Canada's Golden Era

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You must have a very short memory. Canada wasn't dominating at all in the group stage. They had a convincing win over the US, but dominating? That's a bit of a stretch. They did manage to shut down Sweden in the finals. However, it was a decimated swedish team, missing it's top 3 centers.

It's international hockey, play the trap, hang back at the blue line, clog the box in front of the net it's easy to keep the games low scoring. Don't try and score just keep the score down. Maybe you'll get a break.

As happy as I am that Canada won the gold I was very disappointed with the hockey. To bad I still like NA hockey better.
 
honestly i have one phrase to describe canadians and hockey canada



It gets lonely at the top...
 
It's international hockey, play the trap, hang back at the blue line, clog the box in front of the net it's easy to keep the games low scoring. Don't try and score just keep the score down. Maybe you'll get a break.

As happy as I am that Canada won the gold I was very disappointed with the hockey. To bad I still like NA hockey better.

What on Earth are u talking about? Is it easy to play team Canada? No. Make one mistake and you are Down 1-0. Playing trap hockey is not easy at all, but very effective if Your players learn to play the system. Nothing is easy in an Olympic tournament.
 
honestly i have one phrase to describe canadians and hockey canada



It gets lonely at the top...

Well I believe that team USA is as good as Canada on paper, but Bylsma is just a terrible Coach. The Penguins screw up every year and why on Earth did Orpik play on the US team. the BIG 3 are Canada, USA and Sweden in that order.
 
Well I believe that team USA is as good as Canada on paper, but Bylsma is just a terrible Coach. The Penguins screw up every year and why on Earth did Orpik play on the US team. the BIG 3 are Canada, USA and Sweden in that order.

What on earth are you talking about?
 
What on Earth are u talking about? Is it easy to play team Canada? No. Make one mistake and you are Down 1-0. Playing trap hockey is not easy at all, but very effective if Your players learn to play the system. Nothing is easy in an Olympic tournament.

It was boring as hell that's what. Aside from the fact that Canadian was playing for the Olympic Gold it was boring disappointing hockey.
 
Team USA got great offense, defense and goaltending. A very Complete team. No weakness. Thats what im talking about

USA has a very good team, but any "on paper" matchup obviously favours Canada. I'm thinking that at the 2014 Olympics, best case scenario is 7 Americans make team Canada - Quick, Miller, Suter, McDonagh possibly (though deservedly), Kane, Parise, Backes possibly.
 
USA has a very good team, but any "on paper" matchup obviously favours Canada. I'm thinking that at the 2014 Olympics, best case scenario is 7 Americans make team Canada - Quick, Miller, Suter, McDonagh possibly (though deservedly), Kane, Parise, Backes possibly.

Many american players could make team Canada. Its all about coaching. What kind of players fit the system u are playing. Giroux didnt make the Canadian team while Nash did. Why? Because Nash is a better PK than Giroux. The gap between Canada and the US is so small that coaching will decide Whos the better. Babcock has done very well and deserves credit. He made some controversial decisions for the best of the team. Thats my point.
 
Many american players could make team Canada. Its all about coaching. What kind of players fit the system u are playing. Giroux didnt make the Canadian team while Nash did. Why? Because Nash is a better PK than Giroux. The gap between Canada and the US is so small that coaching will decide Whos the better. Babcock has done very well and deserves credit. He made some controversial decisions for the best of the team. Thats my point.

Coaching definitely favoured Canada... but so did talent obviously. The gap is small on the ice because of the nature on hockey, but there is a clear gap on paper. You already came halfway to proving that point. Giroux was cut from Canada... and would have easily been USA's #1 centre. Systems are based on the players available, and Canada has better available players.
 
Many american players could make team Canada. Its all about coaching. What kind of players fit the system u are playing. Giroux didnt make the Canadian team while Nash did. Why? Because Nash is a better PK than Giroux. The gap between Canada and the US is so small that coaching will decide Whos the better. Babcock has done very well and deserves credit. He made some controversial decisions for the best of the team. Thats my point.
Which Americans would make Team Canada? Maybe like 6 or 7. Giroux didn't make the team because we had enough scoring forwards and needed role players.

No way coaching is the difference for USA and Canada. Canada is alot better than any team in the tournament in every aspect of the game, Price played outstanding. Our defence killed the forecheck every time and the offence was spectacular owning the puck in the offensive zone.

The difference between USA and Canada wasn't close and Sochi showed why.
 
Coaching definitely favoured Canada... but so did talent obviously. The gap is small on the ice because of the nature on hockey, but there is a clear gap on paper. You already came halfway to proving that point. Giroux was cut from Canada... and would have easily been USA's #1 centre. Systems are based on the players available, and Canada has better available players.

Don't forget you only have to play one game against a top team. Over a longer series or a season the difference becomes more apparent and much greater.
 
Team USA got great offense, defense and goaltending. A very Complete team. No weakness. Thats what im talking about

Since all of them play in the NHL it is pretty easy to compare and while the US is the 2nd best team on paper they are by no means equal to the Canadians. I can't think of any NHL statistical measure that would have the American players ahead, except perhaps in goal.
 
Well I believe that team USA is as good as Canada on paper, but Bylsma is just a terrible Coach. The Penguins screw up every year and why on Earth did Orpik play on the US team. the BIG 3 are Canada, USA and Sweden in that order.

Finland should probably be in that big three. They've won a Medal in 1998, 2006, 2010, and 2014. The USA has won two medals in that time. Sweden only has one medal in that time.
 
Finland should probably be in that big three. They've won a Medal in 1998, 2006, 2010, and 2014. The USA has won two medals in that time. Sweden only has one medal in that time.

Lol!!!!!!!!:laugh:


Gosh, next time you better check your facts again before make a comment.

