GDT: Gold Medal Game • Feb. 23 • Sweden vs. Canada • Part IV
- Thread starter Frederick Stanley
- Start date
- Status
Coog
Registered User
I'm not talking about anyone in particular. Just kind of funny to see that the discussion hasn't moved one inch forward since sunday.
Well it hasn't happened much in it really in quantity either.
The last spurt was that I:
Congratulated Canada
Said they would have won anyway
had better quality chances
has the greatest depth
And then stated... the complete outrage:
Sweden's injuries mattered more
It was just luck that Sweden didn't score the first goal
Sometimes one can't just really trust oneself to answer politely.
azcanuck
Registered User
it's just a ridiculous statement to make. Every goal, every play can be attributed to "luck" or "bounces".
Crosby's breakaway? one more inch left or right with his shot maybe Lunqvist makes the save. Luck? Skill?
Swedes little squibbler shot that bounced under the pad of Price? should that have gone in? How ridiculous.
dont make statements like that and then passively cry about the responses you get.
You have 10 times the number of hockey players as in Sweden and most other countries, therein lies the "greatness".
Canadian aren't as superhuman as many of you seem to think ...
Just as in soccer the nations where there is huge interest and a large population are the ones that usually wins ...
azcanuck
Registered User
USA has half a million registered players just behind Canada. yet Finland with 80,000 beat the USA handily. Doesnt make any sense really based on numbers theory.
USA should really perform better based on the number of players but it's the one exception . All others are like maximum 10% to 15% of then number of players that Canada has. That is the basic explanation. Many of the biggest talents go to soccer in Europe.
So why bother playing then? We'll just award medals according to the # of registered hockey players per country.
Injuries happen, it's part of sports. Canada was missing even better players in '98 and you don't see that being constantly brought up (sorry, I just opened the door to more circular logic).
I was just saying that there's a logical explanation that Canada is so good at hockey (in reply to the "greatness").
I wasn't arguing about injuries at all.
I wasn't speaking in general but in response to a guy who state that it was impossible for Sweden to score, or specifically: "There was no breaking through that brck [sic] wall, just ask Karlsson!". So I questioned the brick wall as there was no brick wall in that instance.
So if you are trying to argue, do it properly and read up in the thread you have opinions abut the posts in. I didn't state that it "should" have gone in but "That one could as easily gone in as staying outside", which was true.
So don't make statements like that and aggressively cry about the posts. It is like if one post a singular thing which isn't total praise for Canada - even in burrowed in other praise of the Canadian team - you attract flies like ****.
Last edited:
Well said. Canada was seriously hurt by injuries/no shows in 1998 and the 1996 World Cup but afterwards that was hardly brought up, especially by the Euros who were happy Canada lost. Sweden is a good hockey nation, but Canada was just too great for them this past Sunday. It was not going to change their fate. USA was fully healthy and were arguably better than Sweden and Canada shut them out as well. Injuries are part of the game. A healthy Stamkos and Tavares would have made a huge difference as well. You cannot play the "what if " game in life. My Grandfather always had that saying. Swedes should just move on and look forward to 2018.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaa
Registered User
- May 16, 2009
- 12,252
- 1,586
Depth doesn't come from the number of registered players. Depth comes from the number of players who become elite through coaching and proper development.
Canada is better at both of those than anyone else.
If it takes more than 80 000 player to ice 20 who can compete internationally, then I think you need to take a look at your system.
Norway iced a half decent team with a fraction of that number registered.
Canada is better at both of those than anyone else.
If it takes more than 80 000 player to ice 20 who can compete internationally, then I think you need to take a look at your system.
Norway iced a half decent team with a fraction of that number registered.
Of course it's not an exact formula and it's not the only variable that matters, but try to find a country with 10-15% of the number of players that Sweden has (8000 registered players) that can compete with Sweden, Finland and Czechs etc - there is only Slovakia that you could make a case for.
http://www.internationalhockey.net/forums/showthread.php?6479-Percentage-of-registered-hockey-players-to-population-by-country
All countries that are in position 2 to 6 are also clearly in these positions in number of registered players.
