Biggest flops in international hockey history

[Cursed Lemon]

Russia's performances in this and the last Olympics are considered flops because almost all of their star power decided to not show up to play.

They should've been in medal contention for both tournaments and they have nothing.

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.

You're forgetting the fact that the U.S. was completely and totally outmatched in their game against Canada. It was the only example of a 1-0 "blowout" in hockey history, more or less.

 

[Xokkeu]

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?

They went from party atmosphere to convinced the whole thing was rigged. They were pretty pissed.

I did accurately guess which shooters we'd use though. So that was pretty fun.

 

[JackSlater]

If we're looking for (supposedly) strong teams that absolutely crashed out, then I agree with Czech 1984, USA 1998 and Canada 2006. Russia at the 2000 WC belongs in that boat too though at a different level of tournament.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Apologies but the 2014 Russian team? I didn't give them a hope in hell of winning anything in Sochi. Overrated at forward, especially Ovechkin, and with a serious lack dmen how could they be rated as disappointing.

They also had too many KHL players that couldn't play up to the tempo of high level hockey.

There is absolutely no way you can call a forward core with Malkin, Ovechkin, Datsyuk, Radulov, Semin, Nichushkin, and Kovalchuk "overrated". That is the second best offense on paper for the whole tournament.

I mean, you can call them overrated based on their disappointing performance collectively, but certainly not by their individual merits.

 

[roto]

Russia's performances in this and the last Olympics are considered flops because almost all of their star power decided to not show up to play.

They should've been in medal contention for both tournaments and they have nothing.

You're forgetting the fact that the U.S. was completely and totally outmatched in their game against Canada. It was the only example of a 1-0 "blowout" in hockey history, more or less.

I don't agree with the "decided not to show up" part. They definitely showed up but it just wasn't enough. If you'd watched yearly WHC with these same Russian stars, you'd know what I mean. "Did not show up" is just a lame excuse used when expectations for some players are too high.

I keep wondering why is it so difficult to set aside the tournament results and admit that Canada was carried to gold by the defense and goaltending. Forwards generated offense but didn't produce much. That wasn't a problem because of other strengths, but it was disappointing when looking at the roster.

Here are stats (team, GF, SOG, SG%)
FIN 24 183 13.11
USA 20 178 11.24
SWE 17 173 9.83
CZE 13 146 8.9
LAT 9 102 8.82
SLO 10 117 8.55
RUS 13 172 7.56
CAN 17 241 7.05
AUT 7 100 7.00
SVK 5 110 4.55
NOR 3 98 3.06
SUI 3 124 2.42

If someone had posted this before the tournament, most of the fans here would've laughed their **ses off, because that kind of stats would've been considered ridiculous. Canadian offense was ineffective, but was bailed out by the defense and goaltender.

Don't take me wrong, Canada earned the gold medal. A team rarely succeeds on every area. My point was that offensive ineffectiveness of Canada could've easily lead to something else than gold medal, and the forwards would've been the ones to blame. That SOG 7% is awful for those guys.

 

[Canuckistani]

That SOG 7% is awful for those guys.

True, but if that Latvian goalie was even average in the QF instead of amazing, Canada's % would have been similar to that of the Swedes of USA.

Even so, 17 goals in six games is pretty bad - an all-time low for a gold medal winning team. I never would have guessed that Canada would head into the final without a goal from Crosby, Nash, Toews, Kunitz, Sharpe or Bergeron.

 

[roto]

True, but if that Latvian goalie was even average in the QF instead of amazing, Canada's % would have been similar to that of the Swedes of USA.

If Finland we say that the players are converting opponent goalie to a hero. Latvia had one NHL player, so it's not very good excuse to point at their goalie when he's against stars of Canada.

If some Finland had peppered 57 shots against Latvia, one could easily say that "yeah, Finland just doesn't have any goal scorers and enough offensive talent". Canadian forwards just didn't play up to high expectations. Same can be said of Russian stars, but Russians didn't have good defense to back things up.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Even so, 17 goals in six games is pretty bad - an all-time low for a gold medal winning team. I never would have guessed that Canada would head into the final without a goal from Crosby, Nash, Toews, Kunitz, Sharpe or Bergeron.