Top 3 is Canada, Sweden and Finland.

Sweden is only country beside Canada who actually has won best on best tournament lately.

If USA and and Finland are ahead of Sweden then why haven't they won Best on best lately?

Seriously I'm sick about how low ranked and respected Sweden is on HF! There's now way USA and Finland should rank ahead of Sweden. But I guess what ever Sweden does we will never get the credit we deserves.
 
Lol!!!!!!!!:laugh:


Gosh, next time you better check your facts again before make a comment.

Top 3 is Canada, Sweden and Finland.

Sweden is only country beside Canada who actually has won best on best tournament lately.

If USA and and Finland are ahead of Sweden then why haven't they won Best on best lately?

Seriously I'm sick about how low ranked and respected Sweden is on HF! There's now way USA and Finland should rank ahead of Sweden. But I guess what ever Sweden does we will never get the credit we deserves.
I agree it should be, Canada, Sweden, Finland. USA hasn't been consistent enough and either get close or are 5 planets away. 2/4 in medals in the last 4 years, both being Silver. 2002 they got dumped on, atleast 2010 was closer. But then again they come in 2014 and I don't even know where they went. I bet the same in 2018, they'll be lucky to medal. None of their players can play on big ice.
 
Lol!!!!!!!!:laugh:


Gosh, next time you better check your facts again before make a comment.

Top 3 is Canada, Sweden and Finland.

Sweden is only country beside Canada who actually has won best on best tournament lately.

If USA and and Finland are ahead of Sweden then why haven't they won Best on best lately?

Seriously I'm sick about how low ranked and respected Sweden is on HF! There's now way USA and Finland should rank ahead of Sweden. But I guess what ever Sweden does we will never get the credit we deserves.

Right now I would give Sweden the edge on the big ice and the USA the edge on the small ice. However you have to remember that Sweden's top players have a lot more experience on the small ice than the USA's do on the large ice which gives Sweden an advantage.
 
Since all of them play in the NHL it is pretty easy to compare and while the US is the 2nd best team on paper they are by no means equal to the Canadians. I can't think of any NHL statistical measure that would have the American players ahead, except perhaps in goal.

While I don't see any evidence to back your claim that the USA is No. 2, the discussion as a whole shows why the whole concept of a World Cup is incredibly boring. When you consider that the games would be played in front of Canadian fans at Canadian rinks with Canadian refs, while the rest of the World clearly lacks the hockey apparatus to produce high quality players, you could literally publish the outcome of the tournament a month before it happened. It would be a Canadian coronation, and the rest of the teams would just be serving out the time and finishing up the games.
 
While I don't see any evidence to back your claim that the USA is No. 2, the discussion as a whole shows why the whole concept of a World Cup is incredibly boring. When you consider that the games would be played in front of Canadian fans at Canadian rinks with Canadian refs, while the rest of the World clearly lacks the hockey apparatus to produce high quality players, you could literally publish the outcome of the tournament a month before it happened. It would be a Canadian coronation, and the rest of the teams would just be serving out the time and finishing up the games.

Some of your points here are valid but I don't buy that a tournament like this would be a coronation for Canada at all, several teams could possibly win this but if Canada did win it would be because the other teams were just not good enough to win it and you cannot stop holding tournaments because of that .It is up to the countries involved to improve to the point where they can win world tournaments, not Canada's.

Just because Canada would be the favourite in a best on best tournament in Canada is no reason to stop holding them there, let's face facts, Canada would be the favourite going in a best on best tournament held anywhere, not just Canada.

There is very little imagination or thirst for adventure amongst so many of the European fans . Having a world class tournament on small ice and in the motherland of hockey which provides for a very different and interesting contrast in international hockey styles should be looked on as a great challenge/opportunity/honour amongst European fans.

Sadly, the fear of failure seems to be the main reason they do not want it and cannot see the value in it.

But so many of you think you are beaten before you even begin.

International hockey and dare i say the game of hockey itself will never get out of it's world niche sport status with this kind of exclusionary and unimaginative thinking.We cannot build any global excitement about the game this way.

A regular best on best tournament in Canada using the NHL style and a best on best tournament in Europe using the european style should be worked towards as a means of establishing a new tradition in the global game that will increase tradition and excitement.

The rigidity in hockey fans thinking is keeping this game from growing.We just cannot build a "wimbledon" type historical tradition globally in hockey for several reasons, fans attitude being one of the reasons. In this line of thinking, they would refuse to play wimbledon unless it is moved around from country to country and played on ashphalt and clay in rotating years.

Attitudes and unwillingness to change of the fans and the bottom lines of leagues like the NHL and KHL that prevents them from co-operating and trying new things are holding the game back.
 
While I don't see any evidence to back your claim that the USA is No. 2.

Of the last 5 best on best tournaments held on the small ice the USA has finished:

'91 - 2nd
'96 - 1st
'02 (hybrid ice?) - 2nd
'04 - 4th
'10 - 2nd

Only Canada has done better.
 
the rest of the World clearly lacks the hockey apparatus to produce high quality players, you could literally publish the outcome of the tournament a month before it happened. It would be a Canadian coronation, and the rest of the teams would just be serving out the time and finishing up the games.

Yet you've shown time and again that you were a huge fan of the old IIHF/IOC tournaments where our best players were banned from even setting foot on the ice and of which the outcome was even more predefined in your favour.
 
Finland should probably be in that big three. They've won a Medal in 1998, 2006, 2010, and 2014. The USA has won two medals in that time. Sweden only has one medal in that time.

We are not talking about history, but about hockey today.

Im not against Finland or Russia. I just believe that the top Three Canada, USA and Sweden got very strong 25 man Squads and Depth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad