Login

Rancidbudgie · 10-08-2021, 05:59 PM

IIHF Nation Health

An In-Depth Analysis on International Recruitment and Federation Health

Word Count: 4300 (plus media 20% bonus)

Hello again everyone! I am writing this article in response to two things:

First, I am harkening back to my previous article on potential IIHF expansion (https://simulationhockey.com/showthread.php?tid=115559), and what nations could feasibly make it. In Part 1 of the article, I had asserted the current health of the existing IIHF federations as a rationale for an IIHF expansion in the SHL to add two new nations to the IIHF tournament.
Secondly, with the new IIHF head coming into play a little while ago, the eligibility sheets outlining which players are eligible for IIHF senior squad selections were thoroughly cleaned up. The lists were purged and scoured to remove many IAs that have not seen any kind of play in more than a season, or were simply IA without an update page. With this shift, the lists are now fairly shorter, and now present a much more accurate depiction of the health of a given IIHF nation, and the active player count of the users here in the SHL. This clarity was especially beneficial for the federations for Canada and the United States, who had a score of dead weight IA's expunged from their lists.

With these two things in mind, I sought to take advantage of these awesome updates in eligibility clarity to apply my old rubric for nation health to these new lists - to better theorize whether an IIHF expansion for the SHL could still be justified, given the increase in active and unique users on the site.

For the purposes of this article, I have used the eligibility lists post-purge, and cross-referenced them with transfers in-out of the nations since that time, as well as adding any S61’s that have been created and are not accounted for just yet on the lists (although they have been very on top of it so far!). As well, any players who have announced their retirement are left off this list, which rules out the S30’s players from being head-counted once and for all. I will only include S40’s, 50’s and 60’s numbers for nations (minus the S62’s and S63’s, as they are still rolling in and need a full season to shake out the initial IAs)

Without further ado, let’s investigate how sustainable each team’s numbers are!

NATIONS (In alphabetical order)

Austria

Austria

(35 Total Eligible Players, 4 S40s, 25 S50s, 6 S60s, 4 international transfers, 3 UA transfers)
In terms of total players, Austria is about where they were since my last article, and before the editing of the eligibility lists. They were my key concern before compared to all other nations, but had my fears assuaged by a healthy young S55 or younger list of actives. In particular, a large ISFL contingent has made the migration to the SHL, and many of them have chosen Austria as their home in solidarity, much to the smaller nation’s benefit. This situation obviously hasn’t changed much since my article on IIHF expansion, and Austria has also been active with the transfer process as of late. They are in good hands for now, but once again have one of the smallest pools of players, and rely on a highly active core of key players, and that new ISFL crowd, for relevance.

Canada

Canada

(111 Total Eligible Players, 17 S40s, 59 S50s, 35 S60s, 0 international transfers, 2 UA transfers)

Canada is still very healthy for enrollment, and now has the most players eligible for IIHF selection out of all nations. A surplus of players funnel out via international transfer, and the only transfers in (which are very rare) are usually goalies (see McMahon and Eller most recently). After the eligibility list purge, Many of the long-inactive players without playtime were finally removed, lowering the overall number a fair from my last article. Canada is still one of the top nations, alongside the U.S.A, that draws in the most new creates by a landslide. While they did shrink a fair bit after the eligibility sweep, Canada is still a nation (just now the only one) above 100 eligible players. However, this inevitably leads to the two North American nations to have the most 155 IAs with no update page as well, although after the purge their list is much more accurate for activity. The large number is indeed misleading (compared to my last article, Canada appears to have chopped around 25-30 “eligible” players that were really IA corpses or players without updates), but it is safe to say that Canada has no problems filling in a roster of entirely active players year in and year out, and pretty much entirely over 1000 TPE. Yes, they have a lot of good players transfer out before making the senior squad which can be frustrating for the Fed Heads there, but that just makes Canada less dominant - they are certainly not in a position of peril for active or high-quality options, and are one of the few nations that consistently “donate” their surplus of total active players to teams with fewer players.

