After Canada who is the top hockey nation?

[AD1066]

In spite of how anyone does feel or should feel about an Olympic bronze, there's still the question:

Is success in international tournaments a more reliable indicator of the relative strength of a hockey nation, than the performance of its players in the NHL or other pro leagues?

The huge discrepancy between sample sizes has me preferring the latter, although I may be biased because it tends to cast the US in a more favorable light given the failure to medal in Sochi.

 

[Hanji]

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

Almost all international competitions, from every sport, include a 3rd place game. It's the standard across the sporting world.

I agree that it doesn't make much competitive sense, but I don't see it changing.

 

[Yakushev72]

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.

It makes it even less meaningful if they just give it to someone from the preliminary round. Make them earn it on the ice!

 

[xxxx]

In spite of how anyone does feel or should feel about an Olympic bronze, there's still the question:

Is success in international tournaments a more reliable indicator of the relative strength of a hockey nation, than the performance of its players in the NHL or other pro leagues?

The huge discrepancy between sample sizes has me preferring the latter, although I may be biased because it tends to cast the US in a more favorable light given the failure to medal in Sochi.

that is a good question. A best-on-best tournament is only once in 4 years, and you don't even get to play some other top teams. Judging anything from one game in 4 years is ridiculous.

USA is a stronger hockey nation in terms of players than Finland period, doesn't matter they lost the only one game they played together in 4 years with the best possible players.

 

[JackSlater]

In spite of how anyone does feel or should feel about an Olympic bronze, there's still the question:

Is success in international tournaments a more reliable indicator of the relative strength of a hockey nation, than the performance of its players in the NHL or other pro leagues?

The huge discrepancy between sample sizes has me preferring the latter, although I may be biased because it tends to cast the US in a more favorable light given the failure to medal in Sochi.

Unfortunately the sample size is so small. Often one game is the difference in tournament rankings. One game isn't enough to tell us much of anything, and right now legitimate best on best competition is only once every four years.

Another issue is whether "best national team" is the same as "best hockey country".

 

[roto]

Yes, what does 'top hockey nation' mean in this context?
- Most elite players?
- Popularity of the sport when compared to other sports?
- Best single line-up for an international tournament?
- Success in so-called best-on-best international tournaments?
- Success in relation to size of the country and player production?
...

Slovenia isn't a top dog, but their success in ice hockey is impressive if we remember that the population is only 2 million. They appear often in soccer WC/EC, regularly in volleyball EC, basketball EC and currently they've been seen in ice hockey WHC and Olympics too, and still they have only handful of registered ice hockey players and arenas.

 

[daver]

It makes it even less meaningful if they just give it to someone from the preliminary round. Make them earn it on the ice!

Give both teams bronze medals. I think some of the Olympic events do that if I'm not mistaken.

There is absolutely something to be said about a team not caring about the bronze medal game whether it's an "Anything but Gold" attitude or simply it's little consolation for not reaching what should be the only goal of winning the tourney. At the end of the day, whether you got a bronze or didn't win any games, you lost.

Power to the Finns for putting themselves in the position to win bronze in '98 and 2014 but it doesn't necessarily mean they were the third best team. It would have been nice to have seen Canada win bronze in 1998 but it would be very, very, very little consolation for not winning the gold.

I would rather have a "Anything but Gold is unacceptable" mentality than a "happy to get to the semis" attitude.

 

[Jablkon]

Give both teams bronze medals. I think some of the Olympic events do that if I'm not mistaken.

There is absolutely something to be said about a team not caring about the bronze medal game whether it's an "Anything but Gold" attitude or simply it's little consolation for not reaching what should be the only goal of winning the tourney. At the end of the day, whether you got a bronze or didn't win any games, you lost.

Power to the Finns for putting themselves in the position to win bronze in '98 and 2014 but it doesn't necessarily mean they were the third best team. It would have been nice to have seen Canada win bronze in 1998 but it would be very, very, very little consolation for not winning the gold.

I would rather have a "Anything but Gold is unacceptable" mentality than a "happy to get to the semis" attitude.

Then who was the third best team in 1998, if not Finland??? Why should we give a bronze for free to a team who does not care about bronze?You can put them both on forth place. You presume that everzbody should have this gold attitude. How would that help to present czech team or Russia?

 

[Yakushev72]

Give both teams bronze medals. I think some of the Olympic events do that if I'm not mistaken.

There is absolutely something to be said about a team not caring about the bronze medal game whether it's an "Anything but Gold" attitude or simply it's little consolation for not reaching what should be the only goal of winning the tourney. At the end of the day, whether you got a bronze or didn't win any games, you lost.

Power to the Finns for putting themselves in the position to win bronze in '98 and 2014 but it doesn't necessarily mean they were the third best team. It would have been nice to have seen Canada win bronze in 1998 but it would be very, very, very little consolation for not winning the gold.

I would rather have a "Anything but Gold is unacceptable" mentality than a "happy to get to the semis" attitude.

A better idea is to turn off the scoreboard during the games, let the teams play and have a nice competition, and give everybody a Gold Medal at the end.

 

[xxxx]

I think it's nonsense to not have other medals...it's good as it is. But to give the bronze medal to the team with better results in group stage is not that of a bad idea.

 

[sdf]

СССР

 

[cowboy82nd]

Last 35 years the Americans have won 7 medals in Men's IIHF events (Olympics, Worlds). For them to say an Olympic Bronze is meaningless is laughable. They haven't accomplished anything in International Hockey compared to a Canada, they can't think like winners because they're not. That's pure American ''superiority'' kicking in.

What the hell do you know about American "superiority"?

 

[sdf]

that is a good question. A best-on-best tournament is only once in 4 years, and you don't even get to play some other top teams. Judging anything from one game in 4 years is ridiculous.

If in 2010 betwin russia/canada would be a series games canada just destroed russia like this happened in one game, end series betwin canada/usa would be like similar that one final game

 

[daver]

A better idea is to turn off the scoreboard during the games, let the teams play and have a nice competition, and give everybody a Gold Medal at the end.

That's some nice hyperbole you are throwing around, worthy of a Bronze medal.

 

[daver]

Then who was the third best team in 1998, if not Finland??? Why should we give a bronze for free to a team who does not care about bronze?You can put them both on forth place. You presume that everzbody should have this gold attitude. How would that help to present czech team or Russia?

Let's just say getting to the semis is, IMO, worth a lot more in terms of evaluating a team, than who won the Bronze medal game. I would a team that is less disappointed that they lost their semi game has an advantage.

If you were Canadian, you would understand the "Anything but Gold" attitude better. There is almost literally zero consolation in not winning.

 

[sdf]

СССР

Better than canada

 

[ulvvf]

What arrogant title. Canada is not the top nation, more than in media hype world then. I would not say it is one top nation, is usually various between, Russia, sweden, canada and finland. In past czech also. But they have falling little bit behind but have some good player comming up now.

I would rank it this way now

Sweden
Russia
Finland
Canada
USA
Czech

But is very even.

 

[Snowsii]

What arrogant title. Canada is not the top nation, more than in media hype world then. I would not say it is one top nation, is usually various between, Russia, sweden, canada and finland. In past czech also. But they have falling little bit behind but have some good player comming up now.

I would rank it this way now

Sweden
Russia
Finland
Canada
USA
Czech

But is very even.

Normally i would kinda agree with you, but have to admit that Canada would win most of "out of ten" games between anyone on that list. ( Im talking about best on best)

IMO list goes something like this:

- Canada
- Sweden / Usa
- Russia / Finland

You could rank Russia also with Sweden and Usa, but their coaching / team spirit havent allways been that great. They surely got players for it. Finland on other hand, have been great coz of coaching and goaltenders.

 

[ulvvf]

that is a good question. A best-on-best tournament is only once in 4 years, and you don't even get to play some other top teams. Judging anything from one game in 4 years is ridiculous.

USA is a stronger hockey nation in terms of players than Finland period, doesn't matter they lost the only one game they played together in 4 years with the best possible players.

well lets get rid of nhl and there will be far more best of the best games, and what is even better they will not be as corrupt as when NHL is arrange the tournament like they do in the olympics and world cup and have refs from NHl when usa and canada is playing. that really put down all crediblity of the tournament.

"USA is a stronger hockey nation in terms of players than Finland period, doesn't matter they lost the only one game they played together in 4 years with the best possible players."

Says who? should we base it on subjcetive opionion or what they do on the ice? if we shall base on what they do on the ice, it is no question that finland is a stronger hockey nation.

 

[AD1066]

Says who? should we base it on subjcetive opionion or what they do on the ice? if we shall base on what they do on the ice, it is no question that finland is a stronger hockey nation.

Full credit to Finland for winning the game, but you're looking at an incredibly small sample size. What about "what they do on the ice" across hundreds of games in the NHL and other pro leagues?

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

Full credit to Finland for winning the game, but you're looking at an incredibly small sample size. What about "what they do on the ice" across hundreds of games in the NHL and other pro leagues?

Who in their right mind looks at international sports like that.

You perform at tournaments that matter and that's how the World judges you.

Football-World Cup
Rugby-World Cup
Cricket - World Cup

Do you think people around the World are going to say well Argentina has the World's best player so they're better then the Germans.

Indians have better individual talent then Australians in Cricket yet Australia has won 4 out the last 5 World Cups.

It's about performing when it matters. Of course Finland is viewed higher then the US right now. They come together as a team when it matters and their consistency on a best on best level at the Olympics is astonishing.

They've medaled in every Olympics since Nagano, can't say that about the US.

Which is why it's

Canada
Sweden
Finland
US
Russia
Czech

 

[ulvvf]

Normally i would kinda agree with you, but have to admit that Canada would win most of "out of ten" games between anyone on that list. ( Im talking about best on best)

IMO list goes something like this:

- Canada
- Sweden / Usa
- Russia / Finland

You could rank Russia also with Sweden and Usa, but their coaching / team spirit havent allways been that great. They surely got players for it. Finland on other hand, have been great coz of coaching and goaltenders.

Maybe, but we will never know that, and for me, the questio iss if we would have that kind of serie and canada would lose, would they admit that they are not the best in the world then or would they make up excuses like they usually do when they lose?

 

[X66]

What arrogant title. Canada is not the top nation, more than in media hype world then. I would not say it is one top nation, is usually various between, Russia, sweden, canada and finland. In past czech also. But they have falling little bit behind but have some good player comming up now.

I would rank it this way now

Sweden
Russia
Finland
Canada
USA
Czech

But is very even.

Lol, no.

Canada is not only the best hockey nation, it's convincingly the best.

Even in a tournament structure that has 1 game elimination, they've won 3 of the last 4 gold medals, and that includes the most dominating Olympic team of all time(2014).

Think of it this way, Canada has players on their 4th line, bottom pairing Dmen and reserves, that would make every single other Olympic team, with a significant role to boot. Can the same be said for other teams 4th liners, Bottom pairing Dmen and reserves? No.

 

[JackSlater]

Who in their right mind looks at international sports like that.

You perform at tournaments that matter and that's how the World judges you.

Football-World Cup
Rugby-World Cup
Cricket - World Cup

Do you think people around the World are going to say well Argentina has the World's best player so they're better then the Germans.

Indians have better individual talent then Australians in Cricket yet Australia has won 4 out the last 5 World Cups.

It's about performing when it matters. Of course Finland is viewed higher then the US right now. They come together as a team when it matters and their consistency on a best on best level at the Olympics is astonishing.

They've medaled in every Olympics since Nagano, can't say that about the US.

Which is why it's

Canada
Sweden
Finland
US
Russia
Czech

Finland did not win a medal at the 2002 Olympics. The comparison with Germany/Argentina is horrible - everyone knew that Germany was a better team than Argentina because of how good Germany's players are in their domestic leagues, in addition to their performance internationally. Messi was the best player, but Germany obviously had a better group overall.

It's insane to rank players based on international competition when those games constitute such a tiny proportion of the games that they play, particularly in hockey. Of course international competition is worthy of consideration, but these players play hundreds of games in their leagues. We know how good they are before the international tournaments begin.

What arrogant title. Canada is not the top nation, more than in media hype world then. I would not say it is one top nation, is usually various between, Russia, sweden, canada and finland. In past czech also. But they have falling little bit behind but have some good player comming up now.

I would rank it this way now

Sweden
Russia
Finland
Canada
USA
Czech

But is very even.

I'm excited. Your list of the 50 best players in the world still makes me laugh, so I'm interested in seeing what you produce next.

Care to explain these rankings?

 

[AD1066]

Who in their right mind looks at international sports like that.

You perform at tournaments that matter and that's how the World judges you.

So if the US had won Gold in 2010, they would have superseded Canada as the top "hockey nation"? The Czech Republic was the world's top hockey nation in 1998?

Quality of top players
Depth
Success in international tournaments

Are all pieces of the puzzle.