Finland's status and reputation in the hockey world (merged)

[behemolari]

Well since we already have a decent sample size, you can count some probabilities from that if you want.

If there are no ties, then I'd give Finland a 60-40 advantage.

Your fantasies do not matter, they have played a lot of games against eachother in the recent history. Results are results.

Best of 7 series, Finns would lose at the end to every other big country

 

[Cawz]

Yes, and defense is very much part of hockey. It's not anti-hockey in any way, it's an integral part of it.

Dude, defensive hockey is definitely NOT anti-hockey.

Actually yes it is. Thats the definition of the term I heard that was coined during the dead-puck era. You know, when New Jersey was the best team with great defensive hockey. Its also known as the lowest point in recent NHL history, so much so that the NHL changed their rules to try to combat it. But NJ fans loved it, so who cares in their eyes. Just like Finn fans love their teams success right now. But when the question arises as to why they arent respected, dont hate on the answer.

Its the same reason why people dont like the Lemaire or Hitchcock style hockey. Its basically waiting for the other team to play hockey and counter-acting. Anti-hockey.

The Fins D was great. And who gives a **** if they road their d? Is D less important than O in hockey? The teams that win ALWAYS have good D. It's just being smart.

Besides, a truly well played defensive game is impressive as hell to watch.

I find the fact that a country as small as Finland can give a country such as Russia trouble is truly admirable.

Yes, what a small country is doing is admirable, but a truly played defensive game is not impressive as hell unless the other team is playing offence. If we were to watch two teams play clogging trapping hockey and simply waiting for the other team to make the first move, it would be boring. We would get what we saw in the TB - Philly game a while ago. Did you find that impressive?

 

[psycho_dad*]

Best of 7 series, Finns would lose at the end to every other big country

And what do you base this on?

This is your opinion, no?

 

[Jeffrey]

They are very good but they always get beat up by Sweden!

 

[psycho_dad*]

Yes, what a small country is doing is admirable, but a truly played defensive game is not impressive as hell unless the other team is playing offence. If we were to watch two teams play clogging trapping hockey and simply waiting for the other team to make the first move, it would be boring. We would get what we saw in the TB - Philly game a while ago. Did you find that impressive?

You are not addressing at all the fact that Finland outscored Russia, and actually scored more against same opponents (example in this case was Norway, which Canada scored 3 on and Russia scored 4 on...Finland 6). Goal scoring is still offense, no? Or just taking crap shots from outside, is that the offensive game you are so in to?

 

[BlackAces]

Someone in the Canada GDT compared Finland to the 2000 era Devils and I agree. Many people don't have a top four list of USA, Canada, Sweden, Russia because each team can out gun almost any problem they face.

Finland doesn't have that luxury and instead plays a low risk game that focuses on capitalizing on the chances they do create. You won't see them shoot a goalie to the point of exhaustion, but they won't give up many odd man rushes or shots in the slot either.

 

[crowi]

We would get what we saw in the TB - Philly game a while ago. Did you find that impressive?

I bet you loved that PIT-PHI playoff round.

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

I took them to the bank after getting 15/1 in the WJC so I just love how underrated the Finnish national teams are. Finland produces the best goalies in the world and they could take a team far in such a short tournament. Ride a hot goalie for just 3-4 games and thats the tournament right there. I like the Finnish national teams but I also don't think they would be as successful if they had to go best of 7, even 5, games versus Canada, USA, Sweden, or Russia.

 

[Cawz]

Follow-up question: why does ranking countries with stronger domestic leagues, who contribute more and better players to the NHL, equivalent to "lack of respect"? Forget about 4 years of domestic development in the meantime, a 2 week single elimination tournament every 4 years must be THE measuring stick, right?

Everyone respects Finland. They're a pain in the ass to play and they do it as a team. They're also still not clearly stronger hockey nations than ALL of Canada, the US, Russia, and Sweden, regardless of Olympic outcome. There's just too much to consider, observe and measure over the 4 year span between Olympics to lazily default to the results of a tournament that doesn't allow countries to send as many teams as possible that would be "competitive"; just one squad per nation sent through single game elimination.

Yup, totally agree.

You are not addressing at all the fact that Finland outscored Russia, and actually scored more against same opponents (example in this case was Norway, which Canada scored 3 on and Russia scored 4 on...Finland 6). Goal scoring is still offense, no? Or just taking crap shots from outside, is that the offensive game you are so in to?