Czechia

Czech Republic Czechia

(50 Total Eligible Players, 7 S40s, 32 S50s, 11 S60s, 5 international transfers, 11 UA transfers)
Even after Czechoslovakia split, the Czech Republic is still one of the stronger enrolling nations, and it’s largely on the back of transfers. Apparently the Czech Republic IIHF Federation is an attractive option for those looking to play the field, with 5 currently eligible players poached from existing squads, and a whopping 11 Unassigned transfers in - in total and percentage-wise the largest influx of foreign talent. Even if the recruiting/poaching gravy train hits a wall, over 30 players selected the Czech Republic as home - not a bad baseline with 0 transfers considered, but worth noting that a lot of the team is imported, and birth membership is lower than the total number might appear. Since the eligibility audit, Czechia is one of the few nations that now reports a higher number of players than before. Still a healthy nation overall that has options to build competitive rosters each season.

Finland

Finland

(47 Total Eligible Players, 5 S40s, 39 S50s, 3 S60s, 4 international transfers, 3 UA transfers)
Finland has been slowly growing into a competitive window for a while now, and their younger S50’s stars are beginning to grow. Percentage-wise, Finland is in the top tier of S50’s talent, with a few late S40’s still leading the charge and (so far) the three Finnish S60s members. Finland has never had trouble before finding players to list the Scandinavian region as their home country, and transfers are rarer to leave for Finland, with the odd exceptional player making a case, typically fleeing a larger nation to find playing time at the senior IIHF level a couple of seasons sooner. In Finland’s case, that’s almost exclusively Canada and the U.S., as Finland boasts consistently healthier numbers than most other nations. While not the largest nation represented at the SHL IIHF level, Finland is constantly a steady force, with little fluctuation in enrollment. While they have their ups and downs, golden ages and otherwise depending on how their TPE lines up generationally, the Suomi never have issues fielding a fully active senior roster for tournaments. The only troublesome spot is their current crop of S60’s. Unlike the other nations with the same total members, the S60 class of Finns has been… sparse. As the WJC GM for Finland this year, I can attest to the fact that Norway has been stapled to the eligibility sheet for Finland, and the last few seasons the Suomi have been unable to field much of a juniors squad at all. Hopefully it is just a blip, but there is real concern for a lack of Finns for this current generation, and the S60 class will need to have a lot more transfers in if the IIHF senior squad wants to stay in any kind of competitive window.

Germany

Germany :germanty: (42 Total Eligible Players, 9 S40s, 23 S50s, 10 S60s, 9 international transfers, 2 UA transfers)

Germany is admittedly in a bit of initial doubt here despite an healthy roster number. They have more eligible players than a decent amount of other nations, but percent-wise have a much smaller S50’s class than any other nation. While many of the S40’s have plenty of life in them, Germany is quite reliant on two things - a smaller, consistent core of players, and poaching. Compared to other nations, the Germans have a much higher International Transfer - Unassigned Transfer ratio, with 9 players electing to find more playing time in Germany faster than sticking with their other nations - usually from Canada, Sweden, and the United States. Germany is one of the older nations overall in terms of IIHF players, however a surprisingly healthy young core of German players in the S60 classes is making for a groundswell of good talent.

Great Britain

(48 Total Eligible Players, 9 S40s, 32 S50s, 7 S60s, 7 international transfers, 3 UA transfers)

Great Britain has been a powerhouse as of late, with a strong and large generation of exceedingly capable S50’s players. They have buoyed themselves to a healthy enrollment level, and poach enough talent (particularly from the U.S and Finland) to keep a very competitive team. There seems to be a good balance of old and young talent, and a steady flow of creates combined with a moderately robust poaching capability, Great Britain is in a sustainable spot for enrollment and fielding active IIHF teams. With one of the larger S40 classes, Britain is a little crotchety with their current core, but a healthy sprout of good S50's and a sizeable chunk of S60 creates keep the sun from setting on the English here (my apologies to the sizeable number of Scots on this GB team).

Ireland

Ireland

(36 Total Eligible Players, 3 S40s, 27 S50s, 6 S60s, 6 international transfers, 5 UA transfers)

The glory days of the S40’s are gone, but Ireland has held on with many of the famous players who were young in those days, and the new generation carries on their legacy. Their overall creation numbers took a bit of a hit, but they have a healthy recruitment program for unassigned transfers as well as being able to offer more immediate playing opportunities to players, specifically from the U.S.A. and Canada. For now though, Ireland is at a stable point, with new creates interested in Ireland as a birthplace, and as long as the healthy amount of poaching keeps up.

