WJC: 2021 Medal Finalists/Tourney MVP/Best D-man/Goaltender and All-Star team.

[JackSlater]

Good point. The argument could be made that the American players have not progressed since being broken apart - and it's not the first time. They play as an All-Star team and excel - anyone would. But, more times than not, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I'm sure that all of the American players are better now than they were two years ago. That poster's arguments are so poorly made though that even just acknowledging the passage of time weakens the ridiculous claims being made. USA is very likely to have a strong team and it would surprise no one if the team won. Humourously exaggerating (claiming that USA "arguably won" a tournament in which it finished fourth is an all time classic) the results at the U18 level and ignoring pretty much anything else is just asking to get piled on though.

Passions can run high in these matters and that's part of the fun. Certainly we all know that once the games start running on TSN there will be no shortage of Canadian chest thumping on here. Same with pretty much every other country.

 

[ORRFForever]

I'm sure that all of the American players are better now than they were two years ago. That poster's arguments are so poorly made though that even just acknowledging the passage of time weakens the ridiculous claims being made. USA is very likely to have a strong team and it would surprise no one if the team won. Humourously exaggerating (claiming that USA "arguably won" a tournament in which it finished fourth is an all time classic) the results at the U18 level and ignoring pretty much anything else is just asking to get piled on though.

Passions can run high in these matters and that's part of the fun. Certainly we all know that once the games start running on TSN there will be no shortage of Canadian chest thumping on here. Same with pretty much every other country.

I should have said. "the players have not progressed as much as expected given their early results". If someone had said Jack Hughes would finish with only 21 points after 61 games in his first NHL season 2 years ago, the poster would have been called crazy.

 

[JackSlater]

I should have said. "the players have not progressed as much as expected given their early results". If someone had said Jack Hughes would finish with only 21 points after 61 games in his first NHL season 2 years ago, he would have been called crazy.

Yeah I get where you're coming from. Its important to consider the context that the various teams have played in before. As for Hughes, he's somewhat better than his numbers looked I'd say and he'd probably light it up in this tournament if he were present. Unfortunate that he won't be. Would it be like some of his US national team outbursts before? I doubt it, but who knows.

 

[ORRFForever]

Yeah I get where you're coming from. Its important to consider the context that the various teams have played in before. As for Hughes, he's somewhat better than his numbers looked I'd say and he'd probably light it up in this tournament if he were present. Unfortunate that he won't be. Would it be like some of his US national team outbursts before? I doubt it, but who knows.

I like the USNDP. It's smart and effective. I do, however, think it exaggerates the player's talent/potential - playing on an all star team will do that.

 

[bsu]

Interesting seeing Zegras only mentioned once.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I think the US has a really strong team. I don't think the talent the US has is in anyway a tier ahead of Canada or Russia. As for the U18's the US has historically dominated the U18's and not seen it translate into the U20. I don't have a problem with people thinking the US are the best team but to act like it is crazy for people to think they aren't is what does not make any sense to me.

Most people make their picks in a thread like this based off who they think is the best. No one is trying to predict matchups or injuries or suspensions. The majority of the people who made predictions either are missing key info in making their prediction or are basing this off of which country they would prefer to win. But we’ll take the underdog role with the favorite squad. I have no real issue with it, but I think a lot are very uniformed.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

If you have a good crop of players at a U18, you will have a good crop two years later at a U20. HOWEVER, that’s very different from winning gold at either event and many people over simplify that metric of success into “tournament win” or “tournament loss”. Pavel Buchnevich was right on a couple points in his post. USA had the best team at the U18 but didn’t win and that they don’t send their best team to the Hlinka. He didn’t mention that Canada doesn’t send its best to the U18, and it’s also quite possible that other nations hold back in some tournaments (though I’m less familiar with the limitations facing European teams in that regard).

And the USNTDP isn’t our absolute best team either. However, unless we are going to say results don’t matter unless teams play their absolute best teams, which you’ll never see, I don’t see how you could argue the USA did not dominate in this age group.

