Best-on-Best Power Rankings

[xxxx]

Strenght on paper is saying that Russian best roster is better than the best roster of France. That is a simple fact. The same like saying that Russian depth of quality players is sure better than the depth of France. Of course it gets closer when comparing USA and Russia for example, but you still can create your opinion on that. Nobody's saying that there is one definite truth. Everyone will have a different opinion.

 

[FiLe]

It's best note though that even if "strength on paper" is somewhat fair, it can still delve into apples and oranges territory if it is not determined whether one compares a given country's depth overall, or the strength of the supposed "best 25". While Canada for example would still be ranked #1 in both ways, the gap to the closest challengers is far more narrow if you discount the depth beyond the guys who don't make the hypothetical best possible team.

Of course, determining said best team is tricky in itself, since for any country, there are dozens of opinions on what it is made of. With most of them being quite uneducated, I might add.

 

[Jablkon]

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.)

Even 3rd as gold is always counted more than any other medal.1.Canada,2.Sweden,3.CZ,4.USA,5.FIN,6.Russia. sure Finnland is, together with Canada, most consistent country

 

[FiLe]

Even 3rd as gold is always counted more than any other medal.

Then again, older the results are, less weigh they're usually given. Such is also the case in any official listings, such as the IIHF ranking - in it, results just five years in the past don't affect things at all.

Of course, best-on-best samples would be woefully small if one used such a narrow time spectrum, so it's understandable to extend them somewhat further. Regardless, 1998 is quite far in the past.

 

[Villert]

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.)

I originally thought the same, and assumed I had made a mistake. The formula I used for ranking the teams takes into account overall finishes for each tournament though, not just when a medal is earned. Maybe I should make 1st place finishes worth more (there is a bonus for winning), or maybe each medal finish should have some kind of bonus? But then I could get into decaying results for older tournaments as well, etc etc. Wouldn't be sure when to stop with the tinkering in the end.

Czech Republic results, 1998-:

1st, 7th, 3rd, 7th, 6th.

Russia results, 1998-:

2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 5th

The formula I used, which is by no means necessarily the best way to rank the teams, leaves Russia 3 points ahead of the Czech Republic. Those two 7th finishes really hurt them.

You're probably right about the on paper ranking the Czechs over the Finns; I just happen to follow the Finnish players a bit better than the Czechs, and don't yet know what to make of what I assume will be a much younger Czech team going forward. I guess I should read up a bit.

 

[Jablkon]

Then again, older the results are, less weigh they're usually given. Such is also the case in any official listings, such as the IIHF ranking - in it, results just five years in the past don't affect things at all.

Of course, best-on-best samples would be woefully small if one used such a narrow time spectrum, so it's understandable to extend them somewhat further. Regardless, 1998 is quite far in the past.

Agree with all. I just tried to flollow the topic and I bet Finland old bronzes are also counted.having know about situation in Cz hockey, I dont really care whether we are ranked 6 or 9th. My only interest is whether we will be competitive in every single match or not....

 

[FiLe]

Agree with all. I just tried to flollow the topic and I bet Finland old bronzes are also counted.

Well, I wouldn't honestly care if Finland's old bronzes didn't count, because the last time we failed to medal was in 2002. So we have plenty of new ones to go with.

But yeah, only thing that truly matters is how competitive the squad will be in the next best-on-best tournament. Whenever that is.

 

[xxxx]

^^

I think I don't have to live in the Czech republic to know that their fans will sure be interested how their team around Krejci, Voracek, and others match against Canada, US, or Team Europe. But I do have friends there and a few months ago they said they were excited about the World Cup, as was a lot of people according to them. Some view it as more or less as a gimmicky tournament too, but will watch. That's at least what I was told.

 

[Jablkon]

^^

I think I don't have to live in the Czech republic to know that their fans will sure be interested how their team around Krejci, Voracek, and others match against Canada, US, or Team Europe. But I do have friends there and a few months ago they said they were excited about the World Cup, as was a lot of people according to them. Some view it as more or less as a gimmicky tournament too, but will watch. That's at least what I was told.

