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

[Sabane]

So Salo, Timonen, Jokinen and Selanne are the only constants among Finnish players when looking back 15 years, which makes results from 15 years ago roughly 16% relevant to what they accomplished this year. As soon as this year, though, they're losing Selanne (has openly expressed retirement from international play, I believe), and who knows about Timonen and Salo now that they're knocking on 40. So as soon as later on this year, there may be less than an 8% connection between Finnish hockey of 15 years ago and Finnish hockey of today. That's only marginally more relevant (in the single digits, obviously) than any medal winning countries from even further into the past that no longer have any connection to the current incarnations of their teams.

So let's count for example last 3 Olympics, OK?

 

[jnt88]

Pointless argument when you are basically discussing different topics.

One is saying if ranked according to modern best on best tournaments Finland is a top3 hockey nation in the world.

The other is saying that if ranked according to number of NHL players produced, star power, strength of domestic league, Finland is a top6 hockey nation.

Both are correct.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Yeah and the fact that the team is not the same anymore, just speaks about sustainability, Finland has gone through changes and still remained 3rd. Steady performer, consistent.

Except for the Olympics where they came 6th, the three 4th place finishes (two of them being Finland's most recent results), two 5th place finishes, two 6th place finishes, and a 7th place finish at the WCs (all this over the past 15 years that are now the focus of the discussion). Other than the 8 of 15 years they were lower than 3rd, they certainly "remained" 3rd.

 

[Sabane]

Except for the Olympics where they came 6th, the three 4th place finishes (two of them being Finland's most recent results), two 5th place finishes, two 6th place finishes, and a 7th place finish at the WCs (all this over the past 15 years that are now the focus of the discussion). Other than the 8 of 15 years they were lower than 3rd, they certainly "remained" 3rd.

And that era our rivalries USA has 2 bronzes and Russia 6 medals against 7 of Finns not to mention medals of the Olympics or the runner-up at the World Cup...

 

[Sabane]

Pointless argument when you are basically discussing different topics.

One is saying if ranked according to modern best on best tournaments Finland is a top3 hockey nation in the world.

The other is saying that if ranked according to number of NHL players produced, star power, strength of domestic league, Finland is a top6 hockey nation.

Both are correct.

The other is showing that Finns really are #3 and other says that they shouldn't be that good because of all the mentioned points. I know that there's no point of even having all of this nonsense.

 

[Henri M]

Pointless argument when you are basically discussing different topics.

One is saying if ranked according to modern best on best tournaments Finland is a top3 hockey nation in the world.

The other is saying that if ranked according to number of NHL players produced, star power, strength of domestic league, Finland is a top6 hockey nation.

Both are correct.

What is the moset objective measurement though? Canadians are the ones usually going on about that only "best on best" tournaments count when comparing national team skill. I would say that all international tournaments are important when making this observation, and based on empirical evidence Finland is a top 4 country, and arguably #3.
One has facts on its side, the other one interpretes random statistics in a very dubious manner in order to tie it up as a measurement of national team competitiveness in international tournaments.... Which is frankly Pejorative Slured.

 

[jnt88]

Except for the Olympics where they came 6th, the three 4th place finishes (two of them being Finland's most recent results), two 5th place finishes, two 6th place finishes, and a 7th place finish at the WCs (all this over the past 15 years that are now the focus of the discussion). Other than the 8 of 15 years they were lower than 3rd, they certainly "remained" 3rd.

Seriously, what is your agenda here? Usually, on paper, finland is top6. However, cumulative results from international competition from the last 20 years suggest they are closer to top3. How can you refute this?

A more interesting discussion would be about the reasons behind this.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Seriously, what is your agenda here? Usually, on paper, finland is top6. However, cumulative results from international competition from the last 20 years suggest they are closer to top3. How can you refute this?

A more interesting discussion would be about the reasons behind this.

Who's refuting anything, and where's the evidence of agenda? I peg them (for a variety of reasons that have been explained at length) at 4th or 5th, and you say they're somewhere between 6th (on paper) and 3rd ("results"). That's basically saying the exact same thing, only I try to look at more (especially as the topic shift from men's senior team specifically to "hockey country" any more generally than that) while Finnish fans seemingly tunnel vision in on less.

 

[Sabane]

Who's refuting anything, and where's the evidence of agenda? I peg them (for a variety of reasons that have been explained at length) at 4th or 5th, and you say they're somewhere between 6th (on paper) and 3rd ("results"). That's basically saying the exact same thing, only I try to look at more while Finnish fans seemingly tunnel vision in on less.

So you are saying IIHF #6 (bs rank, I agree that) should be #2? Canada is clear #1, USA #2 and the rest comes a mile behind because they don't have that much population to create a huge domestic leagues?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

So you are saying IIHF #6 (bs rank, I agree that) should be #2? Canada is clear #1, USA #2 and the rest comes a mile behind because they don't have that much population to create a huge domestic leagues?