As it pertains to Canada, who I guess you are suggesting is the main alternative, Canada’s best team needed a bogus goal scored after 0.0 to tie the USA’s backups. And with the less than best team, Canada was beat easily by the USNTDP.

We aren’t replaying these games from years ago and this tournament is not only about the 2001 age group, but given its record, this USA team has to be the favorite. This tournament has always been a 19 year old tournament.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Most people make their picks in a thread like this based off who they think is the best. No one is trying to predict matchups or injuries or suspensions. The majority of the people who made predictions either are missing key info in making their prediction or are basing this off of which country they would prefer to win. But we’ll take the underdog role with the favorite squad. I have no real issue with it, but I think a lot are very uniformed.

The US are not underdogs stop playing the victim lol you come off as personally jilted because other people don't happen to share the same opinion as you that this group of Americans is head and shoulders above every other country. I think the Americans have a legit shot of winning gold this year, wouldn't be surprised in the least if it happens. I don't think if you compare the rosters on paper that they are a tier above a couple of other countries. It is slightly ironic though that you think everyone else is the biased one and it totally isn't you.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The US are not underdogs stop playing the victim lol you come off as personally jilted because other people don't happen to share the same opinion as you that this group of Americans is head and shoulders above every other country. I think the Americans have a legit shot of winning gold this year, wouldn't be surprised in the least if it happens. I don't think if you compare the rosters on paper that they are a tier above a couple of other countries. It is slightly ironic though that you think everyone else is the biased one and it totally isn't you.

There were 8 predictions. 1 predicted the USA would win. More people think Canada and Russia are going to win. As many think the USA won't medal as will win, so evidently the USA is an underdog. And I've seen predictions from media types that say the same thing. I didn't ever say the USA is head and shoulders above every other country. I do however believe in being objective about the ability of the different crops.

I believe I predicted Russia to win last year because I thought their 2000 crop was especially strong and European teams play better on the big ice. I believe USA has an especially strong 2001 crop. I believe USA deserves to go into the tournament as the favorite. I didn't offer a prediction for this thread. You offered a prediction of your country to win. Do you do the same every year? But you are trying to call me biased. Funny. I'm about as objective of a person as you'll find on this website. I have no interests to cater to. I criticize and compliment equally. Fans from different teams and countries dislike and like me equally.

I don't need your opinion that the USA has a good shot to win. You are saying a whole bunch of nothing. USA has a good shot to win every year. It doesn't mean people aren't inaccurate or aren't being huge homers when apparently the USA isn't even the second favorite. They've dominated with their 2001 age group, which is the 19 year old crop this year.

 

[ORRFForever]

There were 8 predictions. 1 predicted the USA would win. More people think Canada and Russia are going to win. As many think the USA won't medal as will win, so evidently the USA is an underdog. And I've seen predictions from media types that say the same thing. I didn't ever say the USA is head and shoulders above every other country. I do however believe in being objective about the ability of the different crops.

I believe I predicted Russia to win last year because I thought their 2000 crop was especially strong and European teams play better on the big ice. I believe USA has an especially strong 2001 crop. I believe USA deserves to go into the tournament as the favorite. I didn't offer a prediction for this thread. You offered a prediction of your country to win. Do you do the same every year? But you are trying to call me biased. Funny. I'm about as objective of a person as you'll find on this website. I have no interests to cater to. I criticize and compliment equally. Fans from different teams and countries dislike and like me equally.

I don't need your opinion that the USA has a good shot to win. You are saying a whole bunch of nothing. USA has a good shot to win every year. It doesn't mean people aren't inaccurate or aren't being huge homers when apparently the USA isn't even the second favorite. They've dominated with their 2001 age group, which is the 19 year old crop this year.

What a bunch of dummies like me believe means nothing and it will all get settled on the ice.

As for the U.S. vs Canada, based on everything I've seen/read :

* The top 6 forwards balance out;
* Canada's bottom 6 are better;
* Canada's D is much better
* The U.S.' s goaltending is stellar while Canada's goaltending is average...

...so, again, we'll see in 3 weeks.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I'm sure that all of the American players are better now than they were two years ago. That poster's arguments are so poorly made though that even just acknowledging the passage of time weakens the ridiculous claims being made. USA is very likely to have a strong team and it would surprise no one if the team won. Humourously exaggerating (claiming that USA "arguably won" a tournament in which it finished fourth is an all time classic) the results at the U18 level and ignoring pretty much anything else is just asking to get piled on though.

Passions can run high in these matters and that's part of the fun. Certainly we all know that once the games start running on TSN there will be no shortage of Canadian chest thumping on here. Same with pretty much every other country.

So now you are lying about what I said, while you passive-aggressively refuse to address me. Here is a video of Canada scoring after 0.0. Anyone who was objective admitted as much at the time that it wasn't a good goal. Canada went onto win, so yes, with a different outcome, USA arguably is the winner. But thats besides the point of this tournament because that was the American back ups.

You are being a homer. Just put your hand up and admit it. You got upset that I brought logic into this thread that goes against your rooting interests. You ignored what has been widely discussed for years that USA has dominated the 2001 age group. The Hlinka tournament you mention was a team of American back ups. Everyone who watched the U18's that year knew the USA was the best team at the tournament. USA had won every game they played in a two year span internationally except for 3 games, many by crooked scores against these big five countries. If you want to make a point that the American players, of which 10-12 of them will be on this team, have not developed well, why don't you give some specific examples? Let's see this argument. And drop your smugness while you're at it.

No one said the USA is guaranteed to win this tournament. You are saying a bunch of nothing to say the USA has a chance to win. Another homer who tries to play diplomatic behind their lack of objectivity. What has however been said is that the USA has earned the right of favorite. You nor anyone has been able to put forth a good argument against that.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

There were 8 predictions. 1 predicted the USA would win. More people think Canada and Russia are going to win. As many think the USA won't medal as will win, so evidently the USA is an underdog. And I've seen predictions from media types that say the same thing. I didn't ever say the USA is head and shoulders above every other country. I do however believe in being objective about the ability of the different crops.

I believe I predicted Russia to win last year because I thought their 2000 crop was especially strong and European teams play better on the big ice. I believe USA has an especially strong 2001 crop. I believe USA deserves to go into the tournament as the favorite. I didn't offer a prediction for this thread. You offered a prediction of your country to win. Do you do the same every year? But you are trying to call me biased. Funny. I'm about as objective of a person as you'll find on this website. I have no interests to cater to. I criticize and compliment equally. Fans from different teams and countries dislike and like me equally.

I don't need your opinion that the USA has a good shot to win. You are saying a whole bunch of nothing. USA has a good shot to win every year. It doesn't mean people aren't inaccurate or aren't being huge homers when apparently the USA isn't even the second favorite. They've dominated with their 2001 age group, which is the 19 year old crop this year.

I absolutely do not think Canada will win every year, though there obviously is an inherent expectation with Canadian teams. I already explained my opinion, I think Canada,Russia and the US are all relative toss ups. I think when you put up the prospective lineups of the Canadians and Americans. In my opinion anyway Canada has a deeper group of forwards, though it is close an easily better group of defensemen and the Americans have the better goalies. The Americans have 10 or 11 1st round picks, Canada has 26. My entire point from the beginning was asking you about the US dominating this age group and trying to get something from you proving that it actually means something. I would still love to see you prove that tangible it actually matters. Like not just your opinion. Facts and results. Has winning the underage tournaments and dominating them in the past shown to translate to success in the U20 or not.

