[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Canadian culture and identity is clearly under attack

Meh, eliminated two years in a row now.  I think we got the message Canadian kids are no longer the only ones who know how to play the game.

That hasn't been in dispute for a number of years.

The problem is - loses to US and Latvia(!) in group play, loss to a weak Czechia in the quarter final.

[HVC]

Too expensive to play indoors, too hot to play outdoors. I blame global warming.

[crazy canuck]

For many years there were only a couple of countries who were competitive with our kids.  Now, as you point out, we lose to the likes of Latvia. I have heard a lot of theories as to why our kids are no longer elite in the world.  The one that sounds like it is plausible is that only rich kids can make it through all the camps and select teams because only their parents can pay all those additional costs.  And as a result the pool of potential players has become diminished from years past.

I have no idea if that is accurate.  What is your take?

[Valmy]

JFK trouncing Nixon because he looked better on tv,

It was one of the closest elections in history 

[HVC]

JFK trouncing Nixon because he looked better on tv,

It was one of the closest elections in history 

Quiet you, let the myth live on

[Neil]

I'd be hesitant to draw too deep a conclusion based on two results.  It's possible that coaching could be an issue.  Looking at the the top tiers of the NHL entry draft, it's still littered with Canadian boys, so it would appear that the pro scouts haven't lost faith in the relative quality of Canadian players. 

[Barrister]

For many years there were only a couple of countries who were competitive with our kids.  Now, as you point out, we lose to the likes of Latvia. I have heard a lot of theories as to why our kids are no longer elite in the world.  The one that sounds like it is plausible is that only rich kids can make it through all the camps and select teams because only their parents can pay all those additional costs.  And as a result the pool of potential players has become diminished from years past.

I have no idea if that is accurate.  What is your take?

So look - developing elite athletes is very expensive.

A lot of people bemoan the good ole days, when Gordie Howe could train by working on his parents farm, and players were having darts in between periods.  That could work back then, but not now with what we know of elite player development now.

We're going through that with our kids now.  Tim is 14, playing AA, was last cut for AAA.  It would be his WHL draft year (he's not getting drafted playing AA).  We also have a Junior A player in our house as a billet.  We've also talked with other parents.

The most common pathway to going to junior hockey would be the hockey academies - dedicated hockey schools that combine both your academic and hockey education.  Problem is - they cost about $30-$40k per year.  And even then most of those kids don't go anywhere.

Our Junior A player went to a hockey academy.  Tim did not - but honestly his hockey probably cost us about $10k (a bargain!) last year.

The thing is though - who should pay to develop elite hockey players?  Should we really be subsidizing kids to go to $40k per year hockey academies?  I don't think so - not as a general rule.  The benefits of becoming an elite hockey player fall mostly on the player themselves, and not on the wider society (other than the vague national contentment we get from winning international hockey).

So I have two observations.  Neither are directly mine, but heard from smarter hockey people than me.

1. The National Development Team model.  The US has the National Development Team, based out of Michigan.  Basically they do try to identify the best 17 and 18 year old players, put them on a team, and have them form the nucleus of future US national teams.  My understanding is that while the World Juniors are a U21 game, most of those kids went through the USNDT team.

The thing is though those kids all went through really expensive youth hockey programs before the NDT.  They're not picking kids off of frozen ponds.

But still - there's probably some merit to selecting the best of the best kids Canadian kids, and rather then spreading them out all across CHL teams, concentrating them on one team.  You are however subsidizing some already rich kids.

2. Team selection / Hockey Canada.  Lots of criticism here.  My 18 year old player (who is right in this age category, even if he was never going to the World Juniors) was critical here.  Hockey Canada is still very political.  They were widely criticized for not taking a number of the leading scorers from junior, all in the claim of "team chemistry".  "Team chemistry" of course can be code words for just about anything, however.


The fundamental criticism though?  What about the mythical "next Gretzky" whose parents are poor?  I don't know what you do about that.  We do have several programs that make at least playing hockey reasonably affordable - but you're not going to create superstars with a 1 hour practice and 1 hour game per week.

[Grey Fox]

We have development problems because of cost. Luckily the NCAA is going to fix it itself by happenstance.

This years team was badly constructed and badly coached by one of the worse elite coach. Hockey Canada has a total lack of understanding how the game is officiated at these international events and builds team like they are in the CHL. And ignores the Q.

[Barrister]

We have development problems because of cost. Luckily the NCAA is going to fix it itself by happenstance.

This years team was badly constructed and badly coached by one of the worse elite coach. Hockey Canada has a total lack of understanding how the game is officiated at these international events and builds team like they are in the CHL. And ignores the Q.

Funny - I heard they ignore the W.

Lots of development though happens well before age 18.  NCAA is a good development model - but they have their own priorities anyways (which aren't developing pros).  Development from 18+ is obviously important - it's what distinguishes an NHL draft bust from an NHL superstar - but is hardly the only bit of the story.

