The panel opinion on Toronto’s sports station, The Fan 590, was that this may well have saved women’s hockey as an Olympic sport, the theory being that the endless parade of ghastly crucifixions by the Canadians and Americans of every other team - especially European teams, the Olympics being a largely European-run event - followed by the inevitable Canada-USA final, would have doomed the sport beyond 2010. They can’t keep sponsoring a sport where only two counties have a hope in hell.
But now suddenly it’s not a Canada-USA final. Surely this is good for women’s hockey?
The sport is certainly in better shape than it was 24 hours ago, that’s for sure but canada has still outscored opponents 42-1 enroute to the final. I mean sure, I love the fact that Canada is pretty much unbeatable but I’d much prefer them to beat quality opponents. Although Sweden has clearly made some strides, I think the US isn’t the team it had been in the past. They didn’t have a very long camp and they got rid of a lot of their older players.
I learned from the announcers today that the NWHL (that I didn’t even know existed until this afternoon) only allows a few (I think 2) non north american players per team. This hardly fosters the growth of other nations. How else will the players be allowed to develop. Womans hockey has a long way to go before it’s as competative as the mens is.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that Sweden’s victory over the United States looks more like a stay of execution to me. If improvement doesn’t continue in Vancouver I think it’s out.
If women’s hockey were growing, booming, thriving, then it MIGHT be a healthy thing to see a nation other than the USA or Canada in the finals.
I mean, the fact that other countries now have a legitimate shot at winning the gold medal in basketball is a sign of how much basketball has grown and improved around the world. So, David Stern was probably (secretly) delighted to see Argentina kncok off the USA at the last Olympics.
What’s different here?
Sweden is already a country in which hockey is widely played and very popular. It’s not going to get more popular just because of this.
Hockey in general is NOT growing, and women’s hockey remains unappealing to TV audiencea round the world. The presence of Sweden won’t make a Mexican or Indian or Australian more likely to pay attention.
I don’t think Mexico, India and Australia really matter much. If they did there wouldn’t even be Winter Olympics. Europe really rules the games (as is eveidenced by baseball and softball being dropped). This will help for the time being, but it’ll almost certainly go back to U.S. vs Canada next time. If European teams do well in men’s hockey it might actually help more as it would keep hockey at the fore and the womens’ game could be kept in the interest of gender equity.
I would disput the Miracle 2 designation as well. The U.S.S.R. was the overwhelming favorite for the gold in 1980 while the U.S. team of college all-stars was a long shot for a bronze. Here we have the 4 seed upsetting the 2 seed in a shoot-out. A surprise, but nothing that astonishing.
I have to disagree. The gap between the second and third teams in this tournament was massive. The American record versus teams not named Canada was 60-0-2.
On paper, it looks like a 4 beating a 2 but the difference here is so much greater. The Miracle designation is correct.
I have to pipe in with Kid_A here. I don’t think you really appreciate the difference here. “Fourth seed” in women’s hockey was, up to this point, utterly meaningless. Until yesterday, there were two teams that could win, and everyone else was a chump.
Calling it a “miracle” is harsh and unfair. You’re using the word like there wasn’t any effort put into the game, but just a play of odds and sheer luck.
I don’t know if you watched the end of the game, but the Swedish goalkeep Kim Martin did a terrific job throughout. Apparently, the whole team has been training very hard to be where they are.
Might as well be Canada vs. USA again next time. Or it won’t. I can’t see how Sweden beating USA wouldn’t be inspiring for the international lady players, even if the countries with a big hockey culture are few.
What the hell? Then calling the US victory over the Soviets at Lake Placid the Miracle on Ice is also harsh and unfair, and yet that’s what it’s been called for 26 years. RickJay is simply comparing the Swedish win to that one. And it is comparable. In the past dozen or however many years that the women’s world championship have been held, Canada and the US have played for gold, and everyone else has played for bronze. The contests have been somewhat similar to a tournament featuring 2 NBA teams playing against a bunch of college teams.
I don’t know how much it will change things. If Sweden manages to keep it close against Canada it may, but if Canada and the US both blow out their opponents in the medal games, it may be seen (unjustifiably) as a fluke. Unjustifiably because I saw the game, and while the US team did simply never play to their potential, much like the Soviets in '80, the Swedish team won that game - it wasn’t just the US team losing. Kim Martin stood on her head, and her team played brilliantly in front of her. They had more and better chances to score throughout the the overtime period. It wasn’t like they just barely hung on and then lucked out in a shootout.
Ultimately, what has to happen for women’s hockey to become more competitive is for more women in other countries to play the sport at a grassroots level, which up till now just hasn’t been happening, even in “hockey countries” like Sweden, Finland, Russia, and the Czech Republic.
I just have to point out that Maria Rooth(both regulation goals and the shootout winner) and Erika Holst played college hockey at the school I went to.
In response to the question in the OP, yes I think this will save womens hockey. For as long as there has been international play in womens hockey the only 2 countries that could play were Canada and the US.
Everyone had to realize that it was only a matter of time before Sweden, Finland and Russia started to catch up. You can make an argument that the US should have included Granato on their team, but the fact is Sweden played very well (I was lucky enough to catch the whole game). Will they beat Canada, who trounced Finland in the other semi? I doubt it, but the fact is the rest of the world is catching up - just as it is in mens hockey (witness the Swiss beating Canada -granted DiPeitro is Canadian born).
Womens hockey will be reviewed after Vancouver to determine if it should remain in the games. I would be willing to bet that a team that is not from North America will win a world championship before 2010. The question then remains is having only 4 or 5 strong teams enough to keep the games in the Olymics? I think it is, even if only for a while.
Well, yes. To be fair, I had never heard of that name before. Is it an American invention? To me it sounds as if the “miracle” is capitalism winning over foreign regimes, like when Owens triumphed in Germany in 1936.
I still think the word “miracle” don’t do the players justice. On the other hand, that’s what we pay them for.
I guess I think of things a bit different up here in “The State of Hockey” tm. Minnesota was one of the first states to “allow” women’s hockey, and if you look at the rosters of various teams you’ll find a good proportion of each has matriculated from a MN university. A couple of months ago the US women’s hockey team played an exhibition match against the boys hockey team in Warroad (look it up) and lost. Everyone tried to play it off as “Yeah, well, all those boys have played together since kindergarden…”, but I saw that as the writing on the wall. I am EXHORBITANTLY happy that someone besides US/Canada is going for the gold, just as I am EXHORBITANTLY happy that someone besides a US woman won that snowboarding gold: It ain’t all about us. And that’s as it should be.