Japan

Japan

(37 Total Eligible Players, 5 S40s, 27 S50s, 5 S60s, 7 international transfers, 5 UA transfers)

The re-analyzing of the eligible player lists knocked Japan down quite the peg, and recently, simultaneously, both Fed heads for Japan stepped down from their duties. Japan has similar poaching numbers as Ireland, and has a relatively similar picture in terms of rough numbers, active users, and star players. With some fewer home-grown players, as well as a slightly older core altogether, Japan is still consistently active, but nearing a place of distress, depending on how rigorous the new Federation Heads recruit unassigned transfers or encourage new Japanese recreates. Japan is quite competitive internationally, relying on a smaller but very actively strong team that has recently achieved some great successes in IIHF play. The real test will be when the Smebs and other S40’s are gone, and if Japan can replace it’s additional strong core players as they age out at the same rate, otherwise the on-ice performance will take a significant dip.

Latvia

Latvia

(35 Total Eligible Players, 4 S40s, 27 S50s, 4 S60s, 8 international transfers, 7 UA transfers)

Tied for the lowest number of S40’s, Latvia is a young squad that majorly relies on poaching to stay afloat. Without the 15 total transfers in, Latvia would only have 20 eligible players to choose from for the senior squad, making it the first nation on this list to be only barely able to make a full roster of 20 players - 12 forwards, 6 defense, 2 goaltenders - if it were only able to use locally-born players. This of course explains why transfers into Latvia are utilized often - players who want to see near-immediate IIHF senior level play might not have to wait past their 3rd SMJHL year before they potentially see time for Latvia. While the small Baltic nation is one of only 3 IRL countries to have hockey as their #1 spectator sport (the other two being Finland and Canada), they seem to be struggling a little to maintain a competitive and active roster season in and season out in the SHL. Players that are Latvian-born are usually more spread out than many nations, and with only 4 S60s created so far, the trend seems to be continuing for now. They have a larger S55-S59 class, so if that young core remains active Latvia can grow into a threat, otherwise poaching seems to be the best option for acquiring enough active players to consistently field an all-active squad.

Norway

Norway

(35 Total Eligible Players, 5 S40s, 23 S50s , 7 S60s , 7 international transfers, 5 UA transfers)

Norway now holds the title of smallest IIHF nation in a tie with Latvia, with about 35 options to choose from for their senior squad. While they have a slightly larger homeland birth-nation group of players as Latvia, they have fewer transfers into the Nordic Federation. Similar to Latvia, if the transfers were taken out of the equation, Norway would be at almost the bare minimum of a full IIHF lineup, with only 23 home-grown players. While the core is high-talent and active, Norway is a couple of empty recruitment seasons away from a future without many choices of who makes the team. For anyone creating a new player and looking to get senior IIHF ice time before uncapping from the SMJHL - Norway is, for now, one of your best bets as a birth nation.

Russia

Russia

(41 Total Eligible Players, 5 S40s, 27 S50s, 9 S60s, 4 international transfers, 1 UA transfer)

Compared to my last article, Russia took a slight dip, but otherwise hasn’t changed tremendously. What is encouraging to see is the robust young squad Russia currently has, with fewer S40s and a healthy class of S60-62 players who have listed Russia as home. While they have dipped to almost 40 eligible Russian-born players to select from, it is also important to note how few players transfer into the nation - a total of 5 transfers is only second in scarcity with Canada and the U.S. , which is saying something! Unlike other nations near their eligibility totals, Russia does it on the backs of players who list their birthplace as Russian, and is far less dependent on transfers to field a competitive team. So despite dipping to lower totals, Russia only has room to bring in more talent if desired, and is in a more stable situation than that of more transfer-dependent nations like Latvia and Norway.