The team was great without chemistry. Give them time to gel and they would have been amazing.

 

[JackSlater]

If Finland we say that the players are converting opponent goalie to a hero. Latvia had one NHL player, so it's not very good excuse to point at their goalie when he's against stars of Canada.

If some Finland had peppered 57 shots against Latvia, one could easily say that "yeah, Finland just doesn't have any goal scorers and enough offensive talent". Canadian forwards just didn't play up to high expectations. Same can be said of Russian stars, but Russians didn't have good defense to back things up.

The Canadian forwards were a huge part of why there were so few goals against. They dominated possession (in tandem with the defence of course) and outchanced all of the teams they played (of course they didn't have to play against their own defence). The goals just didn't follow. The goal total was disappointing in a sense, but by and large the play of the forwards was not. Defence was the strongest part of the team, and Price did basically everything that could have been asked of him in a relatively easy role, but that doesn't mean the forwards were carried. They played well.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The eye test is important here. I think it's clear that Canada's victories were a result of systems hockey, whereas Russia's shortcomings were a complete failure of chemistry in ADDITION to nobody taking the reigns individually. All of those players I mentioned with the exception of Datsyuk are known for their high-powered run and gun offensive styles, and none of them shined in the least - and they didn't play every game against Canada, now.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

I'll put in a claim for Team Canada 2013 WJC's with RNH and Spott as coach.

 

[ZagrebCityBoy*]

I was about to say, you can't possibly build a list without mentioning Russia in 2014.

Apologies but the 2014 Russian team? I didn't give them a hope in hell of winning anything in Sochi. Overrated at forward, especially Ovechkin, and with a serious lack dmen how could they be rated as disappointing.

They also had too many KHL players that couldn't play up to the tempo of high level hockey.

Finland had most KHL-ers and yet won bronze medal, so your KHL bashing is out of the place.

 

[Erikfromfin]

Finland had most KHL-ers and yet won bronze medal, so your KHL bashing is out of the place.

3 of those are now in NHL.
Kontiola & Komarov at Toronto
Lehterä at ST.Louis

 

[CanadianHockey]

Don't think Russia was a flop in either 2010 or 2014. Their blueline and defensive play simply didn't stack up to make them favourites for me.

 

[Mehar]

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.

Absolutely. It is funny how for a year before the Olympics, guys like Ovechkin, Kovalchuk and others were talking about how 2014 would be vengeance for Russia, etc., and they got humiliated the worst way possible. All the Russian posters who talked how Canada cannot win on the big ice, will not win in 2014 with their goaltenders, will not win on European/Russian soil soon disappeared and re-appeared after Russia won the WHC (LOL). Looking forward to a Canadian 3 Peat in 2018. Hopefully Russia can medal as well, since they have been shutout the last three Olympics.

 

[Systemfel]

Sweden at the 2004 World Cup. Lost 6-1 to the Czech Republic in the quarter-final. Tellqvist and Salo were awful throughout the tournament. People were screaming for Lundqvist, but Hardy Nilsson wouldn't start him and ended up getting fired.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

What the....?

They lost one game, by one goal to one of the best Olympic hockey teams ever.

The bombastic statements never end


USA – 1998 for me was easily the worst showing. Especially after the 1996 World Cup. Just a a terrible follow up to some great momentum.

 

[roto]

The Canadian forwards were a huge part of why there were so few goals against. They dominated possession (in tandem with the defence of course) and outchanced all of the teams they played (of course they didn't have to play against their own defence). The goals just didn't follow. The goal total was disappointing in a sense, but by and large the play of the forwards was not. Defence was the strongest part of the team, and Price did basically everything that could have been asked of him in a relatively easy role, but that doesn't mean the forwards were carried. They played well.

I pretty much could agree with this, but still this is another example of how the results define how the performance is rated. I guess you wouldn't give such high ratings for forwards if Canada had been unable to score that one goal in SF (let alone the winning goal in QF).

It's so easy to interpret the facts so that they flatter the tournament winner. It's also easy to bash a team who lost a QF. Canada was bashed after QF loss in Turin. The treatment would've been very different if Canada had gotten some one goal wins and been in the final, for example. That didn't happen.

