GDT: Exhibition • Finland vs. Sweden

[snipes]

I already mentioned that the attendance was 11 634. About 2K short of a sell out.

Ticket prices for some of the seats were 239€ aka 269$.

Thanks guys, yeah those ticket prices are pretty insane.

 

[spacemanatee]

I think we both Fins and Swedes can agree on one thing;
Barkov IS amazing player.

he sure as hell is

 

[Plural]

That's why I put it in 'probably'. But I could definitely see it.

Agreed.

 

[llwyd]

Sure if goals scored is the only way to measure it but in what other way was Finland the better team?

You mean like the artistic impression or something? Anything else is pretty much purely subjective - I would simply settle as defining the team that scores more goals as the better team. And we did, and were.

 

[llwyd]

Finns celebrate this win like a olympic gold.

On what planet?

 

[psycho_dad*]

Finns celebrate this win like a olympic gold.

No actually nobody cares. If it was the olympic gold, there would be 100k+ people drunk at Senaatintori, some diving into water fountains naked. And everyone would be waving a flag. The country would be at a standstill.

You go ask someone on the streets there today and chances are they don't even know about the exhibition game or the world cup.

Stupid comment. I could just as well say Sweden is celebrating this like they just barely lost the olympic gold in overtime.

 

[GigaChad]

Funny game.

Sweden deserved to win, we where better. Especially in OT, where we complete dominated.

Finns celebrate this win like a olympic gold.

One thing that suprised me was how physical Sweden was. I hope they keep playing like that.

This comment here explains why the Sweden - Finland rivalry is so huge.
This should be used as a future reference.

 

[Lempo]

The Nelonen free-to-view broadcast blew doors off from the MTV ones. The commercials were not excessive and some were even laugh-out-loud hilarious and there generally was no MTV forced selling approach there.

 

[Jim Morrison]

You mean like the artistic impression or something? Anything else is pretty much purely subjective - I would simply settle as defining the team that scores more goals as the better team. And we did, and were.

Meh, I'm sure you guys have seen games with your team/club obviously being the better ones that night but still end up losing. Not saying the difference was that huge tonight, but the better team definitely does not always win.

 

[ijuka]

You mean like the artistic impression or something? Anything else is pretty much purely subjective - I would simply settle as defining the team that scores more goals as the better team. And we did, and were.

I'd define the team more likely to win the next 50 games the better team, which Sweden was. Just because Finland won while getting outplayed and having the Swedes change the bad goalie in doesn't mean Finland was better. At all.

You can play much better but you might not get the puck luck in one match. That's why in Stanley Cup Playoffs for instance, the series are best of 7 as that minimizes the variance. You can find examples of a terrible team winning against a top team many times throughout a season.


If you think Finland was better you are in my opinion completely delusional and I question the match you were watching. Again, these were training matches. The results don't matter. What matter is how you look for the future.


If I was a swede I'd be much, much happier and more confident about my team going forward than I am right now(Assuming they play the good goalies)

 

[illone84]

Funny game.

Sweden deserved to win, we where better. Especially in OT, where we complete dominated.

Finns celebrate this win like a olympic gold.

One thing that suprised me was how physical Sweden was. I hope they keep playing like that.

If it was Olympic Gold they would have been going ape $h$%.

Sweden played very well in OT but just couldn't capitalize.

 

[IamherefortheFinn]

Thanks guys, yeah those ticket prices are pretty insane.

I would had went and a couple of my friends too. But the very cheapest tickets were 79 euros. I'm not paying that for a exhibition game. Nobody should.

 

[McCullogh]

You mean like the artistic impression or something? Anything else is pretty much purely subjective - I would simply settle as defining the team that scores more goals as the better team. And we did, and were.

For the first 60 minutes when there was real hockey played (as real as it gets in a exhibition game) do you think Finland were the better team?

Not trying to sound rude but just curious what you think. Congrats on the win by the way.

And yes, I'm not a fan of 3vs3 ... feels like its more suited fo All-star weekend. )

 

[llwyd]

Meh, I'm sure you guys have seen games with your team/club obviously being the better ones that night but still end up losing. Not saying the difference was that huge tonight, but the better team definitely does not always win.

No, I had lots of that in the 90's when Finland often kind of dominated the play and won the shots and cycled endlessly around in corners, but then I gradually realized that it really is a scoring game, so you have to score more than the other guys to be better. And if they do it, it's not unjust or unfair because we somehow "deserved" to win. To "deserve" the win, you need to score more. Pure and simple.

