JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,793
- 15,446
That's not how reading works. Odds means probability that something will happen. Even though Canada has the best roster, the odds of them winning is still much lower than 100%.
Olympics: Could USA be the favorite heading into PyeongChang 2018?
- Thread starter OvermanKingGainer
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
That's not how reading works. Odds means probability that something will happen. Even though Canada has the best roster, the odds of them winning is still much lower than 100%.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,677
- 5,122
He's not saying Canada has a 50% chance (vs 50% for the opponent) in any given elimination game. He is saying Canada has a 50% chance in a tournament where the winner is determined through single elimination games. Canada 50%, Sweden 15% (to pull a number out of the hat), USA 15% and so on. That's what he's saying.
ottawa
Avatar of the Year*
thanks, that's a better explanation
That's not how writing works, I didn't expect this to be a literacy test where I'd have to take your poorly constructed sentence and rephrase it to understand it. Maybe you should get it proof read beforehand.
On topic, I don't think the odds of them winning are really as low as you claim, especially if you say they have a 50% chance of winning it while the rest of the teams have a combined 50%.
Those are great odds, and will only increase after every round.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,793
- 15,446
Well considering that you needed a person using their second language to explain it to you, I'd say the fault is with you. In a tournament I would give them a 50% chance of winning. You for some inane reason assumed that I meant the odds of winning or losing in a given game were 50%. I wouldn't have said 'tournament' if I'd meant game. Basic English comprehension would explain that to you.
Your understanding of probability is also poor. The odds are not 50% at first and then increasing with each round, they start lower than 50% but rise as Canada advances. Anyway, it's all just conjecture on my part though, though much more realistic than your impossible suggestion that Canada has a 100% chance of winning.
You do realize its not like Canada has stayed stagnate, you can apply the what ifs to McDavid, Mackinnon, Drouin, Strome, Marner, Ekblad, Bennett, Reinhart etc. Canada has had the first overall pick in 7 of the last 10 drafts (McDavid, Ekblad, Mackinnon, RNH, Hall, Tavares, Stamkos). Could you beat us? Sure, but be favorites I doubt it. Also realize we didn't have 2 of our most talented players (who would be the #1 center on USA) by the gold medal game in Tavares and Stamkos.
I know its not exact (because it is shifted by bets) but does anyone know what the lines were for winning it outright in 2014?
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,793
- 15,446
I believe the odds for Canada were around 2/1, which is actually roughly what they were for Russia as well.
- Jan 22, 2010
- 10,684
- 6,030
Bolded = Would be considered for team Canada
RED = Would definitely make team Canada
Regular = Would be left off the invitation list entirely
So 2 to 5 players (off that list) would make the Team Canada roster... They aren't even close in terms of being favored.
That said - they could beat Canada... just not on paper.
Last edited:
Zippy316
aka Zippo
Canada is always going to have the best team on paper.
But USA, Russia, Sweden, and possibly Finland will always put out a roster that could beat Canada in a singular game. It's not like Canada is that much better then those nations, but they are definitely on a different tier.
But USA, Russia, Sweden, and possibly Finland will always put out a roster that could beat Canada in a singular game. It's not like Canada is that much better then those nations, but they are definitely on a different tier.
No offense to the USA team but half those players in the OP are 2nd/3rd liners in the NHL. The Canadian team always ices a team of 1st line stars across every position. For that reason, I say Canada is the favourite.
McDonagh makes it over one of Vlasic or Hamhuis on the 2014 team and I don't think its close.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,793
- 15,446
No way is Pacioretty a lock to make Canada. I think McDonagh definitely would though, and Faulk would get at least strong consideration.
Canadian Finn
Oskee Wee Wee
Let's just see if USA can even medal at the next Olympics.
I still remember the Finns handing them their arses during the last Olympics.
Fondly remember the yanks on this board claiming "well, we don't want 3rd, so we are not trying....."
USA Favourite? Not likely! Let's just see if they can manage to get a medal this time.
I still remember the Finns handing them their arses during the last Olympics.
Fondly remember the yanks on this board claiming "well, we don't want 3rd, so we are not trying....."
USA Favourite? Not likely! Let's just see if they can manage to get a medal this time.
Anything can happen in one game. Therefore there will always be more possible gold medalists. We have seen that so many times, when ridicously better teams (on paper) have lost to team that has played more as a team.
Finland is great example for this. Nagano 1998, when they dropped Sweden and won Wayne Gretzkys Canada in a bronze medal game.
Other huge surprise was Torino 2006, when they were almost flawless throughout the tournament. I can still remember that finnish media and fans gave them no chance before the tournament. There was a lot of injuries and so on.
Also World Cup 2004 was a big surprise. 2010 and 2014 bronze medals wasn't that big of surprise anymore.
On last decades Somehow Finland have managed to be at their best always everytime in big tournaments. And i don't see any reason why that trend couldn't continue?
Yes, that is a fact that on paper Finland won't have as many huge superstars, but as we have seen on the future, the points that you have made in NHL doesn't play any role in international tournaments.
Finland is great example for this. Nagano 1998, when they dropped Sweden and won Wayne Gretzkys Canada in a bronze medal game.
Other huge surprise was Torino 2006, when they were almost flawless throughout the tournament. I can still remember that finnish media and fans gave them no chance before the tournament. There was a lot of injuries and so on.
Also World Cup 2004 was a big surprise. 2010 and 2014 bronze medals wasn't that big of surprise anymore.
On last decades Somehow Finland have managed to be at their best always everytime in big tournaments. And i don't see any reason why that trend couldn't continue?
Yes, that is a fact that on paper Finland won't have as many huge superstars, but as we have seen on the future, the points that you have made in NHL doesn't play any role in international tournaments.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
And pretty much on the ice from now until 2018 (more than likely beyond). I don't see any holes whatsoever.
Tkachuk Norris
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2012
- 16,269
- 7,971
The USA is definitely on the rise. And is now Canada's biggest rival in international hockey.
But Canada has more skill in every position by a significant margin still.
But Canada has more skill in every position by a significant margin still.
habsrule4eva3089
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2008
- 4,278
- 1,084
Not even close.
Canada vs. Russia is what epitomizes Hockey.
Who cares about the Americans, it's just another rivalry like Finland or Sweden vs the Russians it's so much more. It can't be explained.
It feels good beating the Americans because we're stuck with them but beating the Russians...incomparable.
Both America and Canada are getting better in my opinion. That means, Canada is still the favorite, because the gap is still there and it's not small.
Last edited:
I think the rivalry with the US is more like between brothers...and it is exciting. But with Russia it's a different rivalry, it's a different style, different culture, everything. I like both
Russia is too bad compared to Canada to be considered competitive rivalry nowadays.... of course history wise because of CCCP, but now difference in level between these those countries is about same as Finland compared Latvia/Belarus or somethink like that
Tkachuk Norris
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2012
- 16,269
- 7,971
I somewhat agree. The Russian international team doesn't like the Canadians for sure. But that because whenever we play best-on-best Canada crushes Russia.
That said in International hockey it's become Canada-USA that's the biggest rivalry. The new years eve game at the WJC has become somewhat of a classic. Canada and the USA always seem to meet in critical games and generally play really exciting hockey. The US is just a deeper, tougher team then the Russians are right now and they present more of an obstacle to Canada, and thus they are our biggest rivals.
