Canada no. 1

[jj cale]

Because all nations field 25 players at a time - not 721,000 or 80,000 - and several nations have produced enough top-end talent to compete.

When you consider that all nations field one team at a time, and combine that with the nature of single-game-elimination, then I'd say Canada is doing quite well for itself internationally. I'm quite content at any rate.

If the total number of players decided who won then Brazil would win most World Cups (and certainly every Copa America), while Uruguay wouldn't be a position to compete with anyone.

Or to put it in military terms...the Russian Army could crush the Dutch Army in a one-on-one battle. But it would be a much more even fight if you had one division of Russians vs one division of Dutch.

Well said.

25 guys on a team and we know that several nations have produced the amount of high end talent that allows them to compete and also win against Canada. Combine that with the single game aspect you mentioned and the raw overall numbers mean very little in Canadas favor.

The Brazil analogy is bang on, why don't they win every single time considering their numbers?

This should be no mystery and Canada should be proud.........they are doing very well, they are clearly the top team internationally. Nothing to complain about by our fans and certainly nothing to attempt to downgrade by fans of other teams.



They have even increased their distance from their oldest most close rival Russia, which really is not that close anymore where at one time they were basically Canada's equal.

What more can you ask for?

Pretty dominant.

Let's call it like it is...................they're the best.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Well said.

25 guys on a team and we know that several nations have produced the amount of high end talent that allows them to compete and also win against Canada. Combine that with the single game aspect you mentioned and the raw overall numbers mean very little in Canadas favor.

The Brazil analogy is bang on, why don't they win every single time considering their numbers?

This should be no mystery and Canada should be proud.........they are doing very well, they are clearly the top team internationally. Nothing to complain about by our fans and certainly nothing to attempt to downgrade by fans of other teams.



They have even increased their distance from their oldest most close rival Russia, which really is not that close anymore where at one time they were basically Canada's equal.

What more can you ask for?

Pretty dominant.

Let's call it like it is...................they're the best.

If Finland didn't exist you'd have Canada-Russia finals every year. And with Russia coming out on top in most of the match-ups.

 

[Canuckistani]

If Finland didn't exist you'd have Canada-Russia finals every year. And with Russia coming out on top in most of the match-ups.

When we do meet the Russians in playoff rounds we seem pretty even.

 

[Canuckistani]

It's an easy concept. Canada has the most players, and the largest number of elite players, but you can only select at most 25 players. Add in that anything can happen in any individual game, and Canada can lose to any team that has competent players.

Indeed it could be argued that there is some advantage to having fewer elite level players as it means the few that you have will end up playing together internationally far more often. I could see that leading to more team chemistry and cohesiveness.

 

[Finnswiss]

it's highly possible that 0 of the players make team Canada for the World Cup.

May be but it doesn't change that a A-team won the title for Canada. As I said in my post before in Canada are much more ice hockey player than in any other country. So it's logical that they have also much more A-team player than any other country in the world. So Canada disposes a range of about 3 A-teams to send to the WHC.

I know that only 25 of these A-players can be nominated and 21 play at a time not 1'000 or 50 or 60. So Finland had the same chances against Canada in the final game but Canada was just better.
But it's rubbish to pretend it was only a B-team of Canada because Sydney Crosby and other stars couldn't play because they are still engaged in the Stanley Cup.

I don't know why the Finns are mostly not able to win these final games even if they have a very good team.

 

[Jablkon]

Neither amount of players nor one top team opponnent is an issue imo. No matter how many rinks you have, when we talking about top level, you need money to pay top coaches etc. Canada didn't loose some OG just because other countries were able to built top teams as well. All the people mention 98 whether it was Hasek, bad choose for shootouts... I think the issue was Karia and Sakic. It might look completely different for TC with those two players. Canada did not have any real top depth and was not able replace these two guys. I guess total amount of skaters in Canada was similar in that times. New rinks does not help you so much when you dont pay the good staff, set up the scouting system and keep the metodology updated. I guess Canada has been doing pretty good and number of complex players just confirm it.

 

[TeamRenzo]

I'm starting to really like the Finns. Might be my team I cheer for when Canada isn't playing.