 

[Lempo]

I think all hockey fans agree. Barkov is incredible, can Team NA steal him from you guys?

I think the Russians have first dip. As a dual-citizenship holder there's been questions from the Russian media why he plays in Team Finland and not Team Russia.

"No one contacted me from there back in the day."

 

[snipes]

I think the Russians have first dip. As a dual-citizenship holder there's been questions from the Russian media why he plays in Team Finland and not Team Russia.

"No one contacted me from there back in the day."

One can only hope .

But seriously, Barkov is a stud.

 

[Artorius Horus T]

Worst players for each team

Finland: Sami Vatanen (was worst player of the game)
Sweden: Jhonas Enroth (was the worst goalie of the game)

Honorable mention
Mikko Koivu* (FIN) Erik Karlsson** (SWE)

*only one good executed play from Mikko,other weise most
invisible player on the ice
** had most giveaways in this game and in his standards,
his offensive game wasn't that good either.

 

[Jim Morrison]

No, I had lots of that in the 90's when Finland often kind of dominated the play and won the shots and cycled endlessly around in corners, but then I gradually realized that it really is a scoring game, so you have to score more than the other guys to be better. And if they do it, it's not unjust or unfair because we somehow "deserved" to win. To "deserve" the win, you need to score more. Pure and simple.

Hehe, you're impossible dude. I just think you have a very, let's say short-sighted, way of viewing sports.

 

[llwyd]

For the first 60 minutes when there was real hockey played (as real as it gets in a exhibition game) do you think Finland were the better team?

Not trying to sound rude but just curious what you think. Congrats on the win by the way.

See above for a more detailed answer. Anyway, I think it's a kind of meaningless question if you ask about a part of the game - all I can say that those 60 minutes ended in a draw, so neither side was able to win it in that time.

 

[EK47]

I think we both Fins and Swedes can agree on one thing;
Barkov IS amazing player.

For sure

 

[llwyd]

Hehe, you're impossible dude. I just think you have a very, let's say short-sighted, way of viewing sports.

Well, I don't know why it would make sense to say that one team "deserved" to win it because they maybe controlled the puck more or outshot the other team or whatever. I think it's kind of pointless because that is not how the winner is determined. What does it mean to be the "better team" if you lose the match? And is there an objective, universally approved way to determine that kind of "betterness" that is independent of the actual score?

 

[McCullogh]

I'd define the team more likely to win the next 50 games the better team, which Sweden was. Just because Finland won while getting outplayed and having the Swedes change the bad goalie in doesn't mean Finland was better. At all.

You can play much better but you might not get the puck luck in one match. That's why in Stanley Cup Playoffs for instance, the series are best of 7 as that minimizes the variance. You can find examples of a terrible team winning against a top team many times throughout a season.


If you think Finland was better you are in my opinion completely delusional and I question the match you were watching. Again, these were training matches. The results don't matter. What matter is how you look for the future.


If I was a swede I'd be much, much happier and more confident about my team going forward than I am right now(Assuming they play the good goalies)

Great reply. Nice to see other people also grasping the whole picture of the game and not just blindly stare at the result, especially in a exhibition game.

 

[Stubu]

Funny game.

Sweden deserved to win, we where better. Especially in OT, where we complete dominated.

Finns celebrate this win like a olympic gold.

Nah, it's just been so long without high level hockey. And every fanbase always has a couple guys trolling (or gone salty, respectively) in these threads. Film at 11.

One thing that suprised me was how physical Sweden was. I hope they keep playing like that.

Agreed, was a surprisingly physical and intensive game all around. Lots of hitting and battling going on. And of course Uncle Leo's antics adding to the atmosphere; Landeskog helped too.

 

[ijuka]

Well, I don't know why it would make sense to say that one team "deserved" to win it because they maybe controlled the puck more or outshot the other team or whatever. I think it's kind of pointless because that is not how the winner is determined. What does it mean to be the "better team" if you lose the match? And is there an objective, universally approved way to determine that kind of "betterness" that is independent of the actual score?

It's pretty important how you look in matches like this where the results don't matter.

 

[Sorey*]

Well, I don't know why it would make sense to say that one team "deserved" to win it because they maybe controlled the puck more or outshot the other team or whatever. I think it's kind of pointless because that is not how the winner is determined. What does it mean to be the "better team" if you lose the match? And is there an objective, universally approved way to determine that kind of "betterness" that is independent of the actual score?

Sweden was the better team and also got a good goal disallowed. But hey, you "won" if it make you feel better. I take the losses now and win in the real game instead.