What am I supposed to address? Taking a small sample size of a few games doesnt indicate much. You already agreed that they play a defensive style game, so we are on the same page. Or are you now arguing that Finland is an offensive team?

I bet you loved that PIT-PHI playoff round.

I didnt see much of it, but it was apparently entertaining, along with some other series. It obviously made an impression on you if you recall it.

 

[crowi]

I didnt see much of it, but it was apparently entertaining, along with some other series. It obviously made an impression on you if you recall it.

Yep, I remember thinking "this has to be the worst kind of hockey there is.. just offense, terrible goaltending and no D". Not my definition of entertaining, but apparently it is for you.

 

[psycho_dad*]

What am I supposed to address? Taking a small sample size of a few games doesnt indicate much. You already agreed that they play a defensive style game, so we are on the same page. Or are you now arguing that Finland is an offensive team?

The fact that Finland has outscored these "offensive powerhouses". Sometimes names on paper do not translate to goals on ice. What good is your paper, when they can't produce on the ice the same way the "lesser team on paper" does? Which one is then better hockey? The one that has better defense and better scoring on the ice, or the one that has names you recognize in the roster? Would you care to elaborate on that?

I am saying Finland defends great as a unit, but can also produce. You might be thinking Switzerland here.

 

[BlackAces]

Actually yes it is. Thats the definition of the term I heard that was coined during the dead-puck era. You know, when New Jersey was the best team with great defensive hockey. Its also known as the lowest point in recent NHL history, so much so that the NHL changed their rules to try to combat it. But NJ fans loved it, so who cares in their eyes. Just like Finn fans love their teams success right now. But when the question arises as to why they arent respected, dont hate on the answer.

Its the same reason why people dont like the Lemaire or Hitchcock style hockey. Its basically waiting for the other team to play hockey and counter-acting. Anti-hockey.

Yes, what a small country is doing is admirable, but a truly played defensive game is not impressive as hell unless the other team is playing offence. If we were to watch two teams play clogging trapping hockey and simply waiting for the other team to make the first move, it would be boring. We would get what we saw in the TB - Philly game a while ago. Did you find that impressive?

The Dead Puck Era was a problem because every team started to play defensive hockey and it turned off casual fans. Defensive hockey is fine, but one team has to be playing aggressively or else people will stop tuning in. Was the Canada vs Latvia game not entertaining? Personally, I found the level of sacrifice the Latvians were willing go to much more entertaining then watching us rout Austria 6-0 in a run and gun style.

However, I do think the big ice benefits Finland. Small ice would have the defence constantly under pressure and give them less time to react and make plays. The individual skill differential would start to hurt them which is why Finland was ran over by the top-3 in 2010.

 

[crowi]

Finland was ran over by the top-3 in 2010.

We finished 3rd...

 

[Metalcommand]

Best of 7 series, Finns would lose at the end to every other big country

Best of 7, who else wins but Canada? Don't see the point

 

[BlackAces]

We finished 3rd...

Sorry, I should've said that I consider Sweden, USA, and Canada as the three best international teams with Finland rounding out the Top-4. You guys lost 3-0 to Sweden and 6-1 to the USA.

 

[Cawz]

Yep, I remember thinking "this has to be the worst kind of hockey there is.. just offense, terrible goaltending and no D". Not my definition of entertaining, but apparently it is for you.

It is for me? I'm not sure where you got that from. I said I didnt see much of it. I'm not sure where you got that from.

The fact that Finland has outscored these "offensive powerhouses". Sometimes names on paper do not translate to goals on ice. What good is your paper, when they can't produce on the ice the same way the "lesser team on paper" does? Which one is then better hockey? The one that has better defense and better scoring on the ice, or the one that has names you recognize in the roster? Would you care to elaborate on that?

You lost me.

The Finns have always seemed to be the defensive anti-hockey players (not all obviously, since Selanne is not of that mould). A good example is Tikkanen on the Oilers after Gretzky was traded to the Kings. He would simply shadow the Great One, earning the moniker "the Grate One". But following another player around, shadowing him and stopping him from getting his game going is a great example of anti-hockey. His job was just to stop the best player on the other team from playing hockey. And as an Oiler fan, I loved it. But it doesnt stop me from acknowledging it for what it is.

