tape to tape
Registered User
- Nov 26, 2011
- 1,148
- 0
'87 Canada Cup should be higher on the list for Canada, as that was the Canada Cup rubber match with the Soviet Union.
Greatest victories per national squad?
- Thread starter Canuckistani
- Start date
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
Top 5 for Canada:
1) 1972 Summit Series
2) 1987 Canada Cup
3) 2002 Olympics
4) 2010 Olympics
5) 1994 World Championships
1) 1972 Summit Series
2) 1987 Canada Cup
3) 2002 Olympics
4) 2010 Olympics
5) 1994 World Championships
Maybe I'm the only one but I really think that the 2005 World Juniors should be up there for Canada.
No team has ever come close to dominating a tournament the way Canada did that year. Not only undefeated but the goal differential. I mean beating Sweden and Finland both 8-1 in the round robin. Crushing Russia 6-1 in the Final. Every game won by multiple goals, every game except 1 won by at least 4 goals.
41 Goals for and only 9 goals against the entire tournaments. It launched 6-8 of this generations best Canadian players... I thought that was a real good statement win for Canada.
No team has ever come close to dominating a tournament the way Canada did that year. Not only undefeated but the goal differential. I mean beating Sweden and Finland both 8-1 in the round robin. Crushing Russia 6-1 in the Final. Every game won by multiple goals, every game except 1 won by at least 4 goals.
41 Goals for and only 9 goals against the entire tournaments. It launched 6-8 of this generations best Canadian players... I thought that was a real good statement win for Canada.
1Gold Standard
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2012
- 7,986
- 317
I'd have to agree with that... On the international side I've always followed the junior team and tournament more than the senior team. And as good as the 1985 born players were and still are (if given the chance they have a few more gold medals to win) I think the 1995 born players are pretty close to being as good.
Canuck21t
Registered User
The 2005 WHJC is up there among the best Canadian victories, but at the end of the day it's just a junior tournament. Many of these lads went on to glorious victories at the highest level.
tape to tape
Registered User
- Nov 26, 2011
- 1,148
- 0
This common North American viewpoint is so stupid.
It's Team Sweden, not the Swedish NHL All-Star Team. I'll never understand the obsession with having certain players on international rosters as if it somehow makes international competition "meaningful" or not. Just stick to watching the NHL if all you care about is NHL players.
It's like North Americans think international sport should only be some kind of nationalist dick-measuring contest to prove who develops the best players instead of enjoying it for what it is - a nation-based hockey tournament. Obviously everyone wants to see the best players possible, but maybe you have to be an actual fan of the sport and not just the NHL to understand the appeal of watching players represent their nations whether they are the best or not.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,807
- 15,473
It has nothing to do with the NHL, though I will thank you for your enlightening projections. It does have to do with having the best players. If the best players are not there, and particularly if each country is at a different capacity level, it is largely pointless. You can definitely have an entertaining tournament like this, but when we are talking about greatest victories then the players most certainly matter.
You will have to forgive many of us for not blindly caring just because some random players are wearing the jersey of the country we come from. I guess some people just find it difficult to root for pieces of laundry.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,679
- 5,126
Being a European myself, I don't agree with what you say at all. The FIFA World Cup for example would certainly lose most of its relevance if it was running at the same time as the UEFA Champions League.
I'm not saying you have to blindly care just because someone is wearing your national jersey. I'm saying it's ridiculous that someone should downplay a great achievement just because the "right" players aren't wearing those jerseys.
Team Sweden is Team Sweden. Team Canada is Team Canada. Rosters are irrelevant. Maybe not as many people care if the best players aren't available to play - and there's nothing wrong with that. But to say a great win is meaningless because of the players on the rosters is just ridiculous. But I guess every club trophy ever won outside of the NHL is meaningless? Give me a break.
The hate so-called "hockey fans" have for hockey without the best players in the world playing is incredibly sad. Don't care? Don't watch. Doesn't mean it isn't great hockey with great victories as good as any others. We don't need your constant pissing and moaning that a tournament "doesn't matter" just because you don't care.
I never said anything contrary to such a view. I agree in fact. My problem is with those who would downplay a great World Cup victory just because some players were playing in the Champions League at the time. I just don't see why those players taking part in a different competition would somehow lessen the achievements of the victorious team in the other competition we are discussing.
They are two different competitions. I can see why interest might be lower for a tournament going on simultaneously as another highly-esteemed competition, but beyond that the relevance of their association is over my head.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,679
- 5,126
If Germany defeats Spain with Villa, Xavi, Iniesta, Xabi Alonso and Sergio Ramos it is more impressive than defeating Spain without those players. The second victory is not as great a victory as the first one.
Sweden and Canada selected rosters by the same rules in 1994. I don't think anyone would claim Sweden had their best possible roster.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,679
- 5,126
The rules can be the same without affecting both parties to the same degree. At the time of the 1994 Olympics 24 Swedes and 563 Canadians were active in the NHL = not able to take part. It was Sweden's B team defeating Canada's D team. A nice victory, but nowhere near as impressive an achievement as a victory in best on best competition.
WinTheRightGames
Registered User
- Jan 7, 2014
- 354
- 11
+1.
Here's a thought experiment for you people: Imagine for a moment that the NHL stopped being the league with the best players in the world, and starts playing a second fiddle to the KHL or some other high-salary league.
Now, your team wins the Stanley Cup. Do you get all giddy - or be like "meh", simply because the best players in the world are in another place?
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,679
- 5,126
No doubt that fans would still get giddy for their NHL teams, but objectively speaking the achievement of winning the Stanley Cup wouldn't be as large as it was in the earlier era.
The relative difficulty of winning the Cup would remain largely unchanged though. As does winning olympic gold even if the tournament is more like "rest on rest" rather than "best on best".
Actually, it could get slightly harder, since even those countries not considered elite would contend far more heavily.
Given how there were still at least five or six teams who could have won gold in 1994 (and pretty much the same bunch that would have had a shot at it even with NHLers present), it's not unfair to think at all that it is one of the "big ones" for Sweden.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,807
- 15,473
Actually, you are basically saying to blindly care just because of the jersey. Hence the absurd statement: "Team Sweden is Team Sweden. Team Canada is Team Canada. Rosters are irrelevant." Rosters are completely relevant. Putting on a Canadian jersey does not make "Team Canada", the team that represents our country in hockey. The best selection of Canadian players is Team Canada.
I don't see why you insist on bringing up the NHL, but to use it as an example: If all of the best players in the world left the NHL and moved to the KHL, then all of a sudden the Gagarin Cup becomes a lot more significant than the Stanley Cup. That is just the way it is. If the best players are not there, the tournament has little value.
It can be great hockey, but it can't be a particularly great victory. The players matter far more than the name of the tournament. To go back to the NHL, if the teams all replaced their players with their AHL counterparts, the Stanley Cup would lose basically all value. It might be entertaining, but it loses value because the best players are not there. That is a similar situation to the 1994 Olympics. It's irrelevant.
A reasonable person would claim though that Sweden was far closer to their best possible roster than Canada (which greatly reduces the value of the tournament - see the WC and several instances of the Canada Cup) but more importantly, having the same rules isn't enough if the rule greatly limits competition. If they have an international tournament where countries can only send their best players who have surnames beginning with 'M' we would have everyone following the same rules, but the tournament would be largely irrelevant.
Much closer to meh than giddy. The Stanley Cup is great because the world's best players compete for it, not some magic intrinsic value in its name or the trophy itself. If the best players all moved to some other league, I would follow that league and take far more interest in its hockey than I would in the NHL.
Pominville Knows
Registered User
I can say one thing and that's that although many swedes blindly follow the WHC almost as much as the Olympics, putting too much value into the WHC just as the 1994 Olympic win, the Canada Cup is some legendary stuff in some layers of the society aged mostly like 40-55. They where young then and the fact that it was played in the night on the other side of the globe, consisting of our seldom seen professional players and Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky and stuff, is held in very high regard although factual knowledge of the details are a little slim.
I guess you could say that swedes very much treasure Tre Kronor no matter who the players are.
I guess you could say that swedes very much treasure Tre Kronor no matter who the players are.
For me, Canada's 2002 SLC victory has to be somewhere in that top 3.
As has already been mentioned, the fact that it broke a 50 year drought alone,has to be of some merit.
Really, consider the state of hockey in Canada at the time...
Who could forget the USA walking out of the Forum in 96 with the World Cup? Or the stinging shoot-out defeat followed by the totally deflated performance in the bronze game two years later in Japan?
Canada was a different country back then. The Jets and Nords were gone and it looked like we'd never see them again. The Oilers were minutes away from joining the Stars as the second Texas based NHL squad, and the Sens were on life-support. Hell, even the once-mighty Habs had been purchased by an American investor. Those were truly dark days in the country's hockey history.
2002 was a big turning point.
As has already been mentioned, the fact that it broke a 50 year drought alone,has to be of some merit.
Really, consider the state of hockey in Canada at the time...
Who could forget the USA walking out of the Forum in 96 with the World Cup? Or the stinging shoot-out defeat followed by the totally deflated performance in the bronze game two years later in Japan?
Canada was a different country back then. The Jets and Nords were gone and it looked like we'd never see them again. The Oilers were minutes away from joining the Stars as the second Texas based NHL squad, and the Sens were on life-support. Hell, even the once-mighty Habs had been purchased by an American investor. Those were truly dark days in the country's hockey history.
2002 was a big turning point.
Franck
eltiT resU motsuC
I've followed Tre Kronor since the 1996 World Cup and the win against Finland in the semi-finals of the 2003 World Championships is still my greatest hockey memory:
Losing the final in overtime against Canada after that miraculous performance was absolutely heartbreaking.
Losing the final in overtime against Canada after that miraculous performance was absolutely heartbreaking.
FinPanda
Barkov Stanley cup champ!
Franck
eltiT resU motsuC
The crowd in Helsinki for the gold medal game was quite pro-Canada as I recall. Can't imagine why
Sweden led 2-0, and ended up losing 3-2 on Anson Carter's OT video-review goal. Even worse, Sweden repeated the performance the following year in Prague - again up 2-0 and 3-1, only to lose 5-3.
Paying their dues for 2006, I suppose.
Latest posts
-
-
Rumor: Trade Rumors & Proposals Thread | No More Pacifism For the Oilers?- Latest: McMozesmadness
-
-
Devils discussion (news, notes and speculation) - part IV
- Latest: PKs Broken Stick