Sweden

Sweden

(68 Total Eligible Players, 3 S40s, 51 S50s, 14 S60s, 8 international transfers, 6 UA transfers)

The eligibility purging really didn’t change Sweden at all, and it remains solidly in 3rd place in regards to IIHF eligibility. A large S50’s class is promising, as well as a wide spread of players to choose from - there are at least 3 Swedish players from each SHL draft class all the way back to S50. A healthy S60’s class only makes the future brighter for Tre Kronor. Sweden also has a deceptive amount of international transfers for a nation it’s size, although the majority of these come from the two fish bigger than it - Canada and the U.S.A. Overall, Sweden is still in a very good spot, both competitively and eligibility-wise.

Switzerland :switzerland (53 Total Eligible Players, 7 S40s, 39 S50s, 7 S60s, 8 international transfers,10 UA transfers)

Since my last article, Switzerland has seen the largest jump in eligible players than any other nation, going from 38 options to 53. The two big reasons for Switzerland’s surge amidst general purging are a young group of Swiss creates, and a bountiful transfer-in group. Switzerland seems the place to be for many International and Unassigned transfers alike, and they are beginning to break through on the competitive stage as well. They are now tied for the 4th largest group in the IIHF, eligibility speaking, and the only minor knock against them is the %-wise size of the aging S40 class. Switzerland is a little bit older than most nations, but that top level of age is offset by the bulk of their S50’s class being on the younger side of S55. Switzerland, at the moment, is one of the healthier nations in regards to IIHF enrolment.

Usa

USA

(96 Total Eligible Players, 7 S40s, 55 S50s, 34 S60s, 1 international transfer, 2 UA transfers)

The eligibility purge hit the United States the hardest out of all nations. In my previous IIHF article, it was listed that the U.S.A. had 158 players to choose from for the senior tournaments. Now, after the majority of inactive players were culled from their lists, that number sits at 96. A total of about 60 players were purged - almost a 40% drop in eligible selections. Clearly, the U.S. had the largest number of new players who create and go IA before making it past their first season, or even making an update page. Now, with the new, more accurate number, it can still be said that the United States is at a healthy level of eligibility, but not to the overflowing capacity it appeared to have before. They are still the second-largest IIHF nation after all of that, and also have the largest S60-62 classes, so there is no worry for fielding great active rosters. While their stability didn’t change, the purging of the player lists is especially welcome to the Americans, as now there isn’t as big of an illusion around earning a competitive spot. Will there be more transfers out of the U.S. and Canada than any other nations still? Yes. is it easier to find playing time faster if you are eligible for a smaller nation than the U.S.? Also, yes. But the specter of insurmountability in regards to qualifying for the American senior IIHF team should be vastly lessened. While they are still in a great place to always field a full team of active 1000-ish+ TPE players, they are by no means booked solid, and prospective Americans can see that they won’t be shut out if they keep earning.

Shl

Unassigned Shl

(25 Total Eligible Players, 0 S40s, 15 S50s, 6 S60s)

Since my last article, a few unassigned players have transferred over, and the few IA’s were expunged, leaving just over 20 eligible players for IIHF nations to seduce. Previously, the number was around 40, but it didn’t stay that way for long. A majority of users who create a player of non-IIHF nation origin are those who have recreated, and are either going to transfer to a nation they already decided on playing for, or waiting a few seasons to see where they can get good IIHF playing time earlier.

TIERS:
After all has been analyzed and pontificated on, I’d like to have a look back at my previous article’s rubric regarding IIHF nation “health”, and how the teams stack up now with the eligibility list update.

Tier 1: Very Healthy
Federations in this tier will never have a problem fielding a fully active roster, and most likely will have all players and roles above 1k TPE as the cutoff to qualify for the senior teams. It has a high base of stable, consistent enrollment, and typically has at least a handful of local-born players each draft class (A percentage of which may likely go inactive, keep in mind), and has many eligible players to draw from in total each tournament. It is by no means impossible to play for these teams, but compared to the smallest nations, you’ll have to wait 2-3 more seasons to jump in. A Very Healthy federation will have more players transferring out than transferring in, and are a “blood donor” of International Transfers to the nations in lower tiers.

