Best-on-Best Power Rankings
- Thread starter HC Jets
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Not counting international results, and taking into account only the rosters, depth, and the play in the NHL, Canada, Sweden, USA, and Russia are definitely the strongest countries out there.
I think Sweden and USA are close for most people. Russia is fourth, even though they are definitely closer to Sweden than to Finland. That being despite lacking real top defensemen. The Czechs are in the same tier with Finland imo. Slovakia is still ahead of Switzerland in terms of talent imo. Finland and Switzerland are probably the two best teams that can often elevate their play above paper expectations, or better said, they can play a really good team-game that may sometimes elevate them above more talented teams.
I think Sweden and USA are close for most people. Russia is fourth, even though they are definitely closer to Sweden than to Finland. That being despite lacking real top defensemen. The Czechs are in the same tier with Finland imo. Slovakia is still ahead of Switzerland in terms of talent imo. Finland and Switzerland are probably the two best teams that can often elevate their play above paper expectations, or better said, they can play a really good team-game that may sometimes elevate them above more talented teams.
Last edited:
Agree with this and after the top 4 the drop off in talent and depth is quite large.
The Finns seem to have some really good young players and I hope they make a push for 4th.
The Danes and Swiss also are making huge leaps in terms of their young talent but will it translate to best on best success?
Right! But 2 debatable things! Sweden may be 2. and Finland 4..
Why?
This Ranking is the same before 10 years!
But now we have more knowldege since this time(World Cup of Hockey 2004,OG 2006,10 and 14).
Why?
This Ranking is the same before 10 years!
But now we have more knowldege since this time(World Cup of Hockey 2004,OG 2006,10 and 14).
? no idea on what you are talking about here, please explain.
Actually I'm going to guess that you are talking about the past and this thread is about the future going forward.
I'm well aware that Finland can clog the zone and rely on great elite goal tending to win single games when it matters but I always look at these type of ranking in a multi game format and over time Finlands roster just doesn't stack up.
That being said the international format can have the less superior team steal a game or 2 here and there.
Tthe thread after all is talking about not only results but on paper as well.
Last edited:
No, it's all on paper, obviously. On best-on-best, last time Russia got a medal was in SLC. On best-on-best, last time Finland failed to medal was in SLC. That's plenty of "stolen" games over the years.
Nothing wrong with comparing paper rosters, though - if you say so (and poster number #2 did, so kudos to him), and don't throw out a pretense that actual results weigh in. Still, I find it funny when people claim they look at these as "multi game format", yet all they're really doing is stare at paper rosters and dismiss every actual result not in line with them as an outlier - even when there are clearly too many of them to be mere outliers.
Last edited:
Another thread from same poster about "power rankings" or "top hockey nation". If one starts a thread and makes list, one should also explain what is it based on. Generally these threads are useless argumentation about some imaginative power rankings based on paper rosters, especially as every has his on interpretation of how what's relevant or not.
Many North Americans have got used to system where all teams are put on same line (draft, salary cap, trading system, elc/rfa restrictions etc), so they haven't seen that material is not everything. They believe that there can't be parity without all those artificial parity tricks. If team with weaker looking material wins, it's often not about stealing. This can be seen in NHL too, if eyes are kept open.
Btw, In Finnish Liiga the difference of leader and 13th team is only 16 points after ~21 games played in 3-point-system. The weakest team on paper (which was promoted for Mestis) is actually 8th at the moment.
Regarding Team Finland. Finland made most goals (40% more than Canada) in Sochi and played against all so-called top-4 teams (Canada, Sweden, USA, Russia): 2 wins, 1 OT loss and one loss by one goal. Not a bad result. In Vancouver Finland sucked on ice, but still was able to get bronze. In Turin Finland played very well both offensively and defensively, but lost the final by one goal. If it wasn't domination, at least it wasn't far from it. Canadians say that they dominated in Sochi, but it was not that different when compared to what Finland did in 2006. Ironically only few non-Finns remember that, because Finland was an underdog even then. It would've been a different thing if the same had happened to a team looking stronger on paper, like Canada.