So yes, it's a good indicator. Of 1000 players it's easier to fins a great talent than if you only have a 100.
That's why , when Zetterberg gets injured we can't replace him with a player of his standard.
Very strong correlation, if you will put it in statistical terms ,
http://www.internationalhockey.net/forums/showthread.php?6479-Percentage-of-registered-hockey-players-to-population-by-country
All countries that are in position 2 to 6 are also clearly in these positions in number of registered players.
So yes, it's a good indicator. Of 1000 players it's easier to fins a great talent than if you only have a 100.
That's why , when Zetterberg gets injured we can't replace him with a player of his standard.
Very strong correlation, if you will put it in statistical terms ,
Last edited:
Good point. How many of the registered players in Canada are strictly recreational, who in other countries are playing soccer or baseball or whatever sport is hugely popular and has infrastructure in place for recreational use.
The whole our 'A' team is just as good as yours seems a bit empty, this time around anyway.
In the US most of the elite athletic talents venture into other sports than hockey. So even if they have half a million registered hockey players they are generally not the most talented or most physically or mentally exceptional prospects. As they are in Canada. Or in Sweden or Finland for that matter.
In Sweden it's a bit depending on the region which sport elite talent ends up in. In northern Sweden with a population of 1 million, mainly hockey. In southern Sweden and the big cities with a population of 8 million, it's mainly football that gets the most talent. If hockey was the #1 sport, Sweden would obviously have a much deeper talent pool.
It sure would've been fun to see a talent like Zlatan Ibrahimovic play hockey instead of football. The sport of hockey would've entered a new era, in many entertaining ways
Not the most mentally gifted? Have you heard any NBA or NFL interviews?
The US population is spread over a lot of sports. Economically, and almost geographically and population wise it's like Europe. Some areas in Europe gravitate towards Basketball, Soccer, Hockey etc. Same with the U.S, some areas are have stronger cultures for certain sports. Boston is going to produce more Hockey Players than Miami. Add to that the economic difficulities of starting and playing hockey, there's a ceiling on how many players it can/will produce.
Dude, Canada has 3.500 arenas while Sweden has 350.
That's a huge difference. Still we produce players in the NHL with higher CAP hits than Canada and 7% of all players in the NHL are Swedes. We are doing better in developing our Juniors (so much better that Team Canada sends their coaches to learn). We have 70.000 players against your 625.000.
The positive sides are that our (junior) coaches work for free, while yours are getting paid professionally. Playing hockey in Sweden is cheap while it's expensive in Canada. In Sweden, hockey is getting passed on by fathers rather than coaches. Our Juniors play against men from the get go, that was quite visible in the WJC this year when Paterson saved Canada from getting blown out 8-0.
The truth is that Canadian hockey is broken and on the decline, you haven't reviewed your system since you always believe there is no need.
That's dangerous. You cut us some slack, now you pay the price.
Ehm? Hate? I just stated the obvious.
When Burakovsky said Sweden had the best team on paper, Canadians went on a rage as they couldn't imagine themselves being second.
That's hate.
Skip2myBordyloo
Stay the course
- Apr 7, 2010
- 10,751
- 402
We won 3 out of the last 4 Olympic tournament's , I fail to see how that is declining, the World junior program needs some shaping up sure, but we have the best young talent regardless.
Canadians respect Swedish hockey but we are better.
We have won 4 of the last 5 "Best on Best" - 3 Olympics and 1 World Cup. We are the best.
Oh I'm sorry, did your junior team win those tournaments?
No they didn't.
Since 2005 Canada haven't produced the kind of talent that you used to.
That's a decline.
I'm talking about the WJC, not arguing against Canada being the best on a senior level at the moment since you just won a best-on-best tournament.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Props Alex Ovechkin to Record 895th Career Goal During 2024/25 Regular SeasonWagers: 12Staked: $21,883.00Event closes - 2 days from now- Updated: