Canada's Golden Era

[m4tt145]

I agree with Yakushev, you can't compare hockey Canada to Spain in fotball, it ain't even close.

 

[Get North]

I disagree. In fact, there's less parity now than has existed in the past. In the past, specifically the Soviet era, the Canadians had a competitor that was clearly their equal. Prior to 1972, Canada was believed to be in a World by itself. Then in 1972, Canada and the Soviets played an 8-game home and home series that literally ended in the last 34 seconds of the last game, with both teams tied in total goals throughout the series. The same peer equal relationship maintained all the way to 1992, which marked the death of Soviet hockey through starvation. Since 1992, Canada has gone back to being more or less in a World of its own. The remnants of the Soviet and Czechoslovak eras competed for a while, but neither was able to pay for programs at home.

It is insane to compare Canada's two year win streak in the Olympics to Spain's performance on the world scene of football. As much as we love it, hockey is a niche sport that is only played by a few countries in the northern-most regions of the globe. Thus, tiny Finland and Sweden are top-four powers. Spain was a super-team in a world overflowing with football talent and passion from one end of the globe to the other. What Canada accomplished the last two Olympics doesn't even begin to compare with what Spain has done in the World Cup and EC levels. Its only meaningful if its accomplished against tough competition, and the hockey world is empty of it outside Canada. Canadians can't wait for the World Cup because they know, with conditions that strongly favor Canada in every facet and category, its going to be a walkover and a festival for Canadian fans.

For Canada vs Russia but Sweden, United States are both better than Russia so it's like a 3 way for the gold medal with Sweden, United States, Canada.

There is alot more parity than before.

 

[Macman]

I disagree. In fact, there's less parity now than has existed in the past. In the past, specifically the Soviet era, the Canadians had a competitor that was clearly their equal. Prior to 1972, Canada was believed to be in a World by itself. Then in 1972, Canada and the Soviets played an 8-game home and home series that literally ended in the last 34 seconds of the last game, with both teams tied in total goals throughout the series. The same peer equal relationship maintained all the way to 1992, which marked the death of Soviet hockey through starvation. Since 1992, Canada has gone back to being more or less in a World of its own. The remnants of the Soviet and Czechoslovak eras competed for a while, but neither was able to pay for programs at home.

It is insane to compare Canada's two year win streak in the Olympics to Spain's performance on the world scene of football. As much as we love it, hockey is a niche sport that is only played by a few countries in the northern-most regions of the globe. Thus, tiny Finland and Sweden are top-four powers. Spain was a super-team in a world overflowing with football talent and passion from one end of the globe to the other. What Canada accomplished the last two Olympics doesn't even begin to compare with what Spain has done in the World Cup and EC levels. Its only meaningful if its accomplished against tough competition, and the hockey world is empty of it outside Canada. Canadians can't wait for the World Cup because they know, with conditions that strongly favor Canada in every facet and category, its going to be a walkover and a festival for Canadian fans.

The original question was about the Olympics, though, not international hockey as a whole so it's insane to suggest there's less parity today under a best-on-best format than in the days of the Soviets showing up at every Winter Games with their best players while Canada was represented by the Edmonton Mercurys or a national team of scrubs.

If Canada is a world of its own now, when every country gets to bring their best players to the Olympics, then it only follows that it's on a more dominant run than anyone had during an era when only some countries were allowed to bring their best.

 

[Jonimaus]

There's no reason to think that Canada would not have had the same performance against 2006 OG teams.

If both played here best, 2006 Sweden would have crushed 2014 Sweden, so Canada would probably not have had it as easy, or even have a "guaranteed" win. But then again 2002 Sweden lost to Belarus so.

 

[Yakushev72]

For Canada vs Russia but Sweden, United States are both better than Russia so it's like a 3 way for the gold medal with Sweden, United States, Canada.

There is alot more parity than before.

Its hard to say that the United States is better than Russia based on recent contacts. The US won their game in Sochi in the 13th round of a Shootout, but it wasn't really so much a victory for Team USA as it was a victory for one player, T.J. Oshie. The US let Oshie take the last 7 shots and let victory or defeat ride on Oshie's back. Even the American announcers Roenick, Milbury and Olczyk acknowledged that the Russians outplayed the Americans and probably deserved to win. The US was also unimpressive at best against Canada, and absolutely awful against Finland.

There is probably more justification for saying that Sweden is better than Russia, but, except for 2006, which had unusual circumstances, they have been unable to make a claim to be on top, so they will likely remain a second-rung team, as witnessed by their really poor performance against Canada in Sochi. Its certainly true to say that Sweden and Finland have vastly improved since the Soviet days. On a per capita basis, there is no better hockey than is played in Scandinavia.

 

[Get North]

Its hard to say that the United States is better than Russia based on recent contacts. The US won their game in Sochi in the 13th round of a Shootout, but it wasn't really so much a victory for Team USA as it was a victory for one player, T.J. Oshie. The US let Oshie take the last 7 shots and let victory or defeat ride on Oshie's back. Even the American announcers Roenick, Milbury and Olczyk acknowledged that the Russians outplayed the Americans and probably deserved to win. The US was also unimpressive at best against Canada, and absolutely awful against Finland.

There is probably more justification for saying that Sweden is better than Russia, but, except for 2006, which had unusual circumstances, they have been unable to make a claim to be on top, so they will likely remain a second-rung team, as witnessed by their really poor performance against Canada in Sochi. Its certainly true to say that Sweden and Finland have vastly improved since the Soviet days. On a per capita basis, there is no better hockey than is played in Scandinavia.

Russia hasn't won a medal in 2 Olympics now, USA has one silver and came in 4th. Russia has dropped off big lately in big competition. They aren't even #4 on my list, they don't play complete and have no chemistry when I watch them.

 

[Yakushev72]

Russia hasn't won a medal in 2 Olympics now, USA has one silver and came in 4th. Russia has dropped off big lately in big competition. They aren't even #4 on my list, they don't play complete and have no chemistry when I watch them.

I know Canadians find IIHF rankings inconvenient, but I believe that Russia is ranked No. 1 by the IIHF after having won their 4th World Championship in the last 7 years. All World titles, senior or junior, are big competitions, and while Russia has some problems at the defenseman position that need to be fixed, they really aren't doing that badly. In the Olympics in the NHL era, the Russians are 1-1 against Canada, with total goals 7-5. The Russians record is fairly good.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I do not think Canadian fans or fans from anywhere for that matter, that follow and know the game find the fact that the IIHF has Russia ranked as the number one country in hockey as inconvenient so much as they find it completely stupid.

Everyone knows they are not the number one country in hockey so the ranking gets laughed at,as it should.

I really don't think there is even a hardcore Russian fan that would honestly agree with that ranking.


Let's face facts, they just aren't the top dog these days .

 

[Get North]

I know Canadians find IIHF rankings inconvenient, but I believe that Russia is ranked No. 1 by the IIHF after having won their 4th World Championship in the last 7 years. All World titles, senior or junior, are big competitions, and while Russia has some problems at the defenseman position that need to be fixed, they really aren't doing that badly. In the Olympics in the NHL era, the Russians are 1-1 against Canada, with total goals 7-5. The Russians record is fairly good.

I'm talking about best on best, I'm not talking about when Ovechkin, Malkin are facing Canada's Z team. World Juniors doesn't have Canada's top picks anyways and it's not like Russia won many of that regardless, they won 1 of the last 5 tournaments.. When you have the Olympics I don't think the World Championships should compare to the Olympics and be used in argument because it isn't quite even for all teams participating. The Olympics are the only best on best ignoring possible injuries so I don't think we should be using the other tournaments as arguments to declare how good Russia really is.

Talking about the Olympics, the last time Russia got a medal was 2002 which was bronze and in 1998 they won silver. The Russians are falling off as one of teams in tier 1 of international tournament, they have no one that I know who can lead their defense in 2014 other than possibly Voynov, Zadorov, Kulikov and that isn't strong at all. Their offense will be on the decline, goaltending will get better but I see Russia becoming a worse team in the next 1-2 Olympics. Who's going to replace Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Malkin, Datsyuk? Not replace but be better than those players and make Russia back to the top of nations.

Russia is on a serious downfall and nothing is helping them slow down.

 

[Urbanskog]

I do not think Canadian fans or fans from anywhere for that matter, that follow and know the game find the fact that the IIHF has Russia ranked as the number one country in hockey as inconvenient so much as they find it completely stupid.

Everyone knows they are not the number one country in hockey so the ranking gets laughed at,as it should.

I really don't think there is even a hardcore Russian fan that would honestly agree with that ranking.


Let's face facts, they just aren't the top dog these days .

The IIHF ranks Russia the third best, not the best.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I know Canadians find IIHF rankings inconvenient, but I believe that Russia is ranked No. 1 by the IIHF after having won their 4th World Championship in the last 7 years. All World titles, senior or junior, are big competitions, and while Russia has some problems at the defenseman position that need to be fixed, they really aren't doing that badly. In the Olympics in the NHL era, the Russians are 1-1 against Canada, with total goals 7-5. The Russians record is fairly good.

I'm not sure we find the IIHF rankings inconvenient as much as we find them inaccurate. They are mostly based on WC results which history has proven to have very little correlation with best on best results.

Personally I think the best way to rank best on best results is to assign a value to how far a team makes it in the tournament, for example:

Champion 16pts
eliminated in final 8pts
eliminated in SF 4pts
eliminated in QF 2pts

Since 1996 the rankings would be as follows:

1 CAN 78pts
2 USA 44pts
3 SWE 38pts
5 CZE 34pts
5 FIN 34pts
6 RUS 26pts
7 SVK 10pts

 

[The Bad Guy*]

The IIHF ranks Russia the third best, not the best.

Good, that is far more reasonable.

 

[Yakushev72]

I'm talking about best on best, I'm not talking about when Ovechkin, Malkin are facing Canada's Z team. World Juniors doesn't have Canada's top picks anyways and it's not like Russia won many of that regardless, they won 1 of the last 5 tournaments.. When you have the Olympics I don't think the World Championships should compare to the Olympics and be used in argument because it isn't quite even for all teams participating. The Olympics are the only best on best ignoring possible injuries so I don't think we should be using the other tournaments as arguments to declare how good Russia really is.

Talking about the Olympics, the last time Russia got a medal was 2002 which was bronze and in 1998 they won silver. The Russians are falling off as one of teams in tier 1 of international tournament, they have no one that I know who can lead their defense in 2014 other than possibly Voynov, Zadorov, Kulikov and that isn't strong at all. Their offense will be on the decline, goaltending will get better but I see Russia becoming a worse team in the next 1-2 Olympics. Who's going to replace Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Malkin, Datsyuk? Not replace but be better than those players and make Russia back to the top of nations.

Russia is on a serious downfall and nothing is helping them slow down.

Actually, its the other way around. Russia is on the way up. The only question is how quickly the improvement will set in. After losing more than 90% of its funding for hockey after 1991 (imagine if 90% of the funding for Canadian youth hockey just vanished), Russia sank to around No. 4 or 5 by 1995. In the last 5 years, with more than a decade of solid economic growth (now the 7th largest economy in the World), Russia introduced junior leagues across the country. For the first time, Russian kids are playing hockey in competition before age 17. There is no way for Russians to minimize the huge breakthrough that represents for identifying and developing mass talent. Probably less than 20% of the population has access to hockey as a career now, but by 2019, that number is expected to be closer to 60%, and within 20 years, 100%.

In the Olympics, the last of the Russian Soviet-era players (Fedorov, Zhamnov, Bure, Zubov, etc.) left the scene in 2002, and the 2006 team was really terrible (although there was the shutout over a weak Canadian entry, 2-0). In 2000, at Leningrad, Russia's star-studded WHC team (Mogilny, Bure, Yashin, Fedorov) finished in 11th place, but has won 4 Gold in the last 7 years. In 2010, Russia had one bad game, which was made worse by Nabokov giving up 6 goals in the first 24 minutes. In Sochi, again just one bad game against Finland, took them out of the medals, but the team was a big improvement over the past 2 Olympics.

The biggest weakness in Sochi was the lack of defensemen, but there are some good prospects on the way (Zadorov, Bereglazov, Tryamkin and Orlov). There is no way that Voynov or Kulikov will be on the team in 2018. Voynov is just too slow a skater to play on a large surface (he cost us the game against Finland), and there is no physical component at all to his game. I'm not sure why you mentioned Kulikov's name? Goaltending is there. There are some really good forward prospects in line, and if the defense is shored up as expected, I think Russia will be a much stronger competitor for a Gold Medal in 2018.

 

[gamefan14*]

1900-2018


canada, undisputed #1.

No idea why people are saying the soviets were better then us lol, we beat them in 72 without a training camp when none of our players were in shape, they won 1 out of like 5 canada cups



sick bro

 

[Get North]

Actually, its the other way around. Russia is on the way up. The only question is how quickly the improvement will set in. After losing more than 90% of its funding for hockey after 1991 (imagine if 90% of the funding for Canadian youth hockey just vanished), Russia sank to around No. 4 or 5 by 1995. In the last 5 years, with more than a decade of solid economic growth (now the 7th largest economy in the World), Russia introduced junior leagues across the country. For the first time, Russian kids are playing hockey in competition before age 17. There is no way for Russians to minimize the huge breakthrough that represents for identifying and developing mass talent. Probably less than 20% of the population has access to hockey as a career now, but by 2019, that number is expected to be closer to 60%, and within 20 years, 100%.

In the Olympics, the last of the Russian Soviet-era players (Fedorov, Zhamnov, Bure, Zubov, etc.) left the scene in 2002, and the 2006 team was really terrible (although there was the shutout over a weak Canadian entry, 2-0). In 2000, at Leningrad, Russia's star-studded WHC team (Mogilny, Bure, Yashin, Fedorov) finished in 11th place, but has won 4 Gold in the last 7 years. In 2010, Russia had one bad game, which was made worse by Nabokov giving up 6 goals in the first 24 minutes. In Sochi, again just one bad game against Finland, took them out of the medals, but the team was a big improvement over the past 2 Olympics.

The biggest weakness in Sochi was the lack of defensemen, but there are some good prospects on the way (Zadorov, Bereglazov, Tryamkin and Orlov). There is no way that Voynov or Kulikov will be on the team in 2018. Voynov is just too slow a skater to play on a large surface (he cost us the game against Finland), and there is no physical component at all to his game. I'm not sure why you mentioned Kulikov's name? Goaltending is there. There are some really good forward prospects in line, and if the defense is shored up as expected, I think Russia will be a much stronger competitor for a Gold Medal in 2018.

That's good to here, hopefully some more talent comes through.

There's no room for one bad game in the Olympics, alot of teams could use that excuse but teams with Gold medals don't have a bad game which is why they win. That will also shows some of Russia's weaknesses even if it's just 1 bad play or 1 bad game.

If Voynov isn't a good enough skater then I don't know how Tryamkin is a good enough skater to be on Russia's team. Kulikov I think is a solid player and can be a #4 or 5 on Russia with his two-way game.

I keep thinking that Russia has no one to replace Ovechkin, Malkin, Kovalchuk, Datsyuk, Semin. These guys probably have 1-2 Olympics where they are in their best years (other than Datsyuk), hopefully Yakupov, Tarasenko, Nichushkin can become very good hockey players aswell in 1-2 Olympics and there is a window in 2018 where the young players will be able help the older ones but after that is there enough talent there? Not quite sure because I don't believe Yakupov, Tarasenko, Nichushkin, Grigerenko will be able to replace top talents like Ovie, Malkin, Kovalchuk.

 

[Yakushev72]

That's good to here, hopefully some more talent comes through.

There's no room for one bad game in the Olympics, alot of teams could use that excuse but teams with Gold medals don't have a bad game which is why they win. That will also shows some of Russia's weaknesses even if it's just 1 bad play or 1 bad game.

If Voynov isn't a good enough skater then I don't know how Tryamkin is a good enough skater to be on Russia's team. Kulikov I think is a solid player and can be a #4 or 5 on Russia with his two-way game.

I keep thinking that Russia has no one to replace Ovechkin, Malkin, Kovalchuk, Datsyuk, Semin. These guys probably have 1-2 Olympics where they are in their best years (other than Datsyuk), hopefully Yakupov, Tarasenko, Nichushkin can become very good hockey players aswell in 1-2 Olympics and there is a window in 2018 where the young players will be able help the older ones but after that is there enough talent there? Not quite sure because I don't believe Yakupov, Tarasenko, Nichushkin, Grigerenko will be able to replace top talents like Ovie, Malkin, Kovalchuk.

It appears that Russia will have more depth and talent at the 2018 Olympics than in any previous year since 1998. The Russian teams at the 2006 and 2010 Games were simply not good enough to challenge for any kind of medal, much less Gold. The 2014 team had more depth and talent than the previous two editions, but there was still a lack of depth at forward and on defense. The 2018 team will have more talent to go around.

In Sochi, the two best forwards were Datsyuk and Radulov. Datsyuk will likely not be back, although you never know, his immense talent might overcome age. Radulov will still be in his prime. Kovalchuk was 3rd best, and even though he will be 35, he should still be able to pose a dangerous threat. Ovechkin will be 32, and Malkin 31. But there are some really good young forwards in the pipeline who should be ready by 2018: Tikhonov, Plotnikov, Malykhin, Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, Yakupov, Nichushkin, Panarin, Buchnevich, Grigorenko, Zhafyarov and Yakimov will all be strong candidates to fill roster slots in Korea.

And I think you underestimate the Zdeno Chara factor in Tryamkin, who is a faster and better skater than Voynov, has a very physical style to his game, and would be far less of a defensive liability. I'll grant you that Kulikov would be no worse than guys like Voynov, Nikitin and Nikulin in Sochi, but there are a number of good young candidates who will be available in Korea. I'm optimistic that the team will be significantly better.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

To think Canada didn't have Stamkos, Tavares for the Gold Medal game in 2014 then you add in Hall, Nugent Hopkins, Mackinnon, McDavid just for 2018 puts a shame to any of those players mentioned above this so called pipeline. It's almost as if that Micheal Jordan commercial, anything you can do, we can do better lol.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

It appears that Russia will have more depth and talent at the 2018 Olympics than in any previous year since 1998. The Russian teams at the 2006 and 2010 Games were simply not good enough to challenge for any kind of medal, much less Gold. The 2014 team had more depth and talent than the previous two editions, but there was still a lack of depth at forward and on defense. The 2018 team will have more talent to go around.

In Sochi, the two best forwards were Datsyuk and Radulov. Datsyuk will likely not be back, although you never know, his immense talent might overcome age. Radulov will still be in his prime. Kovalchuk was 3rd best, and even though he will be 35, he should still be able to pose a dangerous threat. Ovechkin will be 32, and Malkin 31. But there are some really good young forwards in the pipeline who should be ready by 2018: Tikhonov, Plotnikov, Malykhin, Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, Yakupov, Nichushkin, Panarin, Buchnevich, Grigorenko, Zhafyarov and Yakimov will all be strong candidates to fill roster slots in Korea.

And I think you underestimate the Zdeno Chara factor in Tryamkin, who is a faster and better skater than Voynov, has a very physical style to his game, and would be far less of a defensive liability. I'll grant you that Kulikov would be no worse than guys like Voynov, Nikitin and Nikulin in Sochi, but there are a number of good young candidates who will be available in Korea. I'm optimistic that the team will be significantly better.

Lol Radulov, Kovalchuk, those players make no difference in such competition, Russia is better off using younger players who will actually backcheck and bring a two way game, then the one way abilities that are easily shut down, their predictability is so obvious, especially Kovalchuk, he can get away with it in league play, but he's almost useless in best on best, after 2 straight tournaments where they were among the easiest players shut down, you really think those players will make any difference after failure after failure.


Yet again, that so called pipeline is all these forwards, where's the D? They should switch kids playing forward for defense when they're younger, in 2018, Russia will still have the weakest D out of the teams that can win. It's unfortunate there won't be an exceptional defenseman coming for a long time. And it's even more crucial in today's game where the offensive defensemen can dictate a game and usually makes the difference, ala Keith, Karlsson, Doughty, Subban, Mcdonagh.

 

[Get North]

It appears that Russia will have more depth and talent at the 2018 Olympics than in any previous year since 1998. The Russian teams at the 2006 and 2010 Games were simply not good enough to challenge for any kind of medal, much less Gold. The 2014 team had more depth and talent than the previous two editions, but there was still a lack of depth at forward and on defense. The 2018 team will have more talent to go around.

In Sochi, the two best forwards were Datsyuk and Radulov. Datsyuk will likely not be back, although you never know, his immense talent might overcome age. Radulov will still be in his prime. Kovalchuk was 3rd best, and even though he will be 35, he should still be able to pose a dangerous threat. Ovechkin will be 32, and Malkin 31. But there are some really good young forwards in the pipeline who should be ready by 2018: Tikhonov, Plotnikov, Malykhin, Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, Yakupov, Nichushkin, Panarin, Buchnevich, Grigorenko, Zhafyarov and Yakimov will all be strong candidates to fill roster slots in Korea.

And I think you underestimate the Zdeno Chara factor in Tryamkin, who is a faster and better skater than Voynov, has a very physical style to his game, and would be far less of a defensive liability. I'll grant you that Kulikov would be no worse than guys like Voynov, Nikitin and Nikulin in Sochi, but there are a number of good young candidates who will be available in Korea. I'm optimistic that the team will be significantly better.

The depth is there not sure if they'll have the talent level to compete for gold though comparing to teams like USA and Canada.

 

[Get North]

To think Canada didn't have Stamkos, Tavares for the Gold Medal game in 2014 then you add in Hall, Nugent Hopkins, Mackinnon, McDavid just for 2018 puts a shame to any of those players mentioned above this so called pipeline. It's almost as if that Micheal Jordan commercial, anything you can do, we can do better lol.

I agree about the skill Canada left off the team and still won gold and we still have future star talent like McDavid, Hall, MacKinnon like you mentioned. Canada is definitely running away with the #1 hockey nation rank in the world IMO.

 

[MTLAzzurri]

1900-2018


canada, undisputed #1.

No idea why people are saying the soviets were better then us lol, we beat them in 72 without a training camp when none of our players were in shape, they won 1 out of like 5 canada cups



sick bro

Honestly, this.

If Canada had a national team all those years that was allowed to compete at international tournaments with all our best players, the USSR teams would have been irrelevant.

Stay mad Russia.

 

[JackSlater]

Honestly, this.

If Canada had a national team all those years that was allowed to compete at international tournaments with all our best players, the USSR teams would have been irrelevant.

Stay mad Russia.

USSR would have been serious competition starting in the late 1960s even if Canada had been sending actual national teams for decades. Canada's teams would have been stronger than what we actually saw, but those Soviet teams were great.

If Canada actually did send real national teams to the Olympics though, it's highly unlikely that they would have been challenged legitimately until maybe 1968. We could be talking about possibly 6 time Olympic gold medalist Gordie Howe.

 

[Yakushev72]

I agree about the skill Canada left off the team and still won gold and we still have future star talent like McDavid, Hall, MacKinnon like you mentioned. Canada is definitely running away with the #1 hockey nation rank in the world IMO.

No one is saying that Canada won't be the favorite for Gold if the NHL participates in South Korea. Opponents truly fear Crosby, Stamkos and Toews, and I think Nugent-Hopkins will mature into a dominant playmaker. The rest of those named (Hall, Mackinnon, McDavid) don't separate themselves so much as individual talents, in my opinion. I don't see them dominating the best talent from other countries from what they've shown so far. They are outstanding, but so are players from other countries.

Its not an issue of the level of quality so much as the depth of quality. Canadian players mature far earlier than players from other countries because they have been playing competitive hockey for so much longer. After age 19, they don't get that much better talent-wise, just more experienced. What I am saying is that Russia will be better situated to compete because they will have more depth and talent online.

 

[Yakushev72]

USSR would have been serious competition starting in the late 1960s even if Canada had been sending actual national teams for decades. Canada's teams would have been stronger than what we actually saw, but those Soviet teams were great.

If Canada actually did send real national teams to the Olympics though, it's highly unlikely that they would have been challenged legitimately until maybe 1968. We could be talking about possibly 6 time Olympic gold medalist Gordie Howe.

Agreed.

 

[WaltWhitman]

Its hard to say that the United States is better than Russia based on recent contacts. The US won their game in Sochi in the 13th round of a Shootout, but it wasn't really so much a victory for Team USA as it was a victory for one player, T.J. Oshie. The US let Oshie take the last 7 shots and let victory or defeat ride on Oshie's back. Even the American announcers Roenick, Milbury and Olczyk acknowledged that the Russians outplayed the Americans and probably deserved to win. The US was also unimpressive at best against Canada, and absolutely awful against Finland.

Is T.J. Oshie not part of that team? What rules did the U.S. breach in that shootout? Was Russia not allowed to repeat players?

I'm sure if Russia pulled off a win in the shootout it would be a testament to Russia's far superior high-end skill and USA's grinding style and lack of skill.