Canada all time team

[Namba 17]

Bossy was the offensive threat on his line.

If you think so even after all stats I brought, I see no point to continue

 

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

Hull - Gretzky - Howe
Lindsay - Lemieux - Richard
Moore - Beliveau - Lafleur
Mahovlich - Morenz - Bossy

Orr - Harvey
Bouque - Shore
Potvin - Kelly

Roy - Plante

Take that all you cheaters overloading your forward lines with centers who never/rarely played the wing, and all those infected with recency bias.

 

[authentic]

Hull - Gretzky - Howe
Lindsay - Lemieux - Richard
Moore - Beliveau - Lafleur
Mahovlich - Morenz - Bossy

Orr - Harvey
Bouque - Shore
Potvin - Kelly

Roy - Plante

Take that all you cheaters overloading your forward lines with centers who never/rarely played the wing, and all those infected with recency bias.

Sure but please tell us all about how much you watched Morenz and Shore play

 

[authentic]

Draisaitl over Firsov?

Not my team but I don’t believe the team would be hurting because of it

 

[JackSlater]

If you think so even after all stats I brought, I see no point to continue

Anybody would think that Bossy, the best offensive player on those lines who also scored the most points, was the offensive threat unless they had dug in their heels because they were wrong and were strangely desperate to not accept it. Anyway, glad we've gone mildly in depth to demonstrate Bossy's success without a playmaker on his line, both in the NHL and internationally.

 

[Staniowski]

Hull - Gretzky - Howe
Lindsay - Lemieux - Richard
Moore - Beliveau - Lafleur
Mahovlich - Morenz - Bossy

Orr - Harvey
Bouque - Shore
Potvin - Kelly

Roy - Plante

Take that all you cheaters overloading your forward lines with centers who never/rarely played the wing, and all those infected with recency bias.

Other people having bias?

You've created the Team Canada Original-6 All-Stars.

 

[Staniowski]

If you think so even after all stats I brought, I see no point to continue

Are you trying to make Brent Sutter into an offensive star, a playmaker?

Bossy was a unique player, I'd compare him a bit to Kucherov in the sense that they aren't complete players, but they are almost the best ever in their core strength. Like with Kucherov, Bossy was the most important player on every line he ever played on in his career.

 

[Gerulaitis]

No thanks on Vasiliev. There are at least a few non-NHL players better than him, if it had to be a non-NHLer...

Captained the 1981 Canada Cup team.
Nothing against him.

I'd love to have Konstantinov and Kasparaitis as the first d-men pairing. That would be fun to watch

 

[Namba 17]

Bossy was the most important player on every line he ever played on in his career.

Not true

 

[Crosby2010]

I can see Lindros again.
and no Joe Sakic? no Yzerman over Lindros ? No Esposito? Alright...

The thing is, what do Sakic and Yzerman bring to the table? Esposito as well. We already have tons of scoring. We already have clutch scoring, speed, skill, leadership, etc. What we don't have is a player that combines the best skill and physicality that I have ever seen and that's Lindros. Imagine playing a team that is laying you out with hits. Wouldn't you want to insert a guy like Lindros in the line up for that type of game?

You know what would be a cool idea? Building the best team World that could challenge Canada. Doubtful they could muster up more than a win or two in a 7 game series but it would be cool to see what we could come up with if they had to try.

I figure with a team that has Hasek, Jagr, Ovechkin, etc. Among others of course, that they can get a win against the best Canadians. 4-1 series win for Canada though. But to think Hasek can't at least steal a game and have some solid pairing on the back end like Lidstrom and Fetisov, followed by Chelios and Leetch perhaps. Yeah, they aren't as good as Canada, but this team still doesn't just roll over.

 

[MadLuke]

. 4-1 series win for Canada though.

That feel a bit overconfident to me. Or calling the win stealing one because of Hasek a bit reductor.

If we start with the 1987 soviet team that went 6-5, 5-6, 5-6, they faced on NHL sized ice on the road, a team Canada that just played 5 games of round-robin, so used to each other by then, as much as a gold medal in the Olympics from the start of the best of 3.

We sent a Bourque-Coffey, Gretzky-Lemieux-Messier powerplay at some moment, all at their peak, and won by a single goal.

Orr is not there and that a big difference, prime Roy or someone else can upgrade over 1987 Fuhr.

But the 1987 soviet team, change nothing to it, could still steal a game, no ? The Makarov-Krutov-Fetisov.

Peak Hasek in goal does not change the chemistry too much, maybe you insert a peak Mogilny-Fedorov-Bure line or an Ovechkin-Forsberg-Jagr, Kucherov on the powerplay maybe, Chara as a piece you bring for what he can do, a Lidstrom, Chelios, Hull.

The Swiss stole a game against team Canada in the Olympics, a best world team with best coaching would win games, not steal them I feel.

McDavid-Mack team Canada just got a terrible lost against the Americans, Makar was not there but Gretzky can go down during the series as well.