Edit. Removed a sort of exaggeration so that it doesn't lead the discussion to something irrelevant.
Ice hockey is a game. Team with better material is not guaranteed to play better even in long term, let alone short tournaments. In Europe we have ice hockey leagues where some teams have way better players than others, but still it doesn't guarantee the championship for the most stacked team. Jokerit in Finland was the top team on paper for a long time, but it was hard to see that when looking at results in the spring.Hardyvan123 said:
Many North Americans have got used to system where all teams are put on same line (draft, salary cap, trading system, elc/rfa restrictions etc), so they haven't seen that material is not everything. They believe that there can't be parity without all those artificial parity tricks. If team with weaker looking material wins, it's often not about stealing. This can be seen in NHL too, if eyes are kept open.
Btw, In Finnish Liiga the difference of leader and 13th team is only 16 points after ~21 games played in 3-point-system. The weakest team on paper (which was promoted for Mestis) is actually 8th at the moment.
Regarding Team Finland. Finland made most goals (40% more than Canada) in Sochi and played against all so-called top-4 teams (Canada, Sweden, USA, Russia): 2 wins, 1 OT loss and one loss by one goal. Not a bad result. In Vancouver Finland sucked on ice, but still was able to get bronze. In Turin Finland played very well both offensively and defensively, but lost the final by one goal. If it wasn't domination, at least it wasn't far from it. Canadians say that they dominated in Sochi, but it was not that different when compared to what Finland did in 2006. Ironically only few non-Finns remember that, because Finland was an underdog even then. It would've been a different thing if the same had happened to a team looking stronger on paper, like Canada.
Edit. Removed a sort of exaggeration so that it doesn't lead the discussion to something irrelevant.
Last edited:
To be fair, Canada was fairly dominant in Sochi. They only conceded four goals in the entire tournament, and even if they did struggle to score in some games, those were still pretty one-sided affairs. The other side was simply trying to weather the onslaught.
Our team in Turin was utterly dominant in some games (I still consider the SF vs. Russia the closest example of a "perfect" game I've ever seen), but there were some even affairs in the mix, most notably the QF vs. USA... and, of course, that goddamn final.
Anyway, threads like these always provide amusing reads, regardless of how people treat Finland. Some folks actually have the gall to claim they're approaching things with some kind of "analytical" view to it all - in a vain attempt to appear smarter than they are, most likely. In reality, their entire "analysis" obviously consists of eyeballing the paper rosters, parroting the most common points from the talking heads and applying the Stetson-Harrison method.
Maybe I exaggerated a bit, but being dominating requires also offensive dominance. It can be argued that Canada dominated also offensively, which is not very far from truth, but there should be also production, and Canada didn't produce much. Yeah, it was enough that time, but imagine what would've been said if Finland had win gold with same kind of performance: their goalie stole games, they were as unproductive offensively as their roster shows, they were able to steal those one goal games etc. Anyway, winners write the history.
Regarding Turin 2006... Finland actually let 8 goals (5 on power play) in 8 games, which wasn't bad either. Canada let 4 goals in 6 games, which is great of course. Still I feel that Canada's offensive dominance isn't questioned because they had the best offensive roster. Don't get me wrong, Canada definitely earned the gold and was the best, it just lacked one thing from full domination: goal scoring.
In these discussions it's just a fact that whatever heroics underdogs do from tournament to tournament, some posters consider it as 'stealing', 'a fluke' or whatever. Otherwise it doesn't fit in their conceptual model of ice hockey, where team with weaker looking material can't be better than others. That's why all evidence is selectively twisted and excluded/included to support that biased view.
This pretty much sums the entire topic.
Despite that, it'd be good to stay away from exaggerations, as those can easily derail the topic into yet another X vs. Y debate, rather than bring into light all the embarrassing argumentation errors said debates are usually based on.
