Best WJC team ever?

[Oilerfan120582]

Canada 2005 is by far the best I've ever seen, but I bet some of those 1980's Soviet teams were pretty good. Back then not many Soviets played in the NHL (or any?), so their teams would have consisted of all their top players every year. Meanwhile Canada would consistently have a number of their best players playing in the NHL. The lockout gave Canada the luxury of sending the best players possible for the first time since '95 (minus Horton I believe).

However, maybe it is just Canadian bias, but while some of those Soviet teams might have been offensive powerhouses who could run up the score, I seriously doubt they dominated the game physically and defensively the way Canada did last year.

Mogliny, do you have a list of the individual game scores from the '83 and '89 Soviet teams?

 

[Siberian]

How can you deny that Canada 2005 was an amazing team? I can't say it was the best ever, but it crushed everyone in the tournament with ease including the Russians who had 2 huge superstars. Spout your TSN brainwash garbage if you want but facts are facts, they dominated the tournament.

I was born in 83 so I can't say anything bout the 70s or 80s but in the modern age of the WJC, since they introduced the medal round, I will say that Canada 2005 is definitely top 3 if not first.

That Swedish with Forsberg may be the best team to not win.

Last year was extremely weak - only team Russia had a team capable of beating Canada, but the Russian coach was terrible, he did not give the team a chance to win against Canada. This year all the top teams improved except for Canada, which once again has a great team but lacks experience. All the crap about USA being the favorite I did not buy right from the start. Canada is once again is a team to beat and with the coaching style of Sutter I do not really think that Canada 06 is that far worse than Canada 05.

 

[67Cup]

It's very hard to compare teams across the years but with respect to the Soviet teams before 1982, you ought to remember that until that year Canada did not send a true national team, but just a club team, sometimes a little beefed up. That is not the fault of those old Soviet teams, of course, but it does put a question mark against their level of competition.

I would think the two prime candidates are Canada 2005 and the Bure/Mogilny/Federov Soviet team.

Wait until tomorrow before anointing either Russia 06 or Canada 06.

 

[MentalPowerHouse]

Last year was extremely weak - only team Russia had a team capable of beating Canada, but the Russian coach was terrible, he did not give the team a chance to win against Canada. This year all the top teams improved except for Canada, which once again has a great team but lacks experience. All the crap about USA being the favorite I did not buy right from the start. Canada is once again is a team to beat and with the coaching style of Sutter I do not really think that Canada 06 is that far worse than Canada 05.

Atleast 10 players from the team have gone on to play a game in the NHL this year. It was a great team regardless of the competition, and I do not buy it that the competition was weak.

If you want to start examining the strength of the competition you should also note that Canada did not send a real national team until what, 1982 or 83? So I guess you can write off all the great teams from before than, as the competition was "weak".

 

[canucksfan]

Team Canada of 2005. That team was dominating. No one came close to matching their talent. They only allowed one even strength goal in the tournament. They destroyed the Russian team that had Malkin and Ovechkin on it. I can't see a team that comes close. Sweden of 1993 shouldn't be considered because they didn't even win the gold.

 

[67Cup]

What you can say about that Swedish team of 1993 was that they had a prime candidate for best line ever, the Forsberg/Naslund line. The chief competition would be Mogilny/Bure/Federov.

When Forsberg's line was on it was like a 5 on 3 powerplay every shift. But Canada was better than the other three or four lines. That is why Canada won and Sweden shouldn't be considered for best team ever

 

[Den]

if it handles Canada tonight with ease

Woh , hold your horses...

 

[NyQuil]

Canada is once again is a team to beat and with the coaching style of Sutter I do not really think that Canada 06 is that far worse than Canada 05.

I doubt you'll see 4 of this current team getting Calder consideration.

Last year you had Crosby, Richards, Carter and Phaneuf, in addition to NHLer Patrice Bergeron.

It's night and day.

If you don't see that, then any pretense of objectivity on your part flies completely out the window.

 

[rival]

The 1983 Russian team was so good they beat a Canadian team with Andreychuk, Yzerman and Mario 7 to 3.

Russia's 1980 team with Larionov and Makarov was damn good as well.

However, Canada's '95 and '05 "lockout" teams were both amazing and are right there as the best ever as well.

 

[Steveorama]

I've been watching this tourney since they started televising it and in all honesty, last year's Canadian team is the best I have seen.
The Bure/Feds/Mogilny Russian team would be my next runner up.

 

[Wondercarrot]

The 1989 Soviet team wasn't even undefeated...now im not saying they werent great but...surely to be considered the best team ever you need to win all your games....
how did this get decided anyway? GF-GA differential?

1989 - Anchorage, USA

Standings
Country GP W T L GF GA P
USSR 7 6 0 1 51 14 12
Sweden 7 6 0 1 39 14 12
Czechoslovakia 7 4 1 2 36 19 9
Canada 7 4 1 2 31 23 9
USA 7 3 1 3 41 25 7
Finland 7 2 1 4 29 37 5
Norway 7 1 0 6 14 56 2
West Germany 7 0 0 7 13 66 0

 

[MXD]

Before the 90ies, worst teams in the tournament were MUCH weaker than the worst ones later on, so the +/- goals factor is somewhat irrelevant to analyse teams...

 

[MOGiLNY]

Before the 90ies, worst teams in the tournament were MUCH weaker than the worst ones later on, so the +/- goals factor is somewhat irrelevant to analyse teams...

in that case, all we can look at is team records, and 10 teams have had perfect records in WJC history

 

[Siberian]

Before the 90ies, worst teams in the tournament were MUCH weaker than the worst ones later on, so the +/- goals factor is somewhat irrelevant to analyse teams...

Not true at all. Russia is still not at the level of Soviet Union because of econovic collapse and the fact that in early 90-s NHL robbed Russians of all the star players so Russian hockey had a hole in the 90-s when young players had nobody to learn from.

Sweden U-20 used to be much better, their hockey program just regressed, the same can be said about Finland and Czech Republic.

 

[67Cup]

Not true at all. Russia is still not at the level of Soviet Union because of econovic collapse and the fact that in early 90-s NHL robbed Russians of all the star players so Russian hockey had a hole in the 90-s when young players had nobody to learn from.

Sweden U-20 used to be much better, their hockey program just regressed, the same can be said about Finland and Czech Republic.

Possibly true but irrelevant to the point he was making. He's saying that the WORST teams, that is the bottom feeders like Norway etc were worse in the old days, thus producing those 17-1 scores that fattened plus minus stats.

 

[Wetcoaster]

For Canada it has to be the two lockout year teams - 2005 and 1995.

 

[Le Golie]

Canada in 2005, without a doubt.

And the arguement that there were no other strong teams last year works against you so bad Siberian. First off, the Russian team was not capable of beating Canada. In a four game series it would have been a lopsided sweep. Was it because the Russians were bad? No, not at all. There were four really good teams last year - Russia, the US and the Czechs all could have been contenders if those same players were playing together in any other year. The level of domination that year shows just how good Canada was. It wasn't poor opposition, it was just a far superior team.

Canada smoked everyone because that team was incredible. The talent from top to bottom will never be seen again unless there is another lockout year that happens to come two years after another incredible draft class. Canada's 2003 draft class was the best we have had in recent memory. That entire draft was stacked with top end players from several countries (which pokes holes in your claim that there were no other good teams) and Canada was able to ice the best team this tournament has ever seen. I can't even imagine the biggest homer on the boards not being able to acknowledge that, but I guess it's true.

 

[Siberian]

Canada in 2005, without a doubt.

I don't think so. Just weak opposition and terrible coaching by team Russia. Russia just was not coached well last year, Mr. Gersonsky is clueless about international competitions, no scouting was done.

Canada's team was a good team but I don't think it was the best.

 

[MOGiLNY]

Team Canada deserved the win last year. Maybe not 6:1, but they were the best team in the tournament.

 

[Siberian]

Team Canada deserved the win last year. Maybe not 6:1, but they were the best team in the tournament.

Of course they were, but they are talking about the best in the history of the competition.

 

[MOGiLNY]

Of course they were, but they are talking about the best in the history of the competition.

Yeah, I know and I've already made my case about that..

But last year's Russian team was brought up, and they are definitely nowhere near being the most dominant team in tournament history..

 

[NyQuil]

Of course they were, but they are talking about the best in the history of the competition.

I guess Malkin and Ovechkin count as weak competition?

 

[Siberian]

I guess Malkin and Ovechkin count as weak competition?

I already said a number of times, Russia is the only tean that had roster that could beat team Canada, but the coach did not do good job with the team. There were obvious flaws in terms how the team tried to play. Ovechkin trying to beat Canada one on one is just kindergardenm that was never going to happen. Simply put Russia came out with no game plan. All other countries had pretty much weak teams.

 

[Ice]

Easily Canada 2005. Unless there is another lockout that coincides with a team having a stack of marquis players like Canada last year it may never be topped.

The plus/minus is never a very useful stat but it is completely useless in this case because some years the 7th and 8th place teams are so bad they have 15 or more goals scored on them by the top teams and some years not.

 

[NyQuil]

I already said a number of times, Russia is the only tean that had roster that could beat team Canada, but the coach did not do good job with the team. There were obvious flaws in terms how the team tried to play. Ovechkin trying to beat Canada one on one is just kindergardenm that was never going to happen. Simply put Russia came out with no game plan. All other countries had pretty much weak teams.

Ah, right.

The old, "your team wasn't good, our team was bad" explanation.

Cute.