Best player in the world: 2002

[Ratbath]

Lebron > Jordan

/ducks shoe

when he was 10 and Jordan was on his 4th title run? Bold

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Mario but he’s hurt. Iggy gets my vote.

 

[Ben White]

Forsberg was absolutely dominant in the playoffs after sitting out the entire season. Leading the playoffs in scoring without playing in the finals. He was the best player that year when playing. I don’t see the argument for Lemieux over Forsberg at all when he played a comparable number of games and had a significantly lower ppg while Forsberg did it in the playoffs. Jagr having a down year I don’t see an argument there either. This is Lidstrom or Forsberg depending on what you value. Well Iginla has a case too off course.

 

[Phil Kessels Hot Dog]

I actually don’t know which player you’re referring to here. Lemieux, Forsberg or Jagr?

MJ hates Canada so it should be obvious

 

[centipede2233]

Sakic wasn't better than Mario in the Olympics. He might have had a better gold medal game, but he was invisible during the qualification round when Canada only went 1-1-1 for 3rd place.

Mario was more reliable and didn't pile on points in that Belarus game. Heck team Canada nearly shit the bed against Germany when Mario was out. Shouldnt Sakic be at fault for that? Mario was the only one who could make Hasek his bitch and helped Canada get a point against the team that beat them in Nagano.


I dunno. When Sid missed a bunch of time with concussions, he wasn't dethroned as best player in the league either. Toews also won 2010 Olympic MVP and Crosby was still considered the best.

Lemieux always had hasek’s number. Lemieux couldn’t be stopped by any goalie, he was just too good.

 

[NyQuil]

I find it very strange that most people consider Sakic to have a better tournament when he had 1 more point in 1 more game piling on more than half of his points in that one blowout game.

I still considered Mario the best player in the world at that time, and 1 single game didn't change that.

As someone who watched that tournament very closely, I agree with you.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

So Sakic had 4 of his 7 points in the final game?
And basically had 3 points in the other 5 games?

I find it very strange that most people consider Sakic to have a better tournament when he had 1 more point in 1 more game piling on more than half of his points in that one blowout game.

I still considered Mario the best player in the world at that time, and 1 single game didn't change that.

I don't think that's a fair categorization of Sakic's tournament.

Canada only played in one blowout game, 7-1 against Belarus. Lemieux got two points in that game, and Sakic got one. (Sakic assisted on the 1-0 goal, Lemieux assisted on the 3-1 and 4-1 goals).

The gold medal game wasn't a blowout. The final score was one-sided, but it was a tense, competitive game for the first 58 minutes. It was a 1-1 draw late in the first. Sakic's first point was a beautiful pass to Iginla. No disrespect to Iginla, but anyone could have scored that goal - it was Sakic's pass that made the play. The US tied the game in the second period, then Sakic scored a big goal (wrist shot through heavy traffic) to retake the lead a few minutes later. The third period was close. It was still only a 3-2 game with four minutes left in the game. Sakic made a nice pass to Iginla, who beat Richter with a powerful wrister. Then Sakic put the game out of reach with 80 seconds left, on a clean breakaway. In summary - Sakic was the most important contributor to the goals that made it 2-1, 3-2, and 5-2 (and picked up an assist on the 4-2 goal). It wasn't a blowout game (and if we want to characterize it as such, it's only because Sakic played the best game of his life to help Canada win their first Olympic gold in 50 years).