In Turin one Canada's problem was scoring efficiency exactly like this year. I checked the stats and the SG% was 7.28% (11th in the tournament), so almost the same as this year. Defense and the goaltender let 1.85 GAA, which was 3rd best in the tournament. I agree that Canada looked far better in Sochi than in Turin, but resultwise the difference was basically that this time Canada got an easy QF opponent, was able to score the absolute necessary goals when needed and had even better GAA than in Turin.

The point in my first post in this thread was that there's often a very thin line between success and failure in current tournament format. That's why word "flop" is overused IMO and I use it sparingly. I also think that many people had too high expectations for a handful of Russian stars, even though team in general was not anything special.

 

[Piglet]

Biggest flop for Finland happened in 2003 WHC, quarter-final against Sweden. Home tournament in Helsinki and our team collapsed after leading 5-1 to eventually lose the game 5-6. My all-time favorite player Peter Forsberg scored the deciding goal in a ridiculous coast-to-coast fashion. That match has to be the biggest melt down of international hockey history.

Also Sweden's loss against Belarus in 2002 olympic quarterfinals was embarrasing for them. And the way Belarus scored their winning goal... Not really Swedish-like to go out like that

 

[Urbanskog]

3 of those are now in NHL.
Kontiola & Komarov at Toronto
Lehterä at ST.Louis

However, Väänänen and Aaltonen are in the KHL now.

 

[JackSlater]

I pretty much could agree with this, but still this is another example of how the results define how the performance is rated. I guess you wouldn't give such high ratings for forwards if Canada had been unable to score that one goal in SF (let alone the winning goal in QF).

It's so easy to interpret the facts so that they flatter the tournament winner. It's also easy to bash a team who lost a QF. Canada was bashed after QF loss in Turin. The treatment would've been very different if Canada had gotten some one goal wins and been in the final, for example. That didn't happen.

In Turin one Canada's problem was scoring efficiency exactly like this year. I checked the stats and the SG% was 7.28% (11th in the tournament), so almost the same as this year. Defense and the goaltender let 1.85 GAA, which was 3rd best in the tournament. I agree that Canada looked far better in Sochi than in Turin, but resultwise the difference was basically that this time Canada got an easy QF opponent, was able to score the absolute necessary goals when needed and had even better GAA than in Turin.

The point in my first post in this thread was that there's often a very thin line between success and failure in current tournament format. That's why word "flop" is overused IMO and I use it sparingly. I also think that many people had too high expectations for a handful of Russian stars, even though team in general was not anything special.

I think that Canada in 1998 is a better example of results impacting performance perception. If you conduct a poll about which team played better, Canada in 1998 or Canada in 2002, the 2002 team would win in a landslide. The reality is that the 1998 team probably played better than the 2002 team, or at least equally well.

I do not think this is the case with Canada in 2014. Just from watching the 2006 team you can see them offensively sputter. The goals didn't come in large part because the chances weren't created. In 2014 you could see by watching the game that the chances were created, but the finishing was poor at times and the opposing goaltending was solid. I find shooting percentage to be more about luck than anything else (on a team scale) and in the long run the team that creates the most chances would generally have the most goals. Canada did a good job at creating chances.

 

[Jussi]

Finland had most KHL-ers and yet won bronze medal, so your KHL bashing is out of the place.

We were carried by our NHL players. If we didn't have so many injuries, there would have been less KHL players.

 

[Jussi]

Biggest flop for Finland happened in 2003 WHC, quarter-final against Sweden. Home tournament in Helsinki and our team collapsed after leading 5-1 to eventually lose the game 5-6.

Never happened.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

Never happened.

It did, I remember seeing this game, was a remarkable comeback.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

The bombastic statements never end


USA – 1998 for me was easily the worst showing. Especially after the 1996 World Cup. Just a a terrible follow up to some great momentum.

I agree, 2014 was not the flop for the U.S, the 1998 team was. On paper such a good team, the results were far below what it could/should have achieved. 2014 they had a stinker game in the bronze match but that is it.