Toggle sidebar

Can we put to bed the idea that North America can't win on big ice or outside home?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Big Phil

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,174
I never really understood that mentality. 1998 Canada was a goal away from the gold medal game. 2006 was just a mess into itself and I never thought the big ice was the problem. But the theory was fierce because Canada and the USA could never win on anything but NHL ice in North America.

1996 World Cup, 2002 and 2010 Olympics featured a Canada vs. USA final. 2004 World Cup Canada won and USA made it to the semis. 1998 Canada made it the furthest to the semis. 2006 neither got out of the quarters.

I guess it never looked good but I always thought it was just a coincidence and had nothing to do with the truth.

But with Canada winning gold rather convincingly and USA putting up the best fight and finishing 4th is it time to put this theory to bed for good?
Click to read more...
 
2002 was on big ice or at least much closer to international ice than NHL sized ice.

So the whole idea that Canada couldn't win on big ice was crap from the start.
 
Cyris said:
2002 was on big ice or at least much closer to international ice than NHL sized ice.

So the whole idea that Canada couldn't win on big ice was crap from the start.
Click to expand...

Oh I know that. Salt Lake in 2002 was sort of like a hybrid between the two. Canada did fine and so did the US. But even so, it was still on North American soil. You still heard those complaints that neither country could do well outside of North America.
 
Yes we can put it to bed along with the idea the bigger ice brings more offense. This tournament showed bigger ice just allowed inferior teams to trap and play more defensive easier.
 
As for this tournament the other two medalists were seriously weakened in their offenses though, I reckon Sweden with both Sedins, Zetterberg etc. would have fared better.
 
BREAKING NEWS: Official measurements from Sochi's hockey arenas show that the ice dimensions were in fact only 200 ft x 99.99 ft. In ice hockey, where it's a game of inches, those 3 mm count! Canada will have to prove that it can win on *real* big ice again in 2018! ;)
 
Last edited:
Rekin said:
As for this tournament the other two medalists were seriously weakened in their offenses though, I reckon Sweden with both Sedins, Zetterberg etc. would have fared better.
Click to expand...

And I "reckon" Canada with Stamkos, Tavares, and Giroux would have been even more dominant.
 
Sweden was missing Zetterberg, Sedin, Backstrom and maybe one of their assistant trainers, so this wasn't true best-on-best. Sorry.


:)
 
Big Phil said:
I never really understood that mentality. 1998 Canada was a goal away from the gold medal game. 2006 was just a mess into itself and I never thought the big ice was the problem. But the theory was fierce because Canada and the USA could never win on anything but NHL ice in North America.

1996 World Cup, 2002 and 2010 Olympics featured a Canada vs. USA final. 2004 World Cup Canada won and USA made it to the semis. 1998 Canada made it the furthest to the semis. 2006 neither got out of the quarters.

I guess it never looked good but I always thought it was just a coincidence and had nothing to do with the truth.

But with Canada winning gold rather convincingly and USA putting up the best fight and finishing 4th is it time to put this theory to bed for good?
Click to expand...
I believe there IS an additional time adjustment for North Americans, but it never was a mission impossible. Whilst it may take the Europeans who play in the NHL one game to get the groove back, it may take us two games or three.
 
Big Phil said:
I never really understood that mentality. 1998 Canada was a goal away from the gold medal game. 2006 was just a mess into itself and I never thought the big ice was the problem. But the theory was fierce because Canada and the USA could never win on anything but NHL ice in North America.

1996 World Cup, 2002 and 2010 Olympics featured a Canada vs. USA final. 2004 World Cup Canada won and USA made it to the semis. 1998 Canada made it the furthest to the semis. 2006 neither got out of the quarters.
Click to expand...

Well, every story has two sides.

2004 WC Canada won 4-3 vs the Czechs in OT after Havlat hit the post. On home ice.
In 2002 Sweden beat them fairly convincingly with Lidstrom, Sundin, Naslund, etc.
etc etc.

...

But... IMO the big ice does play a role..
I think Canada winning in Sochi is a tribute to them and their coaches and how great their positioning looked every minute of every game.

That said... The competition has never been weaker.
Russia lacks depth of any sort and has no defense or a competent coach, Czechs are down, Slovaks are out, Sweden and Finland were banged up.
USA continues to improve and shell out more and more elite players every generation - their time will come.

Canada had everything. Depth, talent and coaching.
The big ice simply wasn't enough of a factor for the Euro teams to take advantage of, the gap was too great with the Sochi rosters.
 
Tenma said:
Yes we can put it to bed along with the idea the bigger ice brings more offense. This tournament showed bigger ice just allowed inferior teams to trap and play more defensive easier.
Click to expand...

Yeah much less hitting and way fewer scoring chances on the Olympic sized ice.

The Vancouver Olympic hockey tournament was much more interesting.
 
Now we can put to bed the idea that CANADA can't win it on big ice.

However, US never won Olympic gold on big ice so it's not correct to say that North America can do it.
 
CanadianSniper said:
And Canada was missing Stamkos and Tavares so that more than evens it out :)
Click to expand...

OFF-TOPIC

With injuries and some of the ridiculous banned substances perhaps it's time to allow expanded rosters in the Olympics!

ps..sorry if there was another thread regarding this.
 
Corto said:
Well, every story has two sides.

2004 WC Canada won 4-3 vs the Czechs in OT after Havlat hit the post. On home ice.
In 2002 Sweden beat them fairly convincingly with Lidstrom, Sundin, Naslund, etc.
etc etc.

...

But... IMO the big ice does play a role..
I think Canada winning in Sochi is a tribute to them and their coaches and how great their positioning looked every minute of every game.

That said... The competition has never been weaker.
Russia lacks depth of any sort and has no defense or a competent coach, Czechs are down, Slovaks are out, Sweden and Finland were banged up.
USA continues to improve and shell out more and more elite players every generation - their time will come.

Canada had everything. Depth, talent and coaching.
The big ice simply wasn't enough of a factor for the Euro teams to take advantage of, the gap was too great with the Sochi rosters.
Click to expand...


What an exaggeration. Russia lacked only good offense, their forwards couldn't capitalise on many opportunities.

USA had a solid team but they declined this year comparing to their positions in Vancouver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom