After Canada who is the top hockey nation?

[Jablkon]

The 1996 World Cup changed their thinking.

Ever since that victory USA Hockey seems to have adopted a gold-or-nothing view, deserved or not.

Looking back to history i would be happy with their last two silvers, otherwise they would look like most unsuccesfull country in top 6. For sure i dont know americans attitude. But if its like this they are the favourite of that paper team battles on Hfboards. If int. was not exist in real, USA would be the world champion

 

[Canuckistani]

Looking back to history i would be happy with their last two silvers, otherwise they would look like most unsuccesfull country in top 6. For sure i dont know americans attitude. But if its like this they are the favourite of that paper team battles on Hfboards. If int. was not exist in real, USA would be the world champion

Part of what wrecks the USA's record over the past couple decades is the fact that their top players (and fans) are largely indifferent to the WHC. Even so they've managed to pull off the odd bronze.

 

[Yakushev72]

Being in the third place position is being an also ran. Even Wayne Gretzky, not one to make excuses, said that he regretted that he and the 1998 Olympic team didn't care much about the 1998 bronze medal game at the time. You can assume all you like that Canadians care about winning bronze in hockey, but it won't make it true for the vast majority. I am also assuming, of course, that Americans have a similar mindset... could be wrong though.

I think I get it. In reverse psychology, losing is more soothing than winning. We would rather whimper and pout than keep fighting and try to win. We're a stronger hockey power than Slovenia, even though we finished right next to them. I think I get it now!

 

[BruinsBtn]

Russia, no doubt.

But hockey is becoming a wealthy-man's game and they're building rinks all over the USA. The financial might of the US will put it in second place before long and probably first place in the long run.

People don't realize how filthy rich the US is.

 

[The Podium]

Canada

Sweden
USA

Findland
Russia

Czech

everyone else

 

[illone84]

On paper, I don't give a s$$t! You can put Finland 8th place for all I care.

But as per results, I'd say:

1. Can
2. Swe
3. Fin

---------The rest

 

[JackSlater]

I think I get it. In reverse psychology, losing is more soothing than winning. We would rather whimper and pout than keep fighting and try to win. We're a stronger hockey power than Slovenia, even though we finished right next to them. I think I get it now!

Yes, you got it. That is why the most successful, strongest hockey nation and the most dominant sporting nation can't get too worked up about third place.

 

[Yakushev72]

Yes, you got it. That is why the most successful, strongest hockey nation and the most dominant sporting nation can't get too worked up about third place.

That's a very boastful proclamation, but its hard to envision Wayne Gretzky saying "Screw Canada and the Maple Leaf emblazoned across my sweater, I'm going in the tank tonight, because for me, its World supremacy or nothing. I encourage you guys to follow my lead and half-*ss it in the Bronze Medal Game." If Gretzky said that, there would still be no justification whatsoever for Team USA to say it. They have been holding out for the Gold Medal since 1980, all to no avail!

 

[JackSlater]

That's a very boastful proclamation, but its hard to envision Wayne Gretzky saying "Screw Canada and the Maple Leaf emblazoned across my sweater, I'm going in the tank tonight, because for me, its World supremacy or nothing. I encourage you guys to follow my lead and half-*ss it in the Bronze Medal Game." If Gretzky said that, there would still be no justification whatsoever for Team USA to say it. They have been holding out for the Gold Medal since 1980, all to no avail!

I doubt that Gretzky came forward with such a forceful statement, but he has publicly said already that he regrets that he and the team didn't go all out for bronze. Your claim also implies that representing Canada would motivate them in a bronze medal game, but there isn't going to be motivation when every Canadian player knows that the vast majority of their fans do not care about bronze in hockey and that whatever they do from that point on is a failure.

You are mostly right about American expectations... I don't see USA as being at the point of gold or bust, but what you or I think doesn't change what they think. As has already been said though their win at the 1996 World Cup changed perceptions for them.