The Dead Puck Era was a problem because every team started to play defensive hockey and it turned off casual fans. Defensive hockey is fine, but one team has to be playing aggressively or else people will stop tuning in. Was the Canada vs Latvia game not entertaining? Personally, I found the level of sacrifice the Latvians were willing go to much more entertaining then watching us rout Austria 6-0 in a run and gun style.

It was frustrating to watch. One team playing to win, another clogging up the ice as best they can and playing not to lose. No-one I watched it with enjoyed it.

 

[Metalcommand]

That's the only way Latvia could have played to win. This playing not to lose just isn't a thing that exists in elimination games.

 

[Porvari]

I like the Finnish national teams but I also don't think they would be as successful if they had to go best of 7, even 5, games versus Canada, USA, Sweden, or Russia.

Then again, who has to? Like, ever?

 

[joez86]

I wrote something about this in an earlier thread:

There is an organization called "Nuori Suomi", Young Finland. Their aim is admirable, to make sure more kids play sports. They also want to make sure even the less skilled kids get to play. They had a long partnership with the Finnish hockey federation and the hockey bosses here followed their instructions, for example the maximum number of training games kids can play. The federation leader Kalervo Kummola even got an award from the organization.

When Finland won the WJC this year, Kummola stated that our junior programs had many awful years because of the "everyone plays and Nuori Suomi-mentality", he said that the hockey federation was to blame for not realizing that while Nuori Suomi had a great goal they were also holding back the most talented young players. Kummola stated that removing some of the Nuori Suomi guidelines had started in 2010 and that Finnish junior hockey was starting to revitalize.

Kummola is a very stubborn man, there has to be some truth behind it if he admits making a mistake.

Forced egalitarianism has many ill effects.


I would put Finland comfortably in Top 4 based on their results. I like their team building philosophy.

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

The Finns have always seemed to be the defensive anti-hockey players (not all obviously, since Selanne is not of that mould). A good example is Tikkanen on the Oilers after Gretzky was traded to the Kings. He would simply shadow the Great One, earning the moniker "the Grate One". But following another player around, shadowing him and stopping him from getting his game going is a great example of anti-hockey. His job was just to stop the best player on the other team from playing hockey. And as an Oiler fan, I loved it. But it doesnt stop me from acknowledging it for what it is.

What is anti-hockey? Because it just seems like something you made up to fit your narrative that the Finns don't play a likeable brand of hockey. Thing is, thats just your opinion. Finland brings a cohesive unit to the World stage comprised of players that fit different roles, not 19 Esa Tikkanens

 

[psycho_dad*]

You lost me.

Hahaha! So, when people show you how wrong you are by simple statistics, you go with "you lost me". No, you just lost.

I understand, you don't care for complete packages or results. You care about names on the back of the jersey and the INDIVIDUAL scoring statistics.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I still consider finland 5th in producing skaters, but 1st in producing goalies and coming together for a short tourney

 

[TOGuy14]

I think Finland is a top 4 country, what do you think?

They have beaten Russia, for one, now 4 times in a row when its best on best.

I don't consider Finland to be a top 4 talent wise, I still think Canada / USA / Sweden / Russia are the kings of the ice, but Finalnd gets big respect. They play a hardnosed effort, team based game and their results are often greater than the sum of their individual parts

 

[Stoat]

Finland really needed a new wave of players. It's looking like Maatta, Barkov, Granlund, Ristolainen, etc represent a pretty decent group going forward. I'm not particularly impressed with their hockey players in the ~23-28 age range, but they have some great veterans, some solid young guys, and their goaltending is obviously spectacular.

Finland lost a huge amount of talent in "Nuori Suomi"-program. The idea behind that program was good (let everyone play), but it didn't feed the special talents that some exceptional players had.

The program was dumped in the late 90's and now you can see Finnish talent rising up. Granlund bros, Vatanen, Barkov, Määttä, etc being the front line of our new generation.

Back to the topic. Finland is not a top 4 hockey nation at the moment. Like many of here have already stated that we need to win best-on-best tournament to be recognized. Top 4 consist of four favorites to WIN, not to medal.

- Stoat

 

[Dennis Bergkamp]

It was frustrating to watch. One team playing to win, another clogging up the ice as best they can and playing not to lose. No-one I watched it with enjoyed it.

As a neutral, I absolutely loved it. There's nothing exiting about watching one country curb stomp the other, this one was very intense right 'till the end.