Czech republic is not in the position to complain about format. Sure it is weird but it will be definetely followed by all enthusiasts, not sure if watched because times will be crazy. I was one of few lucky ones who woke up at 2am and watched semi against Canada in 2004. However it wont be probably mass thing. WHC somehow attract a lot of people wwho generally dont care much about hockey, this will probably remain just among fans. But that could change if we pass to semis....and this depends on too many vulnurable factors, not only on our defence true is that no ne really care about format here. But i bet there were so far maximum 4-5 topics in meda aout World cup, so it hasnt have big attention yet...

 

[garbageteam]

For comparison, IIHF's ranking -

1 Canada
2 Russia
3 Sweden
4 Finland
5 United States
6 Czech Republic
7 Switzerland
8 Slovakia
9 Belarus
10 Latvia
11 Norway
12 France
13 Germany
14 Slovenia
15 Denmark
16 Austria
17 Kazakhstan
18 Italy
19 Hungary
20 Japan

Not too crazy anymore after Canada dominated the WCs in 2015 too, in a lopsided performance not as tight as Sochi but every bit as much of a "steamroll the opposition" tour de force.

I would change:

Sweden as #2
USA as #3
Russia as #4
Finland as #5

Other thoughts...

-Not convinced Belarus is absolutely the "best of the rest" after Slovakia. They've been a bit flukey/streaky last couple of years, though they could be anywhere 9-12

-Does Draisaitl have the ability to elevate Germany the same way Kopitar has?

-Denmark are underrated and if they can ever get all of their best players in training camp together for a tournament I would place money that they'd do better than 15th

 

[xxxx]

-Denmark are underrated and if they can ever get all of their best players in training camp together for a tournament I would place money that they'd do better than 15th

I remember Denmark having young F.Nielsen, Boedker, Jensen, Regin, Larsen, or Eller, in 2010. They lost to Belarus and Germany, but they also beat Finland, US, and Slovakia with total score of 12-2 in those three games. They lost to (olympic-loaded) Russia 1-6, but shots were 31-32. They lost in quarterfinal to Sweden, 2-4.

 

[Rossiya*]

One thing to consider is Canada's obsession with hockey makes the country kind of one dimensional and not competitive in a lot of other sports.


I think Russia is the best at developing offensive talent. The problem in some of these international tournaments is their team is too much of an all star team. That and they aren't real into goon hockey.

Think how boring the NHL would be without the Russian guys. Every night it seems like a Russian guy is making huge spectacular plays.

 

[Macman]

One thing to consider is Canada's obsession with hockey makes the country kind of one dimensional and not competitive in a lot of other sports.


I think Russia is the best at developing offensive talent. The problem in some of these international tournaments is their team is too much of an all star team. That and they aren't real into goon hockey.

Think how boring the NHL would be without the Russian guys. Every night it seems like a Russian guy is making huge spectacular plays.

If Canada is as one-dimensional as you seem to think, it wouldn't hold the record for most gold medals in a single Winter Olympics.

 

[JackSlater]

I think Russia is the best at developing offensive talent. The problem in some of these international tournaments is their team is too much of an all star team. That and they aren't real into goon hockey.

Russia's problem is the lack of all star defencemen.

 

[1Gold Standard]

Russia's problem is the lack of all star defencemen.

I wouldn't stop there, that's just one of their many problems. But that's for them to muddle through.

 

[Jablkon]

One thing to consider is Canada's obsession with hockey makes the country kind of one dimensional and not competitive in a lot of other sports.


I think Russia is the best at developing offensive talent. The problem in some of these international tournaments is their team is too much of an all star team. That and they aren't real into goon hockey.

Think how boring the NHL would be without the Russian guys. Every night it seems like a Russian guy is making huge spectacular plays.

When I look at canadian roster, I dont htink zou are best in producing offensive talent. I bet zou talking about that supersoft hands creative guys. That might be true but its still one of many aspects you need in offence....