Cumulative Record in Olympics since 1998
- Thread starter decma
- Start date
Since 1998, Russia has one silver (from 1998), USA has two silvers (from 2002 and 2010) and the Czech have a gold and a bronze (from 1998 and 2006).
Even if you give the medals that were grabbed further in the past less weight, the correct order should be USA, the Czech Rep and Russia.
Of course, this only by using this particular metric.
Another way to measure, points for placing in the top 4.
Six points for Gold
Three points for Silver
Two points for Bronze
One point for 4th place
Canada - 17 points
Sweden - 9 points
Finland - 8 points
USA - 6 points
Russia - 6 points
Czechs - 6 points
Six points for Gold
Three points for Silver
Two points for Bronze
One point for 4th place
Canada - 17 points
Sweden - 9 points
Finland - 8 points
USA - 6 points
Russia - 6 points
Czechs - 6 points
Thanks for an interesting quality post.
I thought the USA would be closer to Canada, but obviously Canada is still the more successful nation.
Sweden surely has been very competitive and successful, and judging from their recents successes at the World Junior Championship probably will continue to be.
Based on number of active players, USA and even Canada might perhaps have beem underacheiving somewhat, compared to the other teams. ?
canuck2010
Registered User
- Dec 21, 2010
- 2,700
- 849
The only metric for me is whether you win or not. Coming second is losing as far as I am concerned.
That is one of the metrics, yes. Still, have to say it's a good thing you're not the King of the World.
BusQuets
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2010
- 12,104
- 3,096
Of course Canadian should feel this way because you guys have more ice hockey players than rest of the world combined. Canada should win every competition because ice hockey is pretty small sport. There is more soccer players in germany alone than hockey players in the world.
Because gold medal game is just one game, one shouldn't get double points for it. As achievement it's at least double, of course, but still it requires winning just one game. I could rate them like this:
Gold: 6p (WF + SF + final win)
Silver: 4p (QF + SF win)
Bronze: 3p (QF + bronze game win)
4th: 1p (QF win)
Canada: 19p
Finland: 13p
Sweden: 10p
Czech: 9p
USA: 9p
Russia: 8p
I agree. And probably Finland performed better vs non-big-6-teams than Sweden who lost to Belarus and Slovakia.
McGuillicuddy
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2005
- 1,297
- 204
McGuillicuddy
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2005
- 1,297
- 204
I agree that it is a quality post. What it unfortunately does not account for is context. A team who dominates round robin play and then lays an egg come the elimination and/or medal rounds will score pretty well here. Whereas a team that struggles in the round robin but comes into shape for the eliminations/medal rounds may not score as well, yet win more of the important games when the chips are down.
I'll take that second team every day of the week.
Sabane
Registered User
- Feb 16, 2014
- 161
- 0
Like Juhani "Tami" Tamminen constantly reminds us: "Win the right games!" (also bumbumbum)
Mine is based on getting 1pt for getting to the semi's, 2 more pts for winning a semi, 3 more points for winning the gold, 1 point for winning the bronze
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Jeez, Nagano and Turin were bad for the USA. More recent successes make those tourney seem like so long ago, but they are still a stain on the program.
Good link.
Slovenia only has 148 senior players, yet they won two games and reached the quarter final.
I partly agree with your next post. I think a combination of the different stats provided here is better than one of them alone.
I also think there is a lot of "luck" (or what one might want to call it) involved. Russia was very close to defeat the USA, including having a goal disallowed (which I think should have counted, although I understand the rules say it should not have). That would have changed the whole setup for the knockout games.
There are so small margins. Randomness plays a part even though some might never want to realize it.
(The above has little to do with Canada's gold medal this year. But four years ago, there could have been another outcome. Just like the Soviet Union could have defeated the Mario & Gretzky Canadian team in the 1980s. Or Finland defeating Sweden in the 2006 final.)
BusQuets
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2010
- 12,104
- 3,096
That's truly hilarious. Proof of your outlandish claims
What is hilarious? Only USA come somewhat close. every other nation has over 6 times less.
Back in Black
All Sports would be great if they were Hockey
Well, if you go back "before 1988", Canada would most likely have the most medals as they "boycotted the Olympics" in the 70's & 80's, due to European/Russian teams sending Pro's but calling them Amateurs.
FACT!
FACT!
weaponomega
Registered User
This is an interesting stat. I think they should go back to the 2 group format so that there are more big games. Canada's first 4 games were againt Norway, Austria, Finland and Latvia - other than Finland the schedule wasn't very exciting.
Imagine if the groups had been:
Canada
Russia
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Austria
Norway
Sweden
Finland
USA
Switzerland
Slovenia
Latvia
Getting through groups like this, then surviving the knockout rounds is much more of a challenge.
Yes, the lack of meaningful games between big 6 countries is a shame. And it could even be argued that in the 14 format, with everyone making the playoffs, that the round robin games weren't particularly meaningful. Yes, seeding matters, but b/c of randomness in the bottom half, higher seeding isn't always rewarded.
In any case, even counting the preliminary round games, only 7 or 9 games between big 6 countries every 4 years is woefully low. And the fact that Canada and Russia have only met twice in best on best Olympic tournaments, and Russia and Sweden only once, is also sad.
I am torn on this. E.g, in 2010, Canada clearly won the most important game, but both they and the US were 2-1 in games against other big 6, and 1-1 against each other. Of course I'll take the gold medal result for Canada, but is the arrangement of the results really determinitive of who was the better team?
How can Canada be underachieving when we've won 3 of the past 4 Olympics. 1998 was a long time ago. Canada is dominating like we should be. I really don't care what our record has been, what I see are 3 golds in 5 Olympics. By far the most successful country. An if there is NHL participation in 2018 Canada will be favoured once again to win gold.
McGuillicuddy
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2005
- 1,297
- 204
I think so. Game context is everything. That's why we have Stanley Cup playoffs instead of just giving the Cup to the President's trophy winner. And that's why we have direct eliminations in tournaments. Your cumulative results would only be valid if all tournaments were purely round-robins (i.e. like the old WJHCs).
