Biggest flops in international hockey history
- Thread starter Canuckistani
- Start date
habsrule4eva3089
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2008
- 4,278
- 1,084
Russia in 2014, that performance will go down for the ages, what a horrible team. What a shame that was an opportunity that will never arrive again.
Cursed Lemon
Registered Bruiser
I was about to say, you can't possibly build a list without mentioning Russia in 2014.
You can argue 2010 as well, when all the Russian stars were actually having far better career seasons and still did just as badly.
You can argue 2010 as well, when all the Russian stars were actually having far better career seasons and still did just as badly.
Slovakia - Sochi 2014 - maybe not a medal contender, but much more was expected for sure.
Speaking of us, I would also add 1998 and 2002 olympics, since we didn´t even get into the main tourney
These maybe aren´t the biggest flops ever, but for me, they were pretty big
Speaking of us, I would also add 1998 and 2002 olympics, since we didn´t even get into the main tourney
These maybe aren´t the biggest flops ever, but for me, they were pretty big
Given the talent involved, the 2014 U.S. Olympic team should be considered. Russia was a definite bust. Slovakia as well.
What the....?
They lost one game, by one goal to one of the best Olympic hockey teams ever.
Ahh yeah I always forget the third medal game. For me the tournament was over once we lost to Canada. Apparently the players felt the same way.
Last edited:
habsrule4eva3089
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2008
- 4,278
- 1,084
It's a shame that players don't realize the value an Olympic medal. 20-30-40 years down the road, that's when it will set in what it means to come home with an Olympic medal, whichever colour it is. Majority of Hockey players will never win a Stanley Cup, so it could have been the highest peak they'll reach in sport and to use one loss as an excuse for not showing up is a travesty.
It's a shame that players don't realize the value an Olympic medal. 20-30-40 years down the road, that's when it will set in what it means to come home with an Olympic medal, whichever colour it is. Majority of Hockey players will never win a Stanley Cup, so it could have been the highest peak they'll reach in sport and to use one loss as an excuse for not showing up is a travesty.
Agree. The Fins looked so happy with the Bronze. Good for them!
canuck2010
Registered User
- Dec 21, 2010
- 2,700
- 849
Your old Jofa helmet
Registered User
Czech Rep in WorldCup 1996. Sans Hasek but with Jagr in his prime and all the other usual suspects. Lost all games and were destroyed 1-7 by Germany... 4 goals scored and 17 allowed
Yeah I think you're right - Russia deserves to be on the list for 2010 and 2014.
2010 was the strongest of the two Russian teams, coming off back-to-back WHC golds. 18 players had won gold in one, or both, of the previous two years (the only three forwards who hadn't won gold in 2008 or 2009 were Malkin, Datsyuk and Kozlov). The team expected to be Canada's main challenge for gold ended up losing to Slovakia and the 7-3 crushing at the hands of Canada in the QF.
2014 was a weaker squad, especially at defence. But their top-six forwards, the memory of 2010, and home ice advantage surely meant that they had to win something! Instead Ovechkin and Malkin were never heard from again after the opening win over Slovenia, while the team went on to lose to the US, barely beat a horrible Slovakia, a mediocre win over Norway and then another QF loss, this time to Finland.
Both teams were flops in their own way, with Sochi obviously being the most painful for Russian fans.
Team USA looked amazing up until the semifinal so I can't count them as a being a bust for the tournament. No shame in a 1-0 loss to Canada.
Good one. I'd forgotten about the Czechs that year.
What made the collapse especially shocking was the fact that they'd won gold at the WHC a few months prior, and had 16 returning players from that tournament at the WC.
They were even booed off the ice in Prague!
It's a shame that players don't realize the value an Olympic medal. 20-30-40 years down the road, that's when it will set in what it means to come home with an Olympic medal, whichever colour it is. Majority of Hockey players will never win a Stanley Cup, so it could have been the highest peak they'll reach in sport and to use one loss as an excuse for not showing up is a travesty.
I don't really know wag you are trying to argue. I was joking about them not showing up. For the record I I think they cared but after missing the two penalty shots and getting scored on twice they definitely quit. It was embarrassing to watch, but I can't say it hurt nearly as bad as losing the semifinal. Personally. I didn't even go to the game. Preferred to watch it at a pizza shop.
For me anyway the 1998 Olympics for the US has to win n this is the same squad that manhandled Canada two years earlier and got to the final as senior citizens in 2002. So there's no question about talent. They flopped harder than just about anybody and they compounded it with the hotel incident.
habsrule4eva3089
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2008
- 4,278
- 1,084
Were you there for the shootout game vs. Russia? That must've been something if you were!
Which Pizza shop?!
Were you there for the shootout game vs. Russia? That must've been something if you were!
Which Pizza shop?!
Yeah I was 15 odd rows behind Bobrovsky's net
What was the shootout like? Did you know the U.S. was going to win? How did the crowd react? How did they react to the goal that was disallowed?
It's ridiculous to write about flops when some team lost a single elimination game against a good team. Russia wasn't a flop in Sochi. Finland was just better in the QF. One different bounce and the game could've been totally different.
It would've been a some sort of flop if Canada had lost to Latvia in QF, but still it's only one game, so no big conclusions could be made anyway. Actually the difference between victory and disaster can be very thin. When Canada won gold, some fans tried to forget the fact that Canada made only 17 goals. They won QF against Latvia by one goal and U.S. in the semis by one goal.
It's completely true that Canada had terrific defense in Sochi, but if they had lost to U.S., fans here would be complaining how Canada wasn't able to score more in that tournament. That lack of scoring would've been considered as a flop from that team. Even tiny Finland without its best centers scored 25 goals.
Of course one can claim that Russia's result in the tournament was a flop, but due to tournament format you need to win 3-4 consecutive games to win the gold, so it's not fair to judge a team based on one loss. Canada had easier group, wasn't convincing, but managed to get an easy QF opponent anyway.
IMO the biggest flop in Sochi was the worst gold medal game I've ever seen. Canada's offensive production can be considered as a small flop too. Before the tournament some posters were claiming that Canada could have n contending teams in Olympics. I wonder how little they had produced if 17 goals was the best that the brightest stars of the A team could make.
Last edited:
The team was based on defence, while you might think that oh man they only scored 17 goals well if you watched all the games you will see they were clearly the better team by a far margin. It wasn't close who the best team at the tournament was and goals scored isn't a big thing in NA if you're able to shutdown opponents to 1-2 goals at most while putting up enough to win. You're blowing it way out of proportion, Canada simply didn't let other opponents score and maybe in previous Olympics we're used to high scoring, high offensive teams well this team was based on defence. Get the lead and shut the game down was Canada's mindset and it might have not looked good on the +/- stat but the defence was perfection and that's how it should be. Canada isn't going to go all out offensively just so it shows on the stats, they wanted gold and if getting the lead and shutting the game down was the way to get gold then that was a great plan because it worked.
A gold medal result can in no way be a flop, you are completely wrong IMO but I understand what you're getting at.
Bounces happen and that's hockey you can't use that as an excuse for Russia's performance at Sochi. It is a flop when you have superstars like Ovechkin, Malkin, Kovalchuk, Datsyuk on your team, they should have done better than what they showed. Russia barely beat Slovakia aswell.
One thing that should be included is that if this wasn't in Russia it wouldn't have been considered a big flop but considering this was in Russia and Russia couldn't get a medal is very disappointing for the country, fans and the players. It's a once in a life time opportunity and it would be kind of like if Canada didn't win a medal in Vancouver 2010.
Your post is pretty much an example of the "winners write the history" attitude. It's true that Team Canada's tournament was successful, not a flop. I just tried to point out that margins were extremely small and afterwards it's easy to write an analysis which emphasizes Canada's strengths (defense) and overlooks other facts. Do you think you would make same kind of analysis if Canada had lost the SF 0-1? Maybe, but I know many Canadians would wonder how can the team score so few goals.
I didn't even say that Canada was bad offensively in general. Canada just made awfully small amount goals in relation to how talented players the team had. Yes, they dominated against Latvia, but they just were unable to score. In Finland we always complain how our national team is poor in scoring efficiency, but we've never had roster anything like Canada has. Especially not in Sochi.
Having the tournament in Sochi doesn't change the fact that QF is just a single game, and anything can happen when two good teams play against each other. You wrote that Russia barely beat Slovakia. It's just an another example that you are able to look behind the results if it's not Canada, but if Canada barely beats weaker countries, it's just winning by stellar defense and a one goal lead is enough.
Edit: I see your point why you think Russia was a flop, and I could agree with you in some way. Still the truth is that anything can happen in those QF games. I'd say that it's flop that Russia hasn't made through the QF in the last two Olympics + not been in the final since 1998. Four olympics provide better sample size than just one.
Last edited:
VMBM
Hansel?!
I don't know how well this meets the OP's criteria, but Team Czechoslovakia in the 1984 Canada Cup immediately came to mind. I don't know what their expectations were, but they had just about their best possible roster, had done very well in the 1976 and 1981 tournaments, and were arguably the 3rd best hockey nation in the world at the time. Yet their record in the tournament was 0 wins, 4 losses and 1 draw, with a -11 goal differential. They couldn't even beat the West Germany (tie), who were playing without their biggest star, Erich Kühnhackl. Well, at least they finished ahead of them.
There's the assumption that Czechoslovakia was just basically concentrating on the 1985 WHC (in Praque) and weren't that concerned about the 1984 CC; if so, it paid off, as we now know. Of course, that kind of attitude might seem a little strange (favouring a non-best-on-best tournament over best-on-best tournament).
Team Canada would have been a total disaster in the 1984 CC too, if they hadn't beaten the Soviet Union in the semi-final. What would've been the future of the tournament then (Mr. Eagleson)? Food for thought.
There's the assumption that Czechoslovakia was just basically concentrating on the 1985 WHC (in Praque) and weren't that concerned about the 1984 CC; if so, it paid off, as we now know. Of course, that kind of attitude might seem a little strange (favouring a non-best-on-best tournament over best-on-best tournament).
Team Canada would have been a total disaster in the 1984 CC too, if they hadn't beaten the Soviet Union in the semi-final. What would've been the future of the tournament then (Mr. Eagleson)? Food for thought.
What arguably makes Russia a flop in Sochi is the fact that Russia never really looked all that good at any point in the tournament despite high expectations.
5-2 over Slovenia wasn't impressive, 3-2 loss to the US was so-so, and a shootout win after a scoreless draw with Slovakia was also pretty lame. Then came a 4-0 win over Norway (with an empty netter to make it 3-0), and the 3-1 elimination by Finland.
Sure the defence looked bad, but most analysts expected the offense and the desire to win on home ice (after the disaster of 2010) to carry Russia much further than it went. The thought of Ovechkin and Malkin choking so badly on such a stage was almost unthinkable.