You're right, my mistake. I modified that message to avoid some needless argumentation.
I want to add one thing. When the rosters are analyzed on paper, it's usually done based on players' performances in their NHL teams. The way the player looks and produces depends also on line mates, role, the team, playing style, rink size, coaching etc. That's why the player attributes shouldn't be just copied from NHL stats page to some Olympic roster analysis. Some players may play better in national team, some can play worse.
Of course it's difficult to take all parameters into account before each tournament, but one should not be surprised if the things don't look the same on ice than on paper analysis based on NHL performances. And finally, the team is not just sum of its players.
Last edited:
I realize Finland has had more success as a team than Russia but just looking at the forwards, Russia (more so than even 2014 Olympics) has 3 competant scoring lines and a good checking line. For Finland though, the best true RW I could find is Sakari Salminen who is playing in the Swiss League this season. To be clear Finland isn't awful on paper, but the gap between Russia and Finland on paper is bigger than the gap between Finland and Russia in terms of results, in my oppinion.
Ovechkin - Datsyuk - Tarasenko
Kovalchuk - Malkin - Radulov
Panarin - Kuznetsov - Kucherov
Kulemin - Anisimov - Yakupov
Mozyakin - Zaripov
versus
Filpulla - Barkov - Pulkkinen
Mi. Granlund - Teravainen - Salminen
J. Jokinen - Lehtera - Bergenheim
Korpikoski - M. Koivu - Ma. Granlund
Komarov - T. Ruutu
Defence is roughly equivalent, goaltending Finland has a slight edge.
CAN 3-1 NOR
CAN 6-0 AUT
CAN 2-1 FIN
CAN 2-1 LAT
CAN 1-0 USA
CAN 3-0 SWE
CAN 17-3 Others
If 17-3 isn't dominance...
So you might as well say it's all on paper and no actual results matter. Like I said, nothing wrong with it. Just be honest about it.
Btw, here's a closer to realistic lineup to compare.
Mi.Granlund - Lehterä - Pulkkinen
Teräväinen - Filppula - Rantanen
Donskoi - Barkov - J.Jokinen
Komarov - Koivu - Korpikoski
+ Haula, Ma.Granlund
It still doesn't hold a candle to Russia, but at least all the talent is in the NHL or close.
You shouldn't make fantasy lineups either by simply eyeballing it. Salminen has little business in Finland's current best possible lineup.
Canada is solidly first and there is a real gap after them now. Sweden is probably #2 today.
The Finns consistently find ways to compete, and they never take the consolation games lightly, as the US nearly always does. I consider the US and Russia to be wild cards that can post results anywhere from #2 to #6, with rarely any rhyme or reason. The Finns are always in there, fight to medal and take pride in a bronze medal. The US position often seems to be first or bust. Slotting in the Finns at #3, based on actual showings, is certainly reasonable.
Roster-based predictions will likely continue the Canada-Sweden-USA-Russia trend, and the Finns will probably find a way to finish #2 or #3 again at the 2016 World Cup, because that's what they always do.
The Finns consistently find ways to compete, and they never take the consolation games lightly, as the US nearly always does. I consider the US and Russia to be wild cards that can post results anywhere from #2 to #6, with rarely any rhyme or reason. The Finns are always in there, fight to medal and take pride in a bronze medal. The US position often seems to be first or bust. Slotting in the Finns at #3, based on actual showings, is certainly reasonable.
Roster-based predictions will likely continue the Canada-Sweden-USA-Russia trend, and the Finns will probably find a way to finish #2 or #3 again at the 2016 World Cup, because that's what they always do.
Of course there comes the thing when it's up to you, how much the rosters matter, how much the results matter (and what tournaments), and also how much the depth matters and the quality of game in the NHL, etc. There's much more factors that could be included when making these rankings...
but OP said "taking into account strength on paper and results". So we should include both, not just rosters, and not just results. Of course another important thing is whether we include results from the past 20 years, or just from the past 5 years, etc. And also what tournaments? Just the olympics, or also the World Juniors and somehow even the World Championships and U-18, Ivan Hlinka tournaments? If we go by the olympics only, it shouldn't be hard to get it right. The last thing is how much weigh do you want to put on rosters and results.