Tier 1 Nations:
Canada

Canada and the United States

Tier 2: Healthy
Federations in this tier will also have no issues fielding a team of completely active players each season, will be supported by a strong local group of players, and perhaps some healthy transfers in as well. The floor for a player to make a team in the Healthy Tier is approaching 1k TPE, and the nation has multiple created players in each draft class who list the nation as home. The difference between a Tier 1 and Tier 2 nation largely boils down to two things: A smaller overall pool of players, and typically having roughly even transactions of total transfers in (mostly from Tier 1 teams), and total transfers out.

Tier 2 Nations:
Sweden

Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Great Britain

Tier 3: Moderately Healthy

Here is where we see a self-sustaining team that is entirely active, but has some competitive holes. Perhaps the backup is an IA, or there are a few 425-capped SMJHL players on the bottom pairing/4th line every now and then, due to a lack of deeper options in a given tournament. Enrollment is still solid and healthy, but nations in Tier 3 are more affected by “generations”. They recently have had their highs and lows due to strong players creating close together, and dips where less total talent is created/maintained. There is usually at least 1 local-born player of this nation each draft class, but enrollment and creation typically comes in waves. A Moderately Healthy team might still have a high bar to get in on certain roles, but a lower bar on others (example: having a lot of good goalies and defenseman for options, but a deficit on wingers for the nation). In Tier 3, you will typically start to see more players transferring in (Internationally or Unassigned) than going out, and while overall still self-sustaining, is more prone to fluctuation than Federations in the tiers higher. A shrewd user creating a new player could scout ahead and see a particular role/player position that a Tier 3 nation is light on, and create there with the intent of earlier IIHF senior play. Tier 3 is for teams with stable but not stellar enrollment, or who have a large and active young core moving forward, but might have a smaller old core right now.

Tier 3 Nations:
Russia

Russia, Ireland, Germany, Japan, Austria

Tier 4 Nations: Moderate Concern

While no teams are in an eligibility crisis (A theoretical Tier 5, where they struggle to find an active roster most seasons, many senior IIHF players are still in juniors, and the nation is reliant on transfers in to field a minimum roster of 20), Tier 4 nations are teams that hover just above the mark. They have far more transfers in than out, and are at least partially reliant on poaching talent from more naturally affluent teams to field a competitive roster. If you take away the transfers in, a Tier 4 nation would barely have enough eligible home-grown players to field a full bare-minimum roster of 20 players. While they field mostly active rosters every tournament, the odd IA might make a temporary appearance here and there, and multiple spots on the roster might utilize players not yet graduated from the SMJHL. They sometimes have draft seasons where no players who created will list the nation as their birth-nation. There is an active core, and will always be able to field a team, but filling in depth options takes actual effort and poaching to keep on top of things. Anyone with a new player looking to prioritize playing at the senior IIHF level as fast as possible should look at creating/transferring to a Tier 4 Nation, as you have less overall competition (give or take your role/position played).

Tier 4 Nations:
Latvia

Latvia, Norway

FINAL THOUGHTS

That sums up my analysis for the current health and sustainability of IIHF Federations! While this is a rough overall estimate, and definitely doesn’t go into the individual efforts of both players and Federation Heads, which could definitely shift perspective on a nation’s roster health, this article is just a cursory glance at the state of the IIHF’s different Federations. As someone who was lobbying for an IIHF expansion almost two seasons ago, the updated and accurately improved IIHF eligibility sheets have shifted my thoughts on the idea.

While transfers are a necessary part of IIHF rosters (as there are plenty of players who make UA players with the intent of transferring later, which are encouraged!) A nation NEEDING transfers to even have a chance of picking 20 players (of any activity or age) for eligibility is a sign that more active players are needed before expansion should be considered. If you took all of the unique active players in the league and divided them into equal groups of 20-ish (let’s say 22 to be safe), you could have 20 IIHF teams, let alone expanding to 16. But the truth of the matter is that some nations are going to have way more than 24 home-grown players, and two (Latvia and Norway) currently have less than that number. It seems that the overall amount of active players not only needs to go up, but to be a little more spread out to justify adding two more teams at this time. These numbers could change noticeably for the better within even just a couple of seasons, but at the current glance the new and improved eligibility lists demonstrate a need for just a little more stability for a couple of nations before the proper push can be made for an expansion of the IIHF tournament to a full 16 teams.