Hockey Canada goes camping

Today's the big day. Forty-six NHLers are in Calgary for a little Olympics-related shinny, and you better believe all of the hockey coverage this week is going to centre on who's there and what they're doing.
Me, I'm not overly excited about the whole exercise, as we're still months from Steve Yzerman having to pick a team, but I did sit in for a few minutes on Hockey Canada's conference call on Friday. President Bob Nicholson was asked, essentially, what's this camp for?
What's the one or two things that you most want to learn from this camp?
I think what we want to learn, I guess, is making sure that the players get to know each other better. We've got a lot of young players here, that haven't met some of the veteran players, we want them to be at ease with them. Remember, when we go into the Olympic Games in Vancouver, those players will fly in, will have one practice and then we play. So better that they get to know each other (now) ... on the logistical side, from the security, how to handle the Olympics, apparrel fitting, there's a whole bunch of that information, that'll all get done. So, there's a lot there, and on-ice is important, but it certainly isn't the only thing we're looking at.
In other words, it's a meet and greet with some jersey sizing thrown inbetween.
Not exactly edge of your seat stuff.
For the curious, here's a look at the two rosters Hockey Canada will use for the on-ice portion of the camp (note that Team White has more likely Olympians on it). Ryan Getzlaf is sitting this part out given he's coming off surgery, and Jason Spezza's been named in his place. And, as noted earlier, for some reason Andy McDonald, Derek Roy et al are there instead of Marc Savard.
The No. 1 thing that I think this team needs to sort out over the next couple days is what system the coaching staff will use. Given Mike Babcock's in charge, it'll be pretty interesting to see if Canada attempts to play a Red Wings type puck control game.
He's got the cast in order to try and replicate what Detroit does, that's for sure.
0 recs |
21 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
Ya know...
…The guy in the photo there is probably still better than 2/3 of the players that are at the camp…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Aug 24, 2009 1:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
With Canada’s depth it’s a shame they can’t field two men’s hockey teams for the Olympics.
MG
by puckreport on Aug 24, 2009 1:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That begs an interesting question. What would be the preferred way of splitting two teams? A team A (top 25 players) and a team B (next best 25 players), or best of the west vs. best of the east?
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Aug 24, 2009 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’d be fascinating to see how a Team B could do.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Aug 24, 2009 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where I’m from a group of parents/coaches started a B team for those not selected for A travel team hockey, due to foolish politics (ie coach’s son making it, personal grudged) or skill level. After a few years the “B” team routinely would beat the initial selected players and almost always placed above them in tournaments. Interesting how that worked out
I’m sure it wouldn’t be quite the same for Canada, since they have the deepest talent pool of individual players, but it would be something.
Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*
*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night
by Hooks Orpik on Aug 24, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that story could be told anywhere there’s kids hockey, Hooks.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Aug 24, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like bobsleigh or other events where some countries have more than one team compete for a single medal, I assume the first team would have the pick of the litter for coaches, sponsors, and talent, but that doesn’t mean the second team couldn’t beat them when the competition actually takes place.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Aug 24, 2009 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And in that vein, the sport in which Canada would benefit the most from if more than one team per country were allowed wouldn’t be hockey, it’d be curling. I don’t know why the rules for curling, where a rink is made up of 4 regulars and a spare, are different than the 4 man bobsleigh crew, or pairs figure skating, or what have you.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Aug 24, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s easy to add more competitors to a timed or scored event, because the time required grows linearly as the number of competitors increases. Sports where teams play against each other one at a time grow exponentially as the number of teams increases. (ie. adding one team means adding a lot more games)
by RyanV on Aug 24, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure they could just boot out Latvia to make room for a second Canadian entry.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Aug 24, 2009 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Legit point or not, I don’t want to make Arturs Irbe cry.
by Afino on Aug 24, 2009 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please, I’d take Latvia over Norway any day.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Aug 24, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They could put on a larger bonspiel if they changed the format of the tournament to a more knockoff tournament style (which I’ve seen used at various curling bonspiels), but they don’t because that’s not how international curling has been contested, even if such a format would insure the best rinks in the world would get a chance to compete at the Olympics. Instead, they want every rink to play each other once, and then pick the 4 best rinks from that to do a playoff. A tennis style rankings/seeding system would work well with the time limits if they wanted to, insuring a large field of competitors, with some countries sending 2 or 3 rinks.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Aug 24, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Canada should try to win consecutive golds first before it starts talking about fielding more than one team…
by DungeonK on Aug 24, 2009 7:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Do you deny that Canada’s B team would be head and shoulders above any other nation’s B team?
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Aug 24, 2009 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know our C team could really trash a hotel room.
by yrmom on Aug 24, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s just more a question of depth of talent than winning a five or six game tournament every four years. If they allowed a second Canadian team to go through some sort of qualifying process against the teams ranked eighth and lower in th world, there’d be no contest.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Aug 24, 2009 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When >50% of the greatest hockey league on the planet is from Canada there is no question that they could put out two awesome teams. But wouldn’t you rather have one godly team? Especially this year with the insane top 6 the Russians are bringing- every team will need all the help it can get.
by DungeonK on Aug 25, 2009 9:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They could still bring the “godly” team. The leftovers could make an interesting run in a tournament like this.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Aug 25, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is starting to sound more and more like a made-for-TV movie
by DarrenM on Aug 26, 2009 1:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still not sold on Russian goaltending.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Aug 25, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