 

[roto]

I doubt that Gretzky came forward with such a forceful statement, but he has publicly said already that he regrets that he and the team didn't go all out for bronze. Your claim also implies that representing Canada would motivate them in a bronze medal game, but there isn't going to be motivation when every Canadian player knows that the vast majority of their fans do not care about bronze in hockey and that whatever they do from that point on is a failure.

You are mostly right about American expectations... I don't see USA as being at the point of gold or bust, but what you or I think doesn't change what they think. As has already been said though their win at the 1996 World Cup changed perceptions for them.

You have some quite weak arguments made of quotations from Gretzky. We could basically speculate same way about almost every game, that did everyone give 100%, were they mentally ready, did they care 100%? If we start to speculate like that it's an endless argumentation and it leads to nowhere. Many Finnish players were partying the night before Nagano semi final. I could claim that Finns would have won gold if they'd care to play in semis, and if they didn't care about semis, how did they care about bronze game?

It's worthless to speculate whether some player/team cared or not. All we know for sure is the results. Finland won Canada in Nagano, that's a fact. Now when NHL players have participated in many Olympics and current player generation has grown to the fact that Olympics are the ultimate national team tournament, an Olympic medal (even bronze) is something that players would like to have.

It doesn't matter what fans want. If some coach potato doesn't care about Olympic bronze game, it doesn't mean that players think it's the same to come back with empty hands or with an Olympic medal. Especially in big hockey countries players don't necessarily get many chances to get even that one medal. In smaller countries a player may get 5-6 chances.

It's hard to believe that American players today don't care about Olympic bronze. The fans may not care, but players are the ones who've made it to Olympics and have chance to get something that is respected in the whole sports world. I don't understand how World Cup 1996 would affect the players who were barely born at that time. One should not mix up what fans expect and what athletes want.

 

[JackSlater]

You have some quite weak arguments made of quotations from Gretzky. We could basically speculate same way about almost every game, that did everyone give 100%, were they mentally ready, did they care 100%? If we start to speculate like that it's an endless argumentation and it leads to nowhere. Many Finnish players were partying the night before Nagano semi final. I could claim that Finns would have won gold if they'd care to play in semis, and if they didn't care about semis, how did they care about bronze game?

It's worthless to speculate whether some player/team cared or not. All we know for sure is the results. Finland won Canada in Nagano, that's a fact. Now when NHL players have participated in many Olympics and current player generation has grown to the fact that Olympics are the ultimate national team tournament, an Olympic medal (even bronze) is something that players would like to have.

It doesn't matter what fans want. If some coach potato doesn't care about Olympic bronze game, it doesn't mean that players think it's the same to come back with empty hands or with an Olympic medal. Especially in big hockey countries players don't necessarily get many chances to get even that one medal. In smaller countries a player may get 5-6 chances.

It's hard to believe that American players today don't care about Olympic bronze. The fans may not care, but players are the ones who've made it to Olympics and have chance to get something that is respected in the whole sports world. I don't understand how World Cup 1996 would affect the players who were barely born at that time. One should not mix up what fans expect and what athletes want.

My argument isn't made up from a quote from Gretzky, it's common knowledge to people in Canada - no one cares about a hockey bronze. I do believe you that you find it "hard to believe" but that isn't concerning to me. The vast majority of Canadians do not value bronze in hockey - we know this in Canada. Basically no one in Canada would feel better about the failure in 1998 if Canada had beaten Finland in a meaningless game, and presumably Americans wouldn't feel much better about 2014 either. Americans do not care about bronze either, at least according to them, and I'm inclined to believe what they say about their own opinions. It's interesting that Russians and Swedes feel comfortable telling Canadians/Americans what the Canadians/Americans actually care about, even when they claim otherwise.

In the event that I'm dead wrong and the Americans/Canadians were actually highly motivated to win in a bronze scenario, I still wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into that game (or any other single game) for comparison. Sadly best on best level international competition is quite rare.

