The goaltending picture at the 2026 U18 World Championship was, as usual, a mix of
confirmation, disappointment, and genuine surprise. Some prospects used the tournament as a
launching pad. Others reminded us why evaluation is never a straight line. And at least one
name that wasn’t on anyone’s radar deserves serious attention heading into June.
Here is my breakdown of the goaltenders who stood out, who underwhelmed, and who made
the most unexpected impression of the tournament.
Who stood out
Martin Psohlavec — CZE
I had been watching Psohlavec in the Czech U20 league for a while, quietly impressed but
wondering how the step up in competition would treat him. International play at this age group is
a different animal. The pace is faster, the reads have to come quicker, and the mental load is
heavier. He answered every question.
What struck me first against Sweden was his engagement level. He wasn’t passive in his
crease. He was active, challenging shooters with controlled aggressiveness while still
communicating with his defenders through consistent shoulder checks. That kind of awareness,
the willingness to act as an extra set of eyes on the ice, is something you can’t really teach. He
plays a mature game for his age.
Technically, his puck tracking was reliable and his rebound control was effective throughout the
tournament. Against Finland, he showed improved quickness and well-positioned hands that
maximized his save radius. His post integration was strong, mixing RVH and overlap at
appropriate moments rather than defaulting to one option. His anticipatory habits were also
evident: reading passes early and arriving set without oversliding.
The main technical flag is his cross-crease slide trajectory, which was too linear at times,
creating exploitable openings. And he did struggle on some clean perimeter shots in the
Sweden semifinal, reacting a tick late. Extended recoveries can also cost him structure
occasionally. These are refinement issues, not foundational ones.
By the end of the tournament, Psohlavec had significantly elevated his draft stock. He came in
as an underrated name and left as a legitimate middle to late with clear upside. This is the kind
of tournament performance scouts remember.
Patriks Plūmiņš — LAT
If you asked me to cast ballot with the name of the most valuable goaltender at this tournament,
it would be Plūmiņš without hesitation. Latvia is not a hockey powerhouse, and the league and
competition level he plays in during the regular season makes it genuinely difficult to evaluate
him properly throughout the year. You’re always left wondering how much of what you’re seeing
is quality and how much is context.
He answered that definitively in this tournament.
Forty-eight saves in a high-pressure QF elimination game, with the Americans throwing
everything at him: traffic, physical play, sustained zone time. He remained composed and
confident from start to finish. His puck tracking through traffic was excellent: seeing pucks
cleanly, reacting quickly to releases, and keeping his hands decisive. Very few dangerous
rebounds. That kind of performance, under that kind of pressure, against that level of
competition, tells you a lot about a goaltender’s character.
Across the tournament, his athletic base was his biggest calling card. Strong lower-body power,
excellent flexibility, an ability to widen his stance and seal the ice effectively. Against Finland, he
stopped 32 of 34 shots and showed a solid athletic foundation that allowed him to cover large
areas of the net. Against Norway, he highlighted both his upside and his rawness: the lower
body impressive, the upper body and hands more rigid, his compact stance occasionally limiting
him.
The main concern remains his structure on extended recoveries. In several sequences, he lost
his balance and ended up on his back or seated, which becomes a problem when better teams
generate second and third chances. His edge control and movement efficiency also need some
refinements.
But here is the reality: if Plūmiņš was not on draft boards before this tournament, he needs to be
now. If he was, he’s now definitely higher. A mid-round selection appears to be locked, and
depending on how teams weigh tournament performance, he could even exceed that. He is a
hot commodity heading into June.
Who did not
Pyry Lammi — FIN
I wanted Lammi to prove people wrong. NHL Central scouting did not include him in their
preliminary list, and I thought there was a real chance this tournament could change that. His
speed and athleticism are genuine and they catch your eye immediately. But being a smaller
goaltender means the margin for error is narrower, and the technical details matter even more.
You need to be fundamentally ahead of plays, not reactive to them.
Against Latvia, even in a shutout, the concerns were visible. Lammi plays a reactive style rather
than an anticipatory one. He was gathering information after the fact, leading to suboptimal
positioning. There was a rush sequence where he defaulted to RVH despite no legitimate
passing threat, the correct read there is an overlap for better coverage. Those details, small as
they seem, compound over a full game against better competition.
Against Canada, it fell apart. He looked overwhelmed by sustained pressure, losing sight of the
puck frequently and breaking down structurally on passing plays and rebounds. His play
recognition and recoveries were problematic. After goals, he appeared disoriented, suggesting
difficulty processing sequences in real time. For a smaller goalie, where positioning and reads
are the great equalizer, these are significant issues.
This tournament did not help his cause. He could fall outside the draft range entirely, and it
would be hard to argue against that assessment based on what I saw here.
Viggo Tamm — SWE
Tamm came into the tournament with some expectation attached to his name in a weaker
Swedish goalie draft class, but he never established himself as the starter Sweden needed. The
time he did play, he looked lost, unable to impose himself on the game or give his team the
confidence that a top goaltending performance can provide.
There is not much more to say. At a tournament where you need to seize your opportunity, he
didn’t. His draft stock will reflect that.
Special mention
Anton Wilde — DEN
I will be honest: I did not have Anton Wilde on my radar before this tournament. Denmark does
not typically produce goaltenders who draw serious NHL draft attention, and there was nothing
in his pre-tournament profile that demanded a closer look.
Then he stopped 54 shots against the United States.
What made the performance remarkable was not just the shot volume , it was how he managed
the game. Against a high-powered USA offense that generated sustained pressure from start to
finish, Wilde remained calm and composed. He kept his game simple and controlled, relying on excellent patience on his edges and sound positioning. He consistently arrived set and square
to shooters, making it difficult for the Americans to catch him off guard. His rebound control was
a key factor as well, slowing the pace in the defensive zone and giving his defenders the time
they needed to reset.
Coming off a strong first start against Germany, his confidence was evident. This was not a
goaltender hanging on. It was a goaltender competing, and competing well.
The realistic outcome here is a late-round selection, and even that would be based almost
entirely on these tournament performances rather than a deep body of work. But at minimum,
Wilde has now put himself on the map. If nothing else, this should generate genuine interest in
bringing him to North America to continue his junior career, and that conversation, a few weeks
ago, would not have happened at all.
Sometimes a tournament creates a player. For Wilde, that’s exactly what happened here.
Final Thought
Goaltending evaluation at the U18 level is always imprecise. Sample sizes are small,
competition quality varies, and development timelines for goaltenders are notoriously long. The
key is not to overreact on good or bad performances. But tournaments like this one are
valuable precisely because they strip away context and this year performances were too
impressive to ignore. Everyone is playing under the same pressure, against the same
competition, at the same time. The draft will tell us how much of it stuck or not for these
prospects.