The headlines read “Czechia stuns Canada,” and before that, “Latvia shocks Team Canada in biggest upset in history of WJC.”
After two straight quarterfinal defeats at the hands of Czechia, and some wildly uneven play from this version of Team Canada this week in Ottawa overall, it’s about time Hockey Canada takes a long look at how it prepares and selects teams for huge international events like the world junior hockey championship.
The rest of the world has caught up to its “program of excellence” model from the past. The United States, for example, has a development model that starts at the grassroots level and runs all the way up to their national teams. The USNTDP, based out of Plymouth, Mich., is churning out elite-level talent year after year. By the time they arrive on the big stage like the WJC, they are a well-oiled, structured machine. Naysayers will challenge me and suggest the Americans lost to Finland in the preliminary round, but the difference between Canada and the U.S. wasn’t really close in this tournament overall.
Over the coming days, weeks and months, fans of Canadian hockey will thrust criticism towards the Hockey Canada brass and the way they selected this team. I agree that players like Zayne Parekh, Andrew Cristall, Beckett Sennecke, Michael Misa and Carter Yakemchuk — amongst others — could have been selected for this team. But the reality is this team had enough skill on its roster to overcome opponents like Czechia if it had game-planned the right way and played with team discipline.
This team lacked an identity. They didn’t have a game plan, or consistent compete level, to wear down their opponents and allow their skill to rise to the occasion. The best version of this team was on full display in the final 20 minutes versus Czechia. But it’s hard to play with the tenacity they displayed when their tournament lives were on the line, over the course of an entire tournament.
For those who were watching the games closely, I challenge you to identify who Canada relied upon to play a heavy, physical brand of hockey. Who were the most consistent play drivers offensively? Who would you identify as the transitional defenceman/play driver who attacked with and without the puck on a consistent basis?
This group of players wasn’t prepared properly for this challenge.
Hockey Canada
It’s time for Hockey Canada to take a long look at why other nations have caught and surpassed them at the WJC. What do they do well? What can we learn from how they prepare their teams?
It will take an open mind. People will have to check their stubbornness and egos at the door in order to implement the required changes.
From a distance, I watched how Hockey Canada’s brass addressed the media. Their top executive, Scott Salmond, shouldered most of the blame. Salmond is Hockey Canada’s senior vice president of high performance and hockey operations. He indicated he was “extremely disappointed” and “apologetic” for Team Canada’s performance.
Assuming the buck truly stops with Salmond, he needs to address the way his program goes about their business on many levels. It has to include how he identifies head coaching candidates and scout’s prospects for the roster.
Head Coach
It starts with naming a head coach who is open to allowing a team of Canada’s top talent to play to their identity. Dave Cameron can stand by his decision-making all he wants, but the reality is this group included some of the top scorers in the CHL and ended up with a forward group whose leading goal scorer was Bradly Nadeau with a grand total of two tucks.
The way Cameron assembled the forward lines, for example, was puzzling. He looked for balance throughout. It appeared he was more interested in relying on the potential depth of the roster to hopefully wear down opponents. They were structured to play a very conservative style.
Far too often they seemed satisfied to direct shots on net from the outside. They didn’t create chances in high-danger areas on a consistent basis until the third period against Czechia and ended the tournament with an abysmal, tournament-worst 6.34 shooting percentage. (Kazakhstan lost to Germany in the relegation round. Their shooting percentage was 11.70 per cent in the tournament, for comparison.)
Hockey fans, media and members of the hockey community are frustrated that certain players weren’t named to Team Canada. I would argue that it might not have mattered who was named to the team based upon how Cameron wanted the group to play.
Salmond has to reflect upon the reason why he selected Cameron as the head coach. The fit wasn’t there for this group of players. Who else did he have on his list? Would someone else have been more aggressive and progressive?
Selection Process
Salmond’s management group, and head scout Al Murray, are steadfast in their belief that they had a plan to pick a certain kind of roster for this event. Murray stated they didn’t want “one-dimensional players” on the roster. They identified players who would bring skill and detail to the team.
The irony, as we now know, is the strategy worked in reverse. Team Canada might not have wanted one-dimensional players but that’s exactly what they got. The group lacked a consistent identity. There wasn’t a single category that stood out to me. They weren’t overly physical. Their power play was spotty. They didn’t generate offence. They looked frustrated and confused throughout the tournament.
This version of Team Canada morphed into a group that resembled plumbers instead of surgeons.
I’m confused as to why the team wouldn’t stack its lineup to include the most skilled, versatile, high-octane players Canada has to offer. Why wouldn’t they want their opponents to look at the roster and immediately scramble to attempt to figure out how they are going to defend against a team that pushes the pace with skill and imposes more will?
After watching how this team was selected, prepared and ultimately coached, I would have taken more risk in front of their best player — goaltender Carter George — and forced opponents back on their heels with a relentless deployment of high-end skill.
There’s always a chance the results could have been the same. But at least Canada would have walked away knowing it iced the very best team possible and put them in front of a cutting-edge coach with a more creative approach.
It’s time to shelve the cocky/confident approach of the past. Hockey Canada has to evolve. Other nations have caught up with their team-building strategies and structure. Imagine if Russia was part of the WJC and how much worse these last two results could have been?