 

[Jablkon]

I guess it's just culture difference. The biggest motivation for bronze is 4th place which is horrible. We call it potato medal. This is what I heard from childhood. At least in my region everybody grew up on that.

Or its just hockey thing in NA which looks bit silly in case of USA. But if it brings you two silvers...

 

[SwissLeaf]

Best on Best?

The way I see it:

Tier 1)
Canada

Tier 2)
Sweden

Tier 3)
USA, Russia, Finland

Tier 4)
Czech Republic





Tier 5)
Switzerland, Slovakia

Tier 6)
Latvia, Belarus, Norway, Denmark, Germany

Tier 7)
France, Austria, Slovenia

Tier 8)
Italy, Hungary, Kazakhstan

 

[daver]

Based on the best players all playing together in the same league, and it being easily observable that USA has better players.

USA has won one top level competition, Finland has won none. So? In the last decade Finland was better at the 2006 Olympics, USA was better at the 2010 Olympics, and then USA was better again in 2014. Yes, in spite of Finland winning the consolation game.

Aside from the Bronze game, how can you say the US was that much better?

They had two common opponents, Canada and Russia. I don't think the US did that much better than Finland did vs. Canada and I would say the Finns were clearly better vs. Russia than the US was.

Finland's consistent ability to overcome "on-paper" discrepancies has to be given it's due and I would put them on the same tier as the US.

 

[roto]

My argument isn't made up from a quote from Gretzky, it's common knowledge to people in Canada - no one cares about a hockey bronze. I do believe you that you find it "hard to believe" but that isn't concerning to me. The vast majority of Canadians do not value bronze in hockey - we know this in Canada. Basically no one in Canada would feel better about the failure in 1998 if Canada had beaten Finland in a meaningless game, and presumably Americans wouldn't feel much better about 2014 either. Americans do not care about bronze either, at least according to them, and I'm inclined to believe what they say about their own opinions. It's interesting that Russians and Swedes feel comfortable telling Canadians/Americans what the Canadians/Americans actually care about, even when they claim otherwise.

This is still not about what "vast majority of Canadians/Americans" think. They're not athletes having maybe a once-in-lifetime chance to get an Olympic medal. This is about what players in that particular team in that tournament care about. Would I have cared much if Finland had lost the bronze game in Sochi, Vancouver or Nagano? No. Still it has absolutely nothing to do with if it was all the same for players to go home without an Olympic medal.

In addition to mixing up fans with players, It seems to be common to see all in black/white. In this case it means that either players cared or not. Of course it's easy to simplify the matters like that, instead of accepting the fact that things are much more complicated than that. It's silly to use those simplified assumptions as an argument.

It's clear that after semi finals it easy to get motivated for the final, but it's more difficult if next game is bronze game. Still it's more or less the same thing in every hockey game. Team and all of its players are never 100% in, properly prepared and motivated. Still we don't try analyze during NHL season if a team lost because it didn't care enough. It's part of the game that teams and players are in different kind of physical and mental states. It's not a video game with fixed team/player attributes like many seem to think.

The reason why these Olympic games are over analyzed is that some fans try to prove something based on few games played every four years. It's totally ridiculous. Ice hockey is a game played on ice and a team with weaker material on paper can easily win, especially in single game. It's really a game, and it depends on a lot more than if team cared or not. Europeans in general can take tournaments as tournaments and there's no need to draw any far fetched conclusions. That's why people can enjoy of WHC because tournament result is not matter of proof that needs to analyzed like crazy.

Canada would likely have won best-of-7 series against Finland in Nagano. That's not the point however. The point is that Finland won bronze in Nagano and no embarrassing excuses can change that. Anything else is worthless speculation of 'ifs' and something that hasn't happen. Single game doesn't prove much anyway, so I don't understand the whole obsession about "best-on-best", like those few games were some extraordinary proofs of rankings of the hockey world.

 

[daver]

This is still not about what "vast majority of Canadians/Americans" think. They're not athletes having maybe a once-in-lifetime chance to get an Olympic medal. This is about what players in that particular team in that tournament care about. Would I have cared much if Finland had lost the bronze game in Sochi, Vancouver or Nagano? No. Still it has absolutely nothing to do with if it was all the same for players to go home without an Olympic medal.

In addition to mixing up fans with players, It seems to be common to see all in black/white. In this case it means that either players cared or not. Of course it's easy to simplify the matters like that, instead of accepting the fact that things are much more complicated than that. It's silly to use those simplified assumptions as an argument.

It's clear that after semi finals it easy to get motivated for the final, but it's more difficult if next game is bronze game. Still it's more or less the same thing in every hockey game. Team and all of its players are never 100% in, properly prepared and motivated. Still we don't try analyze during NHL season if a team lost because it didn't care enough. It's part of the game that teams and players are in different kind of physical and mental states. It's not a video game with fixed team/player attributes like many seem to think.

The reason why these Olympic games are over analyzed is that some fans try to prove something based on few games played every four years. It's totally ridiculous. Ice hockey is a game played on ice and a team with weaker material on paper can easily win, especially in single game. It's really a game, and it depends on a lot more than if team cared or not. Europeans in general can take tournaments as tournaments and there's no need to draw any far fetched conclusions. That's why people can enjoy of WHC because tournament result is not matter of proof that needs to analyzed like crazy.

Canada would likely have won best-of-7 series against Finland in Nagano. That's not the point however. The point is that Finland won bronze in Nagano and no embarrassing excuses can change that. Anything else is worthless speculation of 'ifs' and something that hasn't happen. Single game doesn't prove much anyway, so I don't understand the whole obsession about "best-on-best", like those few games were some extraordinary proofs of rankings of the hockey world.

They should just give the two semi-final losers bronze medals. I don't see any reason to have the two teams play another game.

 

[roto]

They should just give the two semi-final losers bronze medals. I don't see any reason to have the two teams play another game.

Or give bronze medals to the team which was better at group stage. It'd be another stake for group stage and make it more important.

 

[daver]

Or give bronze medals to the team which was better at group stage. It'd be another stake for group stage and make it more important.

Good idea.

 

[Jablkon]

Best way is to play for bronze imo. They did it in soccer EURO 2004. It's good you have locked medal, still there is bitter taste. You can not delete 4th spot. Disappointment is part of the game and players should know how to deal with it to show true sportmanship. Noone will welcome you on squares for sure, but it has its value...

 

[daver]

Best way is to play for bronze imo. They did it in soccer EURO 2004. It's good you have locked medal, still there is bitter taste. You can not delete 4th spot. Disappointment is part of the game and players should know how to deal with it to show true sportmanship. Noone will welcome you on squares for sure, but it has its value...

What other championships play for 3rd place other than to bring in more revenue. From a competitive standpoint, it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Yakushev72]

What other championships play for 3rd place other than to bring in more revenue. From a competitive standpoint, it doesn't make much sense.

We're talking about the Olympic Games. In all Olympic sports, such as badminton, curling, fencing, track and field and hockey, they award 3 medals - Gold, Silver and Bronze. To my knowledge, going all the way back to the 19th Century, all Olympic competitions have awarded medals for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. Why should they change all that tradition just to suit the tastes of NHL fans?

 

[JackSlater]

Aside from the Bronze game, how can you say the US was that much better?

They had two common opponents, Canada and Russia. I don't think the US did that much better than Finland did vs. Canada and I would say the Finns were clearly better vs. Russia than the US was.

Finland's consistent ability to overcome "on-paper" discrepancies has to be given it's due and I would put them on the same tier as the US.

I watched the games, USA looked better to me. There's nothing conclusive about it, it's based on observation. A lot of people had USA as the best team going into the semi-finals based on performance to that point. Both teams were outplayed in the semi-finals. With only 6 games of course it's tough to definitively say very much.

This is still not about what "vast majority of Canadians/Americans" think. They're not athletes having maybe a once-in-lifetime chance to get an Olympic medal. This is about what players in that particular team in that tournament care about. Would I have cared much if Finland had lost the bronze game in Sochi, Vancouver or Nagano? No. Still it has absolutely nothing to do with if it was all the same for players to go home without an Olympic medal.

These athletes grew up here just like everyone else, thinking that bronze is not acceptable for hockey. They aren't going to just suddenly change because you deem it a "once in a lifetime chance to get an Olympic medal". Olympic medals in hockey don't just have intrinsic value here, and the hockey tournament is not held in nearly the esteem that it is in Europe. Third place is not acceptable for Canadian players in a top level hockey tournament, regardless of whether there is a medal attached to third place. Everyone knows that. Americans claim that the same situation exists there.

In addition to mixing up fans with players, It seems to be common to see all in black/white. In this case it means that either players cared or not. Of course it's easy to simplify the matters like that, instead of accepting the fact that things are much more complicated than that. It's silly to use those simplified assumptions as an argument.

It's clear that after semi finals it easy to get motivated for the final, but it's more difficult if next game is bronze game. Still it's more or less the same thing in every hockey game. Team and all of its players are never 100% in, properly prepared and motivated. Still we don't try analyze during NHL season if a team lost because it didn't care enough. It's part of the game that teams and players are in different kind of physical and mental states. It's not a video game with fixed team/player attributes like many seem to think.

I agree with this, it isn't absolute. There is an obvious discrepancy between teams though. I have little doubt that the European players care more about the WHC - it's why they are much more likely to get their top players. I suspect that the Canadians cared more than the Europeans did about the Canada Cup. When it comes to bronze it's easy enough to see which side will care more. Whether that matters or not is up to each person I guess.

The reason why these Olympic games are over analyzed is that some fans try to prove something based on few games played every four years. It's totally ridiculous. Ice hockey is a game played on ice and a team with weaker material on paper can easily win, especially in single game. It's really a game, and it depends on a lot more than if team cared or not. Europeans in general can take tournaments as tournaments and there's no need to draw any far fetched conclusions. That's why people can enjoy of WHC because tournament result is not matter of proof that needs to analyzed like crazy.

Canada would likely have won best-of-7 series against Finland in Nagano. That's not the point however. The point is that Finland won bronze in Nagano and no embarrassing excuses can change that. Anything else is worthless speculation of 'ifs' and something that hasn't happen. Single game doesn't prove much anyway, so I don't understand the whole obsession about "best-on-best", like those few games were some extraordinary proofs of rankings of the hockey world.

What is your point? No one is saying that Finland did not win or should return the medal. I agree that it's impossible to make anything close to a definitive statement based on one game or even a handful of games. That's especially true in a situation where the teams are playing even though they have no chance at winning the tournament.

 

[roto]

These athletes grew up here just like everyone else, thinking that bronze is not acceptable for hockey. They aren't going to just suddenly change because you deem it a "once in a lifetime chance to get an Olympic medal". Olympic medals in hockey don't just have intrinsic value here, and the hockey tournament is not held in nearly the esteem that it is in Europe. Third place is not acceptable for Canadian players in a top level hockey tournament, regardless of whether there is a medal attached to third place. Everyone knows that. Americans claim that the same situation exists there.

I have to strongly disagree with your black&white attitude. I can agree that European Olympic players may give more value to bronze than North Americansat average, but it's definitely not black&white. I remember how American players were interviewed before Sochi bronze game and afterwards. Before the game one player (I don't remember name) said that losing the SF was big disappointment, but they still wanted to get bronze medals. After the game two different USA players were interviewed in TV and both were clearly disappointed because they couldn't get bronze. I'm sorry but I can't find a videos of them in Internet.

USA got bronze in WHC 2013. Here are few quotations from few players (from Jatkoaika.com):
Gionta: "It's nicer to go home with a medal, color doesn't matter that much", "This feels great. We came here to play for medals and we deserved this chance by good performance. Now we leave with bronze medals, which feels quite special", "It's not gold, but I'll take it"
Sacco: "We haven't got too many medals lately, so we're really proud about this"
Galchenyuk: "Winning the game for my team and country is unbelievable. I must be happier than ever in my life"

USA got bronze in WHC 2015.
Bonino: "This is a great thing. You always want gold, but because we lost it yesterday, we regrouped for bronze game. The medal is valuable - you come here to win something."
Moses: "We came here to win gold, but it feels better to leave with bronze than with nothing."

These players don't seem care about bronze any less than European players. I'd be glad to see if you have other kind of quotations from those three tournaments from American players.

What is your point? No one is saying that Finland did not win or should return the medal. I agree that it's impossible to make anything close to a definitive statement based on one game or even a handful of games. That's especially true in a situation where the teams are playing even though they have no chance at winning the tournament.

The point is that opening the door for "did they care?" speculation leads to endless amount of possible ifs and questions whether the players/teams were properly motivated and prepared. It's just fruitless. It's better not to use these tournaments/games for proving purposes at all - then there's no need to overanalyze and make excuses either. Tournaments come and go.

 

[roto]

I found also an ESPN article about Sochi bronze medal game:
http://espn.go.com/olympics/winter/2014/icehockey/story/_/id/10501090/2014-sochi-olympics-team-usa-feeling-pretty-low-bronze-medal-loss-finland

Some quotations (boldings are mine):
"Disappointing," Parise said. "A little embarrassing, with what was on the line the last two days and for us to not play well really in either of the games. That's something that will frustrate all of us for quite a long time." "We're going home empty-handed with some pretty high expectations and high hopes coming into here a couple weeks ago. To leave on this note is pretty ugly."
---
"It feels like you played this tournament for nothing," said U.S. and Colorado Avalanche center Paul Stastny. "You win that quarterfinal game; you get excited because you know you're going to play for a medal; and you come away with nothing. Not much to say, just disappointing, sour, I guess. A medal's a medal and it's going to be with you forever and we couldn't come up with one and that's the part that's most frustrating."
---
"No excuses," the Chicago Blackhawks star said. "I wasn't good enough to help the team win a medal. Obviously, I was expected to do a lot more. When you come over here and put up zero goals and four assists in six games, it's not the numbers you want to see. Definitely disappointing."
---
"It's definitely not a pretty sight. The score's obviously not pretty at all," Brown said. "It's hard to explain. I don't really have an answer for you, quite honestly."

Brown was asked whether the U.S. quit.

"I don't think we quit," Brown insisted.
---
"When I see a game like this, it takes me back to 1992, my experience in the bronze-medal game against the Czechs," said Hedican, who won a Stanley Cup with the Carolina Hurricanes in 2006. "We lost against the [Unified Team] the night before, kind of the same scenario that the U.S. is in less than 24 hours later, you're out there to try and win the bronze.

"Reflecting now, it's the one thing in my career I look back and say, 'Boy, I really wish I had that." And I wish I had a bronze medal that I could reflect and, when I'm sitting at home and I've got my grandson someday or my granddaughter on my lap, I can say, hey, I was a bronze medalist in the Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia, or wherever."
---

So how can you interpret it like bronze didn't mean anything to them?

 

[daver]

We're talking about the Olympic Games. In all Olympic sports, such as badminton, curling, fencing, track and field and hockey, they award 3 medals - Gold, Silver and Bronze. To my knowledge, going all the way back to the 19th Century, all Olympic competitions have awarded medals for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. Why should they change all that tradition just to suit the tastes of NHL fans?

What does the NHL have to do with anything? I just don't find it a meaningful enough game to have it played.

I like the idea of awarding it the better preliminary round team.