I love going for the Danes too, but they don't have the talent and skill like Finland. Finns play with the same heart and soul as Canadians do.

Agreed, I love the Fins as well as the Swedes!

I know this will sound arrogant but losing to Canada in the finals is an accomplishment.

 

[JackSlater]

May be but it doesn't change that a A-team won the title for Canada. As I said in my post before in Canada are much more ice hockey player than in any other country. So it's logical that they have also much more A-team player than any other country in the world. So Canada disposes a range of about 3 A-teams to send to the WHC.

I know that only 25 of these A-players can be nominated and 21 play at a time not 1'000 or 50 or 60. So Finland had the same chances against Canada in the final game but Canada was just better.
But it's rubbish to pretend it was only a B-team of Canada because Sydney Crosby and other stars couldn't play because they are still engaged in the Stanley Cup.

I don't know why the Finns are mostly not able to win these final games even if they have a very good team.

Over the years I've come to think that many Europeans don't actually understand what "A team" means. This poster doesn't, and there are always similar posts. "A team" doesn't mean good or bad, it just means that it is the best group of players for that country. The Canadian "B team" could be quite strong, but that is irrelevant. The Brazilian "A team" is presumably very bad, but it's still Brazil's "A team".

This Canadian team had some players who could be considered "A team" players - arguably Duchene, Hall, O'Reilly or maybe Marchand. It was mostly players who would be below or far below that level. Being decent does not make this team the Canadian "A team".

 

[snipes]

Agreed, I love the Fins as well as the Swedes!

I know this will sound arrogant but losing to Canada in the finals is an accomplishment.

Yup. I'm becoming a huge fan of the Finns, I really like talking hockey with their fans too. The vast majority are passionate and knowledgable fans.

Things get heated in the GDT's between our countries. But after the 3 hours of war, I have nothing but respect for the Finns. They have superpower potential and can rival us in the coming years.

 

[jj cale]

If Finland didn't exist you'd have Canada-Russia finals every year. And with Russia coming out on top in most of the match-ups.

You really believe that?

I am not sure if I understand you.

Or are you talking about only the WHC where Russia usually has a higher percentage of it's best players available? You are probably right there. But that means **** all anyway so who cares?

Because there is no way Russia wins most of it's matchups in any best on best tournaments against Canada right now.

They would be on the losing end most times

Big time.

Russia is not even number 2 anymore, more like 3-4.

How would they possibly win most of the matchups in best on best tournaments against Canada these days?, most times they can't even medal anymore.

 

[Yakushev72]

It's an easy concept. Canada has the most players, and the largest number of elite players, but you can only select at most 25 players. Add in that anything can happen in any individual game, and Canada can lose to any team that has competent players.

If what you say is true, Canada needs to take a serious and critical look at how they handle the sport. I'm trying to think of an analogy - its as if you're saying that there is a huge pyramid in the United States that produces progressively talented and competitive basketball players at the elementary school, high school, and college levels, ultimately to go to the NBA, but then when the best of the best go to the Olympics, and come up against Belgium, its 50-50 as to which team will win.

That is beyond crazy! It makes no sense at all. With Stephen Curry, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Westbrook, and so on, the Americans will absolutely slaughter Belgium. Maybe once in 100 times, Belgium would win, but the chances of even a 1% success rate is totally insignificant. Its not exact, but with a talent pool 10 times larger than Finland's, you should have at least 10 superstars on the ice for each individual Finnish superstar. That's what he was saying, and he's obviously right. The fact that Canada isn't putting 10 superstars on the ice may point up some flaws and inefficiencies in the Canadian system.

 

[Urbanskog]

You really believe that?

I am not sure if I understand you.

Or are you talking about only the WHC where Russia usually has a higher percentage of it's best players available? You are probably right there. But that means **** all anyway so who cares?

Because there is no way Russia wins most of it's matchups in any best on best tournaments against Canada right now.

They would be on the losing end most times

Big time.

Russia is not even number 2 anymore, more like 3-4.

How would they possibly win most of the matchups in best on best tournaments against Canada these days?, most times they can't even medal anymore.

I would say that they're fifth.

