countries that aren't just going to give up on the SHL or the SM-Liiga when the KHL comes knocking. One team in Jokerit coming from one of the better European leagues, moving to the KHL is a far cry from a pan-European hockey league that can seriously compete against the NHL for players and viewers. Look at the KHLs newest team in Croatia, they're all cast-off NHL/AHL players, at best, and they are a team in the playoff hunt in the KHL. We are easily decades away from seeing any real competition, if it even gets there. Plus, it is disingenious to think that those countries are all mono-sport countries with only taking people's interest. I would bet money that soccer is equally well viewed/attended in Sweden and the Czech Republic specifically, as they both have excellent national teams and prominent players on world-class teams abroad.

I don't think anyone who knows anything about sports in the US would claim that hockey is anywhere near the NFL, NBA, or MLB, but by the same token, I don't think there's anyone who can make a real solid argument that from a financial basis (attendance, mechandise, viewership, and tv deals), there is any real competition to the NHL anywhere in the world- oligarch money aside.

Maybe that low attendance has something to do with the rink size :)

As facetious as i was being... lets continue to play along.

Russia has what? 130 million something people in that country? All that love hockey. Throw in the entire nation of Sweden, Finland, Czech, Slovakia, all big hockey countries and it's not that far off to assume a european hockey league becoming a real threat to the NA game. Futbol doesn't need america to be the biggest and most popular game in Europe, or in the world, and hockey could reasonably become a huge entity, so big it becomes the second most popular sport in europe.

Don't be fooled by the recent surge in profits and viewership in the NHL, it's still a long ways off from contesting the other three major sports in North America.

[Larry54 243]

Isn't that every forum thread, ever? Or...the Internet in general?

:) Made me laugh.

Anyway, I thought the international ice would have made for a better game. I was bored out of my mind watching these Olympics, so my mind has changed a bit in that regard.

I do, however, prefer watching more of a skilled game without all of the obstruction and interference that normally accompanies a game.

We keep mentioning rink width as being the main difference, but I'm starting to wonder if the shorter offensive zones have as much or more of an effect on the boring play that we witnessed in the Olympics.

[grnmtnvt 18]

Agreed. I mentioned earlier that by reducing the distance from the net to the blue line and moving the net farther from the end boards, the overall size of the effective scoring area is reduced significantly. Effectively, teams have a smaller scoring area to defend and bunch up and as we witnessed in the Olympic games, allow skilled teams to play around with the puck on the half-boards and corners but keep away from the scoring areas in tight and in the slot.

We keep mentioning rink width as being the main difference, but I'm starting to wonder if the shorter offensive zones have as much or more of an effect on the boring play that we witnessed in the Olympics.

[DarkStar50 679]

I recall Tuomo Ruutu's reply when he was asked the difference between playing in SM-Liiga and playing in the NHL: "In Finland I can take a pass and think of my next move. In the NHL I have to think of my next move before I take the pass."

[DigiV 6]

I recall Tuomo Ruutu's reply when he was asked the difference between playing in SM-Liiga and playing in the NHL: "In Finland I can take a pass and think of my next move. In the NHL I have to think of my next move before I take the pass."

Is that supposed to be a good thing? I'd like skilled players to have a bit more time with the puck to make a nice play, what's wrong with that? Damn, by this logic let's decease the rink size even further, let's see more hurried up plays, obstruction, grinding, bounces, etc.

I love seeing people pass judgement on the bigger ice from watching this past olympics and forgetting all the other times. Funny.

[grnmtnvt 18]

Skilled players having more time really means giving less skilled players time to obstruct, box out, and bore.

It isn't funny, you started the thread based on these Olympics, not the 2013 World Championships on international ice in Sweden/Finland. I think you discount the possibility that individuals on this forum watch other international competitions or leagues, which there are many- WJC in Europe, Spangler Cup, SHL playoffs, World Championships, etc. These criticisms of international ice aren't new. But, the most salient is the last major one being the olympics, which is why people are talking about it. And to be fair, that tournament unquestionably had the best pool of talent. You can't argue that lowering the talent level is going to do anything for making it more entertaining and fun to watch.

Is that supposed to be a good thing? I'd like skilled players to have a bit more time with the puck to make a nice play, what's wrong with that? Damn, by this logic let's decease the rink size even further, let's see more hurried up plays, obstruction, grinding, bounces, etc.

I love seeing people pass judgement on the bigger ice from watching this past olympics and forgetting all the other times. Funny.

[DarkStar50 679]

DigiV, don't be so sensitive. Ruutu's point is that it takes more skill in your mental game to play on the NHL rink. The game is faster and requires quicker decision making on the NHL rink. Ruutu is not giving logic to make a rink smaller. This observation from Ruutu is from a player who doesn't watch the game on Olympic and NHL size rinks. It is from a player that plays at the elite level in Olympic and NHL rinks.

I'm just curious: What year did you start watching NHL hockey?