Hockey is not a sport with strong guarantees to start with and I am not sure the gap would be that large, the only best on best comfortable win was 2014 and 1991 ? Russian did not fully come in 1991 and in 2014 the rest of the world was a bit down. In none of those tourney if the world would have formed a single team, Canada would have easily won, so if at no point Canada was better than the world in a clear enough way (in the elite player) why does it shift so much all time ?

Canada get all the good pre-1970 players in a sense, which help, but maybe we make too much out of it.

 

[authentic]

The thing is, what do Sakic and Yzerman bring to the table? Esposito as well. We already have tons of scoring. We already have clutch scoring, speed, skill, leadership, etc. What we don't have is a player that combines the best skill and physicality that I have ever seen and that's Lindros. Imagine playing a team that is laying you out with hits. Wouldn't you want to insert a guy like Lindros in the line up for that type of game?



I figure with a team that has Hasek, Jagr, Ovechkin, etc. Among others of course, that they can get a win against the best Canadians. 4-1 series win for Canada though. But to think Hasek can't at least steal a game and have some solid pairing on the back end like Lidstrom and Fetisov, followed by Chelios and Leetch perhaps. Yeah, they aren't as good as Canada, but this team still doesn't just roll over.

Yeah the team I put together would actually have a chance at winning the series to be honest. Especially in a Time Machine scenario… Would be fun to watch!

 

[authentic]

That feel a bit overconfident to me. Or calling the win stealing one because of Hasek a bit reductor.

If we start with the 1987 soviet team that went 6-5, 5-6, 5-6, they faced on NHL sized ice on the road, a team Canada that just played 5 games of round-robin, so used to each other by then, as much as a gold medal in the Olympics from the start of the best of 3.

We sent a Bourque-Coffey, Gretzky-Lemieux-Messier powerplay at some moment, all at their peak, and won by a single goal.

Orr is not there and that a big difference, prime Roy or someone else can upgrade over 1987 Fuhr.

But the 1987 soviet team, change nothing to it, could still steal a game, no ? The Makarov-Krutov-Fetisov.

Peak Hasek in goal does not change the chemistry too much, maybe you insert a peak Mogilny-Fedorov-Bure line or an Ovechkin-Forsberg-Jagr, Kucherov on the powerplay maybe, Chara as a piece you bring for what he can do, a Lidstrom, Chelios, Hull.

The Swiss stole a game against team Canada in the Olympics, a best world team with best coaching would win games, not steal them I feel.

McDavid-Mack team Canada just got a terrible lost against the Americans, Makar was not there but Gretzky can go down during the series as well.

Hockey is not a sport with strong guarantees to start with and I am not sure the gap would be that large, the only best on best comfortable win was 2014 and 1991 ? Russian did not fully come in 1991 and in 2014 the rest of the world was a bit down. In no ne of those tourney if the world would have formed a single team, Canada would have easily won, so if at no point Canada was better than the world in a clear enough way (in the elite player) why does it shift so much all time ?

Canada get all the good pre-1970 players in a sense, which help, but maybe we make too much out of it.

Also do we have any real idea what these guys would’ve scored in the NHL back then? Was Makarov a 170 point player on those Oilers in Gretzky’s place? Or 130… I feel like it’s almost impossible to tell, but either way the World team is stacked in a way where you could replace their top line with World team B’s top line and a win is still not guaranteed for Canada.

 

[Crosby2010]

That feel a bit overconfident to me. Or calling the win stealing one because of Hasek a bit reductor.

If we start with the 1987 soviet team that went 6-5, 5-6, 5-6, they faced on NHL sized ice on the road, a team Canada that just played 5 games of round-robin, so used to each other by then, as much as a gold medal in the Olympics from the start of the best of 3.

We sent a Bourque-Coffey, Gretzky-Lemieux-Messier powerplay at some moment, all at their peak, and won by a single goal.

Orr is not there and that a big difference, prime Roy or someone else can upgrade over 1987 Fuhr.

But the 1987 soviet team, change nothing to it, could still steal a game, no ? The Makarov-Krutov-Fetisov.

Peak Hasek in goal does not change the chemistry too much, maybe you insert a peak Mogilny-Fedorov-Bure line or an Ovechkin-Forsberg-Jagr, Kucherov on the powerplay maybe, Chara as a piece you bring for what he can do, a Lidstrom, Chelios, Hull.

The Swiss stole a game against team Canada in the Olympics, a best world team with best coaching would win games, not steal them I feel.

McDavid-Mack team Canada just got a terrible lost against the Americans, Makar was not there but Gretzky can go down during the series as well.

Hockey is not a sport with strong guarantees to start with and I am not sure the gap would be that large, the only best on best comfortable win was 2014 and 1991 ? Russian did not fully come in 1991 and in 2014 the rest of the world was a bit down. In none of those tourney if the world would have formed a single team, Canada would have easily won, so if at no point Canada was better than the world in a clear enough way (in the elite player) why does it shift so much all time ?

Canada get all the good pre-1970 players in a sense, which help, but maybe we make too much out of it.

The 1987 Canada Cup team was great. But they did lack on defense after Bourque, Coffey, Murphy. They also didn't have 4 lines that were similar. It was built on Gretzky/Lemieux. Imagine getting 4 lines with absolutely no break for the opposition. Gretzky comes out. Then Lemieux comes out. Then McDavid comes out. Then Crosby comes out. That's 4 centres. And if that isn't enough then Beliveau gets inserted in there. Or Lindros to wear down the opposition defensemen. And that doesn't even account for the wingers. And on defense the hardest part is wondering who to cut. All-time Team Canada simply doesn't have an off switch. There is no down time if you are defending against them. So I am thinking a 4-1 series win simply because team Euro/USA has some talent and would take a game I think. But I don't see them matching up.

 

[MadLuke]

True maybe it turn out like first period of 2010 against Russia or 2014 in general, still feel overconfident to me.

Team world would also be unstop great line one after an other, same for the Ds, would the gap from Canada build up as you make 87 stronger more than the world can get stronger over Soviet 87 squad that much ?

We get better in goals, with Hasek they do to and so on. Canada would be the favorite, but a certain win seem a bit much.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I'm not familiar with Bill Cook's game. I think Guy Lafleur would fit nicely on that line with Bobby Hull and Crosby. Can you tell me why you picked Bill Cook for this line? Thanks.

I'm a little late getting back to you on this- but you're owed an answer. having asked a forthright question.

To me, the non-negotiables for RW-Canada are Howe (of course) and Maurice Richard. After that, it's Bossy-Cook-Lafleur, three to choose two. There's [IMO] as little to choose between them as to for there to be no really wrong answer. That said, here's what I like about Cook-

1) History's top RW pre-Maurice Richard.
2) Hockey's foremost Power Forward until the ascendency of Gordie Howe.
3) Leader-type- decorated WWI veteran. Not that Team Canada needs help with leadership, but I don't think a team can have too much of that sort of thing.
4) Flexible- capable multi-tool scorer- contributing via passing (e.g.: with Lalonde in Saskatoon) or finishing (e.g.: with Boucher in New York).
5) Tough customer in the dirty areas of the ice- would do a great job with the rough stuff.
6) Adaptability (see 3, above) would make him more suitable to extra-shifting, should injuries make that necessary.

 

[JackSlater]

3) Leader-type- decorated WWI veteran. Not that Team Canada needs help with leadership, but I don't think a team can have too much of that sort of thing.
4) Flexible- capable multi-tool scorer- contributing via passing (e.g.: with Lalonde in Saskatoon) or finishing (e.g.: with Boucher in New York).
5) Tough customer in the dirty areas of the ice- would do a great job with the rough stuff.
6) Adaptability (see 3, above) would make him more suitable to extra-shifting, should injuries make that necessary.

This is why I would go with Cook as RW on a Lemieux - Gretzky line. You need someone who brings stuff that they don't have, and a tough bastard to do a lot of the dirty work and who is still good enough to keep up and score goals is a great choice. Howe on that line seems like overkill, so Cook looks like the next best choice to me.

I am curious about Cook's defensive game. My recollection is that not much has been written about it, positively or negatively, but I may be wrong.

 

[overpass]

I'm a little late getting back to you on this- but you're owed an answer. having asked a forthright question.

To me, the non-negotiables for RW-Canada are Howe (of course) and Maurice Richard. After that, it's Bossy-Cook-Lafleur, three to choose two. There's [IMO] as little to choose between them as to for there to be no really wrong answer. That said, here's what I like about Cook-

1) History's top RW pre-Maurice Richard.
2) Hockey's foremost Power Forward until the ascendency of Gordie Howe.
3) Leader-type- decorated WWI veteran. Not that Team Canada needs help with leadership, but I don't think a team can have too much of that sort of thing.
4) Flexible- capable multi-tool scorer- contributing via passing (e.g.: with Lalonde in Saskatoon) or finishing (e.g.: with Boucher in New York).
5) Tough customer in the dirty areas of the ice- would do a great job with the rough stuff.
6) Adaptability (see 3, above) would make him more suitable to extra-shifting, should injuries make that necessary.

The other interesting this about Cook is that, although he was a power forward, his Ranger team didn't play a dump and chase style. Cook's line with his brother Bun and Frank Boucher was known for playing what they called a checkerboard passing style, with back passes, drop passes, and an emphasis on maintaining possession.

This style of play went out of fashion in the NHL after the red line rule change in 1943, and dump and chase hockey became the norm in pro hockey. The Ranger-style passing was dismissed as amateur style hockey or old-time hockey, which wouldn't stand up to the speed, strength, and shots in the modern pro game.

When Russian teams started visiting Canada in the 50s and 60s, old-timers said watching them was like watching the Cook brothers and Frank Boucher. Foster Hewitt, who had watched and broadcast games of those old-time Ranger teams, compared them to the Russians in the 1972 broadcast of the Summit Series. And of course those Russian teams proved that puck possession hockey couldn't be dismissed as out of date or amateur-style.

So Cook was not just a power forward, he excelled in a passing, puck-possession style of hockey that was closer to the Soviet style than the Original Six style. Something to think about when looking at who he could play with. I would put him with a high-end skill centre like Gretzky, Lemieux, or Beliveau rather than a more north-south player like Messier.