 

[MXD]

If what you say is true, Canada needs to take a serious and critical look at how they handle the sport. I'm trying to think of an analogy - its as if you're saying that there is a huge pyramid in the United States that produces progressively talented and competitive basketball players at the elementary school, high school, and college levels, ultimately to go to the NBA, but then when the best of the best go to the Olympics, and come up against Belgium, its 50-50 as to which team will win.

That is beyond crazy! It makes no sense at all. With Stephen Curry, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Westbrook, and so on, the Americans will absolutely slaughter Belgium. Maybe once in 100 times, Belgium would win, but the chances of even a 1% success rate is totally insignificant. Its not exact, but with a talent pool 10 times larger than Finland's, you should have at least 10 superstars on the ice for each individual Finnish superstar. That's what he was saying, and he's obviously right. The fact that Canada isn't putting 10 superstars on the ice may point up some flaws and inefficiencies in the Canadian system.

...The fact that hockey is the #1 sport in Canada, and has a so-called larger pool, means that kids who have no business on a rink will get skates and play youth hockey for 4-5 years until they drop by bantam.

 

[JackSlater]

If what you say is true, Canada needs to take a serious and critical look at how they handle the sport. I'm trying to think of an analogy - its as if you're saying that there is a huge pyramid in the United States that produces progressively talented and competitive basketball players at the elementary school, high school, and college levels, ultimately to go to the NBA, but then when the best of the best go to the Olympics, and come up against Belgium, its 50-50 as to which team will win.

That is beyond crazy! It makes no sense at all. With Stephen Curry, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Westbrook, and so on, the Americans will absolutely slaughter Belgium. Maybe once in 100 times, Belgium would win, but the chances of even a 1% success rate is totally insignificant. Its not exact, but with a talent pool 10 times larger than Finland's, you should have at least 10 superstars on the ice for each individual Finnish superstar. That's what he was saying, and he's obviously right. The fact that Canada isn't putting 10 superstars on the ice may point up some flaws and inefficiencies in the Canadian system.

Why would you quote me and then literally ignore what I said? Everything that I said is completely true. The primary point is that there are diminishing returns to player production. Canada has more than 25 elite players, but only 25 of them can compete on any given team. Other countries may produce a smaller but still significant amount, allowing them to compete very effectively with Canada despite having in some cases far fewer elite players. You use Finland as an example, and it's probably the most useful one. The funny thing is that you suggest that Canada should produce ten times the number of star players that Finland does, and in fact that has been the case for much of recent history. Despite Canada having an overwhelmingly better team, Finland is still a threat to Canada. That's the nature of hockey.

You also use basketball as an example, which is also poorly thought out for a few reasons. First, USA actually did lose the 2004 Olympic tournament, despite having by far the most talented roster in the tournament. Second, by its nature basketball is a game where the better team has a far better chance to win than is the case in hockey. In hockey a bad bounce or two can completely swing the outcome. In basketball a bad bounce might cost you a relatively insignificant 3 points.

I do agree that the Canadian development system could be better though. There can always be improvements. However, considering that Canada right now has better forwards and defencemen, and arguably goaltenders, than any other country, it's difficult to convince Hockey Canada that big change is needed.

 

[jj cale]

I would say that they're fifth.

I think that may be pushing it IMO but you can make a viable case for it for sure.

 

[Rob]

Canada is clearly number one in hockey at the moment. However, we are not as dominant in hockey as the US is in basketball.

Should we be? Debatable I guess. I still am a proponent of more practice time for kids as opposed to games being played. Hate to beat that dead horse again.

 

[Seanaconda]

Canada is clearly number one in hockey at the moment. However, we are not as dominant in hockey as the US is in basketball.

Should we be? Debatable I guess. I still am a proponent of more practice time for kids as opposed to games being played. Hate to beat that dead horse again.

Hmm to me it depends on the coach If they are teaching mostly skills then yeah but if it's all bag skates and just a workout then whatever

 

[MaHCK]

Canada is clearly number one in hockey at the moment. However, we are not as dominant in hockey as the US is in basketball.

Should we be? Debatable I guess. I still am a proponent of more practice time for kids as opposed to games being played. Hate to beat that dead horse again.

That's because more countries have hockey as their number 1 sport than basketball. So you have more competition

 

[Jablkon]

Over the years I've come to think that many Europeans don't actually understand what "A team" means. This poster doesn't, and there are always similar posts. "A team" doesn't mean good or bad, it just means that it is the best group of players for that country. The Canadian "B team" could be quite strong, but that is irrelevant. The Brazilian "A team" is presumably very bad, but it's still Brazil's "A team".

This Canadian team had some players who could be considered "A team" players - arguably Duchene, Hall, O'Reilly or maybe Marchand. It was mostly players who would be below or far below that level. Being decent does not make this team the Canadian "A team".

That could be mostly because a lot of canadian posters often try to imply with using sentence like "it was only our B team" that they or the opponent or the tourney itself was weak. It just sounds bit provoking especially when other teams, except ussually one or two, are in the same position in WHC.

There is an established structure of A, B teams, especially in european soccer leagues. Barcelona A plays in top division, B team played in lower level. Something like WBS is not called WBS but clearly Penguines "B" (which it is) with same jerseys as Penguines etc. So when they send you up, you can still be the "B" player but you competing in top division for your "A" team.

 

[Tomas W]

Team Canadas players certainly do well. We know Canada have superior depth to all others, but as you say the other top nations top players are individually talented enough to compete pretty well and should have realistic chances to beat Canada once and a while. Still Canada win a lot if international competition which is saying something about the Canadian players will to do thier best for thier country, and how well they can play as a team, multimillionairs or not.

 

[tony d]

Good to have us at #1, Wonder who #2 is though. Maybe Finland?

 

[Bear12Good]

good to have us at #1, wonder who #2 is though. Maybe finland?

Usa 2 Sweden 3 Finland 4 Russia 5

 

[Yakushev72]

Why would you quote me and then literally ignore what I said? Everything that I said is completely true. The primary point is that there are diminishing returns to player production. Canada has more than 25 elite players, but only 25 of them can compete on any given team. Other countries may produce a smaller but still significant amount, allowing them to compete very effectively with Canada despite having in some cases far fewer elite players. You use Finland as an example, and it's probably the most useful one. The funny thing is that you suggest that Canada should produce ten times the number of star players that Finland does, and in fact that has been the case for much of recent history. Despite Canada having an overwhelmingly better team, Finland is still a threat to Canada. That's the nature of hockey.

You also use basketball as an example, which is also poorly thought out for a few reasons. First, USA actually did lose the 2004 Olympic tournament, despite having by far the most talented roster in the tournament. Second, by its nature basketball is a game where the better team has a far better chance to win than is the case in hockey. In hockey a bad bounce or two can completely swing the outcome. In basketball a bad bounce might cost you a relatively insignificant 3 points.

I do agree that the Canadian development system could be better though. There can always be improvements. However, considering that Canada right now has better forwards and defencemen, and arguably goaltenders, than any other country, it's difficult to convince Hockey Canada that big change is needed.

I honestly don't understand your point. It doesn't make sense to me. Given the intensive and competitive nature of Canadian hockey from childhood up, you have, as in USA basketball, a broad pyramid of talent that keeps getting narrowed at each successive level until the best finally arrive in the NHL. So when you have 721,000 players laying out that pyramid, you have a massive advantage over Finland at 71,000, by any theory of the occurrence of natural athletic talent in a genetic population.

You brush that aside by saying that you can only have 25 players on a team. Even the law of averages would suggest that you should have 10 times as much talent on the Canadian team as on the Finnish team, unless there was some reason that Canada is producing dramatically fewer great players than they should be expected to do. I think you're totally wrong, unless you can produce some way to support your point.

 

[Yakushev72]

Usa 2 Sweden 3 Finland 4 Russia 5

I think you're trying to be controversial again by placing USA at #2. There is no justification for that, and no evidence that the USA should rank higher than Russia.

 

[Zero Pucks Given]

Usa 2 Sweden 3 Finland 4 Russia 5

Yeah, no. Sweden is basically Canada minus the crazy depth.

At best it's a toss-up between Russia, Finland, and us.