On paper it's something like this
1. Canada, 2. USA/Sweden, 4. Russia, 5. Czechs/Finland, 7. Slovakia/Switzerland
but OP said "taking into account strength on paper and results". So we should include both, not just rosters, and not just results. Of course another important thing is whether we include results from the past 20 years, or just from the past 5 years, etc. And also what tournaments? Just the olympics, or also the World Juniors and somehow even the World Championships and U-18, Ivan Hlinka tournaments? If we go by the olympics only, it shouldn't be hard to get it right. The last thing is how much weigh do you want to put on rosters and results.
On paper it's something like this
1. Canada, 2. USA/Sweden, 4. Russia, 5. Czechs/Finland, 7. Slovakia/Switzerland
17. Kazakhstan
18. Hungary - They have players in leagues in Sweeden, Germany and Czechia
19. Poland - Very good performance last year in Krakow. Their league is improving and they naturalizes some canadian players with polish roots (Danton, Cichy).
20. Italy
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
Looks like a good list, interesting to see Hungary in top 20, as most of you know I have great interest in lesser nations and how they're doing in international hockey.
In no manner, as there is no reliable metric. I think True Hockey Fan put it aptly - too many variables in play.
TBH, just eyeballing the potential rosters and ranking them based on that is the most uniform way to go about it. You just should be honest about the method, instead of spouting any "based on games too" crap, when it's painfully obvious all the results not responding to ones personal views are disregarded.
Villert
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2009
- 579
- 92
Personally,
Going by results (Oympics 1998-, World Cup 1996-):
1. Canada
2. Finland
3. Sweden
4. USA
5. Russia
6. Czech Republic
If you are one of those that hate including World Cups as much as I hate including World Championships in these lists (Only Olympic Results 199
:
1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. Finland
4. Russia
5. USA
6. Czech Republic
On Paper (just my own eyeball ranking of current paper strength):
1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. USA
4. Russia
5. Finland
6. Czech Republic
Just my opinion etc etc. Teams were scored on how they fared in the relevant competitions (finishing result, # opp beaten, bonus for winning when relevant).
Going by results (Oympics 1998-, World Cup 1996-):
1. Canada
2. Finland
3. Sweden
4. USA
5. Russia
6. Czech Republic
If you are one of those that hate including World Cups as much as I hate including World Championships in these lists (Only Olympic Results 199
:1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. Finland
4. Russia
5. USA
6. Czech Republic
On Paper (just my own eyeball ranking of current paper strength):
1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. USA
4. Russia
5. Finland
6. Czech Republic
Just my opinion etc etc. Teams were scored on how they fared in the relevant competitions (finishing result, # opp beaten, bonus for winning when relevant).
Last edited:
Personally,
Going by results (Oympics 1998-, World Cup 1996-):
1. Canada
2. Finland
3. Sweden
4. USA
5. Russia
6. Czech Republic
If you are one of those that hate including World Cups as much as I hate including World Championships in these lists (Only Olympic Results 199
1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. Finland
4. Russia
5. USA
6. Czech Republic
On Paper (just my own eyeball ranking of current paper strength):
1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. USA
4. Russia
5. Finland
6. Czech Republic
Just my opinion etc etc. Teams were scored on how they fared in the relevant competitions (finishing result, # opp beaten, bonus for winning when relevant).
Czech Republic should be 5th if you are counting Olympics only. We have 1 gold and 1 bronze while Russia 1 silver and 1 bronze.
And on paper czechs look better than finns imo. (Though Finland usually looks the worst on the paper yet they always manage to make international success.)
What is "strength on paper"? I'm guessing that is something totally off the head and arbitrary.