My opinion and reasoning is fairly extensively and clearly laid out already, and so I'm reluctant to type it all out again, but suffice to say it doesn't boil down to the bolded part above.

 

[Sabane]

My opinion and reasoning is fairly extensively and clearly laid out already, and so I'm reluctant to type it all out again, but suffice to say it doesn't boil down to the bolded part above.

Short version of what you are saying is that all the European leagues are small because there aren't so many spectators vs NHL and there ain't good players because they get payed less than NHL players. And I get that.

But there is no hard evidence showing that these less payed European players are really worse than these 2millon/season 3rd liners at NHL. The quality is what matters in the ens, not the quantity. We have two excellet examples of the form of Sweden and Finland. Our leagues ain't that good as NHL and we dont have as many players there than USA or Canada but still constantly Finns and Swedes are better resultwise than USA.

Russia should be clear #2 but they have huge problems on their coaching staff and the egos of their star players so they rarely even play like they should. And that's a huge part of the game of hockey. Team is lot more than having the best players, they also need to play for the team, not for themselves!

 

[psycho_dad*]

My opinion and reasoning is fairly extensively and clearly laid out already

Yes, yes it is very clear. Absurd, but certainly clear.

Let me take a crack at your sort of reasoning....

Since Finland has such a low population, in fact their attendance rate and the number of registered players, production of NHL players and success in international tournaments is unparalleled.

As it has been stated, Finland only cares about winning the bronze, so they actually get what they want in most tournaments, losing semi's on purpose so they could reach their goal. Finland would always win the gold of course, because you can see that they can almost always get what they want, they can get the medal they most crave (2006 was an accident and they went to the final instead but allowed Sweden to win so they could at least get closer to the bronze which they prefer).

All of this clearly speaks of a superior hockey power, easily the #1 ranked in the world. I can come up with all kinds of bat **** crazy criteria to support this notion if you want further proof. Since opinion and absurd rationalization are valued over results, you can probably agree with all this, right?

 

[jnt88]

Two views that don't even contradict each other, I think this argument is pretty much done. People have different metrics by which they rank things, and it doesn't mean one is wrong. However, using patronizing smileys certainly makes your argument seem less credible.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Two views that don't even contradict each other, I think this argument is pretty much done. People have different metrics by which they rank things, and it doesn't mean one is wrong. However, using patronizing smileys certainly makes your argument less credible.

Well, if you'd like one or two more smileys, I at the sheer indignation at the opinion that Finland is anything less than a "top 3 hockey country". At this point, it's approaching level.

 

[jnt88]

u so tuff.

 

[FiLe]

As it has been stated, Finland only cares about winning the bronze, so they actually get what they want in most tournaments, losing semi's on purpose so they could reach their goal. Finland would always win the gold of course, because you can see that they can almost always get what they want, they can get the medal they most crave (2006 was an accident and they went to the final instead but allowed Sweden to win so they could at least get closer to the bronze which they prefer).

Easy there, friend. You're barking up the wrong tree. This bit of hokey came from that other guy.


The issue here is, that there are just too many metrics to determine a country's status - and all of them can be slated and twisted in one way or another.

International success? - Well, most tournaments where best-of-one decides positions are more or less a crapshoot. Not to mention that any country can muster success if they manage to produce around 50 world-class players, which is about two teams' worth (the main squad plus an injury replacement for them all). One country can have that 50, other can have 300, but guess what? The remaining 250 don't matter one bit.

Amount of NHL players? - Smaller countries are at disadvantage since they can only produce so much before they run up their limit. Another thing to keep in mind is that the slots in NHL clubs are a limited resource as well. A team can only dress a squad of 18+2, and since there are 30 teams total, a maximum of 600 players can call themselves an NHL player any given night. And since the teams have to run plenty of asset management thanks to the cap, sometimes players who truly deserve to be in the NHL have to settle for lesser leagues.

The strength of domestic league? - See the above bit about smaller countries being at a disadvantage.

Hockey culture in general? - One of the fairer ones, since a country can be nuts about hockey regardless of population. As a matter of fact, if you want to talk hockey, there is only one place where finding someone with an opinion is easier than in Finland. That's Canada.


In the end, there is just no way to determine Finland's (or any country's) exact status in the hockey world. However, the facts are that Finland is fully capable of producing 50 world-class players at any given time (even if more than half of them are NOT in the NHL), Finland constantly overachieves in international competition and the country is nuts about hockey. I'd say this puts them somewhere in the range of 2nd to 6th among the world's hockey powers. But where exactly they are in there is anybody's guess.


Now, to the big question this thread should be about...

Does Finland really get the respect falling into said range should merit?

 

[psycho_dad*]

Two views that don't even contradict each other, I think this argument is pretty much done. People have different metrics by which they rank things, and it doesn't mean one is wrong. However, using patronizing smileys certainly makes your argument seem less credible.

You are correct, these views do not contradict eachother. People can form their opinions based on what ever metrics they choose to.

I'm the science kind of guy, "results matter" sort of person.

Then there are people who consult psychics, get their opinions from tea leafs, lunar cycles, astrological charts etc....they form opinions based on personal preference, beliefs and such.

These worlds always clash, we can't understand eachother. He is arguing that his opinion is valid, because it's his opinion. It is an opinion, I can agree with that. He's allowed to rank Finland dead last by his own metrics, because the metrics can really be ANYTHING he wants.

Like for example he could say that national suicide rates and the amount of coffee drank per capita is the KEY metric in judging hockey nation. So who ever ranks highest in those, should be the worst hockey nation in the world. There we go, Finland is dead last! Woooooo

Of course my opinion (and I also have the right to mine) is that his metrics are extremely stupid, agenda driven and have next to nothing to do with where countries rank at the moment.

The views do not contradict each other, but the fundamental difference in thinking (results vs. hokey pokey bs) will always collide.

 

[jnt88]

Easy there, friend. You're barking up the wrong tree. This bit of hokey came from that other guy.


The issue here is, that there are just too many metrics to determine a country's status - and all of them can be slated and twisted in one way or another.

International success? - Well, most tournaments where best-of-one decides positions are more or less a crapshoot. Not to mention that any country can muster success if they manage to produce around 50 world-class players, which is about two teams' worth (the main squad plus an injury replacement for them all). One country can have that 50, other can have 300, but guess what? The remaining 250 don't matter one bit.

Amount of NHL players? - Smaller countries are at disadvantage since they can only produce so much before they run up their limit. Another thing to keep in mind is that the slots in NHL clubs are a limited resource as well. A team can only dress a squad of 18+2, and since there are 30 teams total, a maximum of 600 players can call themselves an NHL player any given night. And since the teams have to run plenty of asset management thanks to the cap, sometimes players who truly deserve to be in the NHL have to settle for lesser leagues.

The strength of domestic league? - See the above bit about smaller countries being at a disadvantage.

Hockey culture in general? - One of the fairer ones, since a country can be nuts about hockey regardless of population. As a matter of fact, if you want to talk hockey, there is only one place where finding someone with an opinion is easier than in Finland. That's Canada.


In the end, there is just no way to determine Finland's (or any country's) exact status in the hockey world. However, the facts are that Finland is fully capable of producing 50 world-class players at any given time (even if more than half of them are NOT in the NHL), Finland constantly overachieves in international competition and the country is nuts about hockey. I'd say this puts them somewhere in the range of 2nd to 6th among the world's hockey powers. But where exactly they are in there is anybody's guess.


Now, to the big question this thread should be about...

Does Finland really get the respect falling into said range should merit?

Great post and exactly my view. Too bad most will skip it due to TLDR.

 

[Sabane]

Easy there, friend. You're barking up the wrong tree. This bit of hokey came from that other guy.


The issue here is, that there are just too many metrics to determine a country's status - and all of them can be slated and twisted in one way or another.

International success? - Well, most tournaments where best-of-one decides positions are more or less a crapshoot. Not to mention that any country can muster success if they manage to produce around 50 world-class players, which is about two teams' worth (the main squad plus an injury replacement for them all). One country can have that 50, other can have 300, but guess what? The remaining 250 don't matter one bit.

Amount of NHL players? - Smaller countries are at disadvantage since they can only produce so much before they run up their limit. Another thing to keep in mind is that the slots in NHL clubs are a limited resource as well. A team can only dress a squad of 18+2, and since there are 30 teams total, a maximum of 600 players can call themselves an NHL player any given night. And since the teams have to run plenty of asset management thanks to the cap, sometimes players who truly deserve to be in the NHL have to settle for lesser leagues.

The strength of domestic league? - See the above bit about smaller countries being at a disadvantage.

Hockey culture in general? - One of the fairer ones, since a country can be nuts about hockey regardless of population. As a matter of fact, if you want to talk hockey, there is only one place where finding someone with an opinion is easier than in Finland. That's Canada.


In the end, there is just no way to determine Finland's (or any country's) exact status in the hockey world. However, the facts are that Finland is fully capable of producing 50 world-class players at any given time (even if more than half of them are NOT in the NHL), Finland constantly overachieves in international competition and the country is nuts about hockey. I'd say this puts them somewhere in the range of 2nd to 6th among the world's hockey powers. But where exactly they are in there is anybody's guess.


Now, to the big question this thread should be about...

Does Finland really get the respect falling into said range should merit?

Well said mate!

 

[Raimo Sillanpää]

Just in case pictures have more impact than words, a graphic for the Olympic side of discussion:

Why is the Soviet Union, Unified Team and Russia as 3 seperate teams.. Germany and West Germany are seperate..

But Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic are one?