Like I hinted on - is there a way to identify budding superstars at ages 6-12 and give them the tools to develop?  I don't see it.

There is the more European soccer academy system which does do this - but it's very, very different from north America.  They will take surprisingly young kids and develop them - but you kind of become "team property", and the team owns your rights, either to force you to play with them, or they can sell your rights to someone else.

And the next question - is there a way to take all the really good kids ages, I dunno - 12-16, and help them develop so they can then take the next step into junior hockey?

[Grey Fox]

One of the ways I foresee is that the new NCAA rule is going to drain the CHL of 20 and 21 years old. These players could be replaced by 16 years old, jump starting development of some of these kids.

[Barrister]

One of the ways I foresee is that the new NCAA rule is going to drain the CHL of 20 and 21 years old. These players could be replaced by 16 years old, jump starting development of some of these kids.

Not so sure about that.  CHL is already limited in how may over-age players.  They can have a max of three 20 year olds (not 21 year olds) on the roster.

CHL is almost always going to want to have those players too.  20 year old men are just always going to be more imposing than 16 year old kids.

[Grey Fox]

They can't pay them. Colleges can and will.

[Barrister]

They can't pay them. Colleges can and will.

NCAA hockey isn't football or basketball.  There are a lot of questions about how opening up NCAA hockey to CHL players will go - and whether there's any meaningful NIL money is definitely one of them.

[crazy canuck]

The fundamental criticism though?  What about the mythical "next Gretzky" whose parents are poor?  I don't know what you do about that.  We do have several programs that make at least playing hockey reasonably affordable - but you're not going to create superstars with a 1 hour practice and 1 hour game per week.

Thanks for your whole post!

In relation to this one bit, in basketball it is pretty clear who has the athletic ability to go on to the next level (college).  It is not so much about skills at the earlier ages, although the basics of being able to dribble and shoot need to be there.  A good coach can teach the advanced skills to a talented athlete later on.

My sense of it is that hockey is a bit different. The main differentiator are the skills a player has and there is less of a difference amongst players regarding athletic ability. The Great One is a good example of this.  Nobody would mistake him for being a great athlete.  He was all skill. So to your point, how does a young player then develop their skills if all the good coaching and ice time goes to the kids who can pay for the expensive camps.

[Barrister]

The fundamental criticism though?  What about the mythical "next Gretzky" whose parents are poor?  I don't know what you do about that.  We do have several programs that make at least playing hockey reasonably affordable - but you're not going to create superstars with a 1 hour practice and 1 hour game per week.

Thanks for your whole post!

In relation to this one bit, in basketball it is pretty clear who has the athletic ability to go on to the next level (college).  It is not so much about skills at the earlier ages, although the basics of being able to dribble and shoot need to be there.  A good coach can teach the advanced skills to a talented athlete later on.

My sense of it is that hockey is a bit different. The main differentiator are the skills a player has and there is less of a difference amongst players regarding athletic ability. The Great One is a good example of this.  Nobody would mistake him for being a great athlete.  He was all skill. So to your point, how does a young player then develop their skills if all the good coaching and ice time goes to the kids who can pay for the expensive camps.

So you can't sleep too much on Gretzky's athletic ability.  There is the time where he absolutely smoked Pele, Bjorn Borg and Sugar Ray Leonard in a 60 m race.

https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/throwback-wayne-gretzky-showcases-raw-speed-against-the-worlds-best-athletes/

But yes - his game was about skill, not size or speed (though he certainly wasn't slow).  Basketball and football are much more about raw size and athleticism than hockey is, although I in no way wish to diminish the skill of those athletes.  In particular in football though - you can get some huge kid who has never played before high school and can wind up being a star O-lineman.

So I think I mentioned the one year I head coached a team of 6 year olds (the rest of the time I've only ever assistant coached).  One of my kids was the son of an Oilers coach (and his mom played high level women's hockey).  So maybe genetics was part of it, or maybe the fact this kid got tons of ice time and elite level coaching from day one, but he was just scary good.  Our goalies at that level didn't wear goalie gear (we'd swap kids in and out to get everyone a chance) - and I kind of worried about our goalies from his shot.

So there's a tournament held in Edmonton every summer - for 9-10 year olds.  They bring kids out from all over the continent.  Just looking at last year - they had teams from Toronto, Boston, CHicago, Montreal, Vancouver - as well as AB, SK and MB (and others).  They're actually very successful at identifying kids who then go on to be very successful - Steve Stamkos, Mitch Marner, and Austen Matthews played in the Brick Invitational (and I could have named a lot of other players you'd know).

Again though - those are all kids of rich families.  No 9 year old is being given a free ride to travel to Edmonton in July from Boston.