 

[ORRFForever]

So now you are lying about what I said, while you passive-aggressively refuse to address me. Here is a video of Canada scoring after 0.0. Anyone who was objective admitted as much at the time that it wasn't a good goal. Canada went onto win, so yes, with a different outcome, USA arguably is the winner. But thats besides the point of this tournament because that was the American back ups.

You are being a homer. Just put your hand up and admit it. You got upset that I brought logic into this thread that goes against your rooting interests. You ignored what has been widely discussed for years that USA has dominated the 2001 age group. The Hlinka tournament you mention was a team of American back ups. Everyone who watched the U18's that year knew the USA was the best team at the tournament. USA had won every game they played in a two year span internationally except for 3 games, many by crooked scores against these big five countries. If you want to make a point that the American players, of which 10-12 of them will be on this team, have not developed well, why don't you give some specific examples? Let's see this argument. And drop your smugness while you're at it.

No one said the USA is guaranteed to win this tournament. You are saying a bunch of nothing to say the USA has a chance to win. Another homer who tries to play diplomatic behind their lack of objectivity. What has however been said is that the USA has earned the right of favorite. You nor anyone has been able to put forth a good argument against that.

Canada got lucky(!) and, if there was a review system, we would have lost. Having said that, it was 2 years ago, it's water under the bridge, and players have developed / gotten better.

Let's just enjoy the WJR's. Win or lose, it's not going to change anyone's life.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I think you are getting upset over nothing, PB. What a bunch of dummies like me believe means nothing and it will all get settled on the ice.

As for the U.S. vs Canada, based on everything I've seen/read :

* The top 6 forwards balance out;
* Canada's bottom 6 are better;
* Canada's D is much better
* The U.S.' s goaltending is stellar while Canada's goaltending is average...

...so, again, we'll see in 3 weeks.

I'm not upset. I think a lot have forgotten what yields success at this tournament, and past history of this age group or they aren't trying to predict based on logic and reason as opposed to their own rooting interests. I think it's clear that the people who objected to the point I made are the ones who are actually mad that they felt called out by the point I made. And of course anyone could win. This tournament is up for grabs. There is never any overwhelming favorite. That was never a point that was contested. The discussion was about the favorite. It's interesting how the team that should be the favorite apparently isn't the favorite according to the posters of this website. I just thought I'd explain why that made no sense. I didn't force those who felt singled out to get mad about what I said.

 

[canuck2010]

So now you are lying about what I said, while you passive-aggressively refuse to address me. Here is a video of Canada scoring after 0.0. Anyone who was objective admitted as much at the time that it wasn't a good goal. Canada went onto win, so yes, with a different outcome, USA arguably is the winner. But thats besides the point of this tournament because that was the American back ups.

You are being a homer. Just put your hand up and admit it. You got upset that I brought logic into this thread that goes against your rooting interests. You ignored what has been widely discussed for years that USA has dominated the 2001 age group. The Hlinka tournament you mention was a team of American back ups. Everyone who watched the U18's that year knew the USA was the best team at the tournament. USA had won every game they played in a two year span internationally except for 3 games, many by crooked scores against these big five countries. If you want to make a point that the American players, of which 10-12 of them will be on this team, have not developed well, why don't you give some specific examples? Let's see this argument. And drop your smugness while you're at it.

No one said the USA is guaranteed to win this tournament. You are saying a bunch of nothing to say the USA has a chance to win. Another homer who tries to play diplomatic behind their lack of objectivity. What has however been said is that the USA has earned the right of favorite. You nor anyone has been able to put forth a good argument against that.

I recall the situation with the goal but I've forgotten what tournament it was. Refresh my memory, thanks

 

[ORRFForever]

I'm not upset. I think a lot have forgotten what yields success at this tournament, and past history of this age group or they aren't trying to predict based on logic and reason as opposed to their own rooting interests. I think it's clear that the people who objected to the point I made are the ones who are actually mad that they felt called out by the point I made. And of course anyone could win. This tournament is up for grabs. There is never any overwhelming favorite. That was never a point that was contested. The discussion was about the favorite. It's interesting how the team that should be the favorite apparently isn't the favorite according to the posters of this website. I just thought I'd explain why that made no sense. I didn't force those who felt singled out to get mad about what I said.

