What? During the Olympics we all talked about how the larger international surface was more conducive to scoring, but now it's better defensively? I don't get it.

i dont buy that for a second. heres my theory.

smaller ice surface means less room, yes, but the puck is almost always in a more prime scoring location. secondly, the larger ice surface means more room, so players are likely to play a less physical game, and more positioning. so, when theres a positioning defense in front of you, what do you do? you cycle. and cycle, and keep the puck to the outside. think of how the devils play defense, and how the red wings play offense when its set up. so, more passing. more puck possession, less transition game. the puck is on the perimeter more, and the perimeter is further from the net then in north america.

thats my theory.

_________________

Except that the larger ice surface allows for more movement, and less ability for the defense to collapse and clog.

ah ha, but the larger ice surface means more room between passes and player, therefore more reaction time.

this is fun. keep this going. (i mean this in a nice way, this actually is fun)

_________________

The Soviet Union national team averaged 6.67 GPG from 1956-1992 playing on the larger ice surface. I'd say that it's more slanted to the offense.

the soviet nation team played in an era was the rule, not an exception. the style of play was vastly different, and they also had extremely successful breakout plays (per ken drydens account).. they would have scored many many goals on an ice surface the size of a cinderblock.

_________________

I just can't agree with this. The larger international surface has long been cited as a way for the NHL to IMPROVE scoring, albiet something that would never be done because of the lost seats.

I just can't fathom how this would be a defensive benefit.

in a transition game, id agree with you. the open space would promote more skating and skill to show. that being said, in a dump and chase game, set up shop and cycle the puck.

_________________

I could care less if Kovy left, this saga is getting retarded if you ask me.

_________________
just call me Brad

Twitter @BUrbanowicz13

Actually Mike is right in one thing according to the stats.

Average cumulative goals per game in the KHL (09-10) - 5.56
Average cumulative goals per game in the NHL (09-10) - 5.68

Now the reason behind that is certainly open for debate.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

I have to believe that the reason scoring is lower in the KHL is because it lacks the elite offensive talent that the NHL has.

In playing inline and floor hockey, the result of the same number of bodies in a smaller space always means a decrease in scoring. With larger ice there is more space to stickhandle, more time to find the best passing option, and there are more passing lanes.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

what inline league are you playing in?? scores of 15-10 are common in the league i was in. haha. defense was... it wasnt common.

_________________

The KHL gets its money from absurd corporate sponsorships.

_________________
mechaphil

Syracuse Inline Hockey Association, most of the guys are former HS players with a few that played college ice hockey.

The average score to one of our games (four on four) is probably in the 9-7 or 8-6 range. Playing floor hockey which was five on five in a smaller space, the average score was 6-5.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

ahh. alot of the guys in my league played pro inline, so i got beat ALOT. one of my close buds even played at the amherst pepsi center last summer at the inline tournament. but the team moved from grand rapids to detroit, so i dont think hes playing anymore.

the point is, we had ALOT of talent out there every night, and it wasnt uncommon for one of them to make me look like a fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Roller_Hockey

_________________

I can agree with Alex on this one also, with more talent in the NHL it equals more scoring. I would also say more shots are taken in a smaller rink as opposed to the larger ice surface.

_________________

I'll be sure to pull this thread out in December the first time someone comments about how the international ice surface lends itself to more offense.

This is bullshit.

I know when I play, I'm always better offensively on international ice. More time to look up and pick your path. More room to use your speed to burst around people.

International ice definitely means more offense.

_________________
Wheelhouse

lighten up, tom. its my theory and my theory alone.

i hated playing on international ice. i felt disconnected from the play because everything was spaced out and i didnt see many pucks. less then 20.

also, im pretty sure most NHL arenas are set up to handle international ice without losing a seat. hell, some AHL arenas are set up the same way. the bottom few rows pull out more to fill the space in, and you have lots of leg room. you can slide those in a little, losing room in each row, but keeping enough space between rows. thats why if you sit in the lowest seats in an arena, they flatten out even more.

_________________

The international ice is 10 feet longer, and 13 feet wider. That's at least 3 rows on the ends, and 4 rows on the sides that would have to come out.

Most arenas would also have to retrofit their refrigeration systems to handle the extra ice surface at significant cost.