Everyone is going to see their team as better than it is. Everyone is going to see their chances as better than they are.

Next year, when Canada's 19 year olds should dominate, I'm sure lots of fans will predict other winners. Again, we're all just a bunch of dummies on a web-site.

 

[snipes]

G - Canada
S - Russia
B - USA

MVP - Dach
F - Dach
D - Byram
G - Askarov

Cozens-Dach-Zegras
Broberg-Byram
Askarov

 

[ORRFForever]

I recall the situation with the goal but I've forgotten what tournament it was. Refresh my memory, thanks

I remember watching live (IIRC) and I was sure it would get called back.

Canada scored about 0.5 seconds after the game was over. It was called a goal on the ice. There was no review system so the goal stood. We won in O.T.

My memory is not the best so others should feel free to correct me.

 

[canuck2010]

Everyone is going to see their team as better than it is. Everyone is going to see their chances as better than they are.

Next year, when Canada's 19 year olds should dominate, I'm sure lots of fans will predict other winners. Again, we're all just a bunch of dummies on a web-site.

Bunch of dummies, I think I resemble that remark.

 

[ORRFForever]

Bunch of dummies, I think I resemble that remark.

Me, too.

 

[canuck2010]

I remember watching live (IIRC) and I was sure it would get called back.

Canada scored about 0.5 seconds after the game was over. It was called a goal on the ice. There was no review system so the goal stood.

Wasn't that the Summer Showcase training camp tourney?

 

[ORRFForever]

Wasn't that the Summer Showcase training camp tourney?

I don't remember.

 

[JackSlater]

So now you are lying about what I said, while you passive-aggressively refuse to address me. Here is a video of Canada scoring after 0.0. Anyone who was objective admitted as much at the time that it wasn't a good goal. Canada went onto win, so yes, with a different outcome, USA arguably is the winner. But thats besides the point of this tournament because that was the American back ups.

You are being a homer. Just put your hand up and admit it. You got upset that I brought logic into this thread that goes against your rooting interests. You ignored what has been widely discussed for years that USA has dominated the 2001 age group. The Hlinka tournament you mention was a team of American back ups. Everyone who watched the U18's that year knew the USA was the best team at the tournament. USA had won every game they played in a two year span internationally except for 3 games, many by crooked scores against these big five countries. If you want to make a point that the American players, of which 10-12 of them will be on this team, have not developed well, why don't you give some specific examples? Let's see this argument. And drop your smugness while you're at it.

The first point is pure stupidity. You may want to claim that USA may have won had things gone another way, and they may have, but it's hilarious to clam that USA "arguably won the tournament." There is no argument to be made that USA won that tournament - USA was fourth. It's one of the most ridiculous claims that I've seen on this site in a long time.

As for the rest, we've already gone over it and how poor your argument is. I don't doubt that USA was the best team at the U18 tournament despite losing. I do find it funny to cite historic dominance when the team didn't even win the tournament it has such a significant advantage for though. I'm also confident that most people are aware that the context of the iihf U18 tournament is significantly different than is the case in the WJC, when USA isn't sending a team that has played together all year and other teams (ie Canada in this instance) can send pretty much whatever players that they want. I also imagine that most people aren't narrowly focusing on the 2001 players and excluding 2002s (or beyond, though those players are less relevant) just because their favourite team happens to have a weak crop of 2002 players. And yes, I am aware that the American second string took the majority of Canada's best to the limit (you can argue beyond if you wish) but I do not see how you can handwave the American loss in the iihf U18 in one instance and then cling to what was obviously a very unlikely performance in the Hlinka in the next sentence. I do not expect coherence here though.

I don't know what your final ramblings are supposed to mean. I'm sure that the American players have developed normally. You're obviously putting way too much stock in performances that took place when USA had plenty of advantages that won't be in play at this tournament. Does that mean that USA is going to flame out at this tournament? Of course not. USA is one of the teams that can win this tournament. It's justifiable to project USA as the winner given the players available. But anything beyond that quickly veers into the realm of wishful thinking at best.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

My entire point from the beginning was asking you about the US dominating this age group and trying to get something from you proving that it actually means something. I would still love to see you prove that tangible it actually matters. Like not just your opinion. Facts and results. Has winning the underage tournaments and dominating them in the past shown to translate to success in the U20 or not.

Just to outline the point for those that don't believe the USA dominated in this age group.

Canada Red 9-1 W
Czech Republic 5-2 W
Canada White 4-3 W
Canada Black 5-4 W
Sweden 5-1 W
Canada White 9-1 W
Canada Red 6-4 W
Slovakia 12-0 W
Switzerland 7-2 W
Russia 2-1 W
Russia 5-4 W
Sweden 10-2 W
Finland 3-1 W
Czech Republic 8-3 W
Sweden 8-2 W
Czech Republic 5-2 W
Switzerland 8-1 W
Finland 3-2 W
Sweden 5-7 L
Finland 3-2 W
Czech Republic 8-2W
Russia 4-8 L
Finland 0-1 L
Switzerland 8-0 W
Sweden 6-1 W
Slovakia 12-5 W
Russia 6-3 W
Latvia 7-1 W
Finland 6-0 W
Russia 2-3 L
Canada 5-2 W

To total this up, thats a 27-4 record. 186 goals scored, 71 goals allowed. Even just against the other big four countries, 17-4 106 goals scored, 55 goals allowed.

As to your question, there are many variables so it's a hard question to answer. To begin with, Canada and USA both don't send their best teams to one of the major tournaments during a given year. Finland, Sweden, Russia often are missing players from their teams at these major tournaments that are playing professional hockey. Canada splits up their best team for WHC17. As I already said, you get years like 2019 WJC18 where USA clearly have the best team or 2019 Hlinka where Canada clearly have the best, and they don't win because Askarov steals a game.

And even if there was some trend of the best team in a specific age group continuing on throughout the end of their junior international hockey career, why would we be comparing the best for most years to one of the most dominant international junior teams ever? Those stats I rattled off will not be repeated easily by any country going forward. There probably haven't been very many similarly talented junior international age groups that proved it on the ice for a full 2+ years than that one, so I'm not sure how much it would matter even if there was a correlation between winning tournaments like Hlinka and WJC20 or WJC18 and WJC20.

 

[Mathieukferland]

So now you are lying about what I said, while you passive-aggressively refuse to address me. Here is a video of Canada scoring after 0.0. Anyone who was objective admitted as much at the time that it wasn't a good goal. Canada went onto win, so yes, with a different outcome, USA arguably is the winner. But thats besides the point of this tournament because that was the American back ups.

You are being a homer. Just put your hand up and admit it. You got upset that I brought logic into this thread that goes against your rooting interests. You ignored what has been widely discussed for years that USA has dominated the 2001 age group. The Hlinka tournament you mention was a team of American back ups. Everyone who watched the U18's that year knew the USA was the best team at the tournament. USA had won every game they played in a two year span internationally except for 3 games, many by crooked scores against these big five countries. If you want to make a point that the American players, of which 10-12 of them will be on this team, have not developed well, why don't you give some specific examples? Let's see this argument. And drop your smugness while you're at it.

No one said the USA is guaranteed to win this tournament. You are saying a bunch of nothing to say the USA has a chance to win. Another homer who tries to play diplomatic behind their lack of objectivity. What has however been said is that the USA has earned the right of favorite. You nor anyone has been able to put forth a good argument against that.

They would have had to have beaten Raymond and Holtz in the final, which I think is highly unlikely