Toggle sidebar

Has the US underachieved or just had bad luck?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Canuckistani

Registered User
Mar 15, 2014
1,627
171
Toronto
Back in 1996, after the USA's stunning World Cup win, all the talk was of America taking over hockey dominance. They had just won their first best-on-best event, had a roster stacked with all-stars, and seemed poised to continue on the same road to success.

Yet if someone had said in 1996 that the US wouldn't have another gold at the senior level eighteen years later, no one would have believed them.

Sure, they've come close at the olympics since (hard-fought losses to Canada in 2002, 2010 and 2014), have won three golds at the WJC, and continue to churn out quality players through their junior system. But the overall results at the national team level have to be described as dissappointing given the talent at their disposal.

As best I can tell, the problem is due to both bad luck (close losses at the top-level) and the fact that Americans don't seem to take the World Championships seriously. At all. As far as I know, the event isn't even broadcast in the US, and no country sees as few of its top-players attend the WC's as team USA does. The mediocre squads that do attend rarely make it to the semis and never beyond that (2013 seemed to be their year but the Swiss shut them out).

Much is said of the sub-par quality of the WCs compared to best-on-best events, but at least it provides fans of most teams with some of their greatest successes stories (Czechs 99-01/05/10, Slovakia 2002, Finland 2011, Russia 2008-2009). Since 1996 the US has only three bronze medals!

I don't mean to be hard on the Americans here - they were a lucky bounce away from having gold in 2002 and/or 2010, in which case there'd be no questions asked of their performance today. But I am nonetheless surprised that 1996 has turned out to be somewhat of an oddity on the hockey landscape.
Click to read more...
 
Canuckistani said:
Back in 1996, after the USA's stunning World Cup win, all the talk was of America taking over hockey dominance. They had just won their first best-on-best event, had a roster stacked with all-stars, and seemed poised to continue on the same road to success.

Yet if someone had said in 1996 that the US wouldn't have another gold at the senior level eighteen years later, no one would have believed them.

Sure, they've come close at the olympics since (hard-fought losses to Canada in 2002, 2010 and 2014), have won three golds at the WJC, and continue to churn out quality players through their junior system. But the overall results at the national team level have to be described as dissappointing given the talent at their disposal.

As best I can tell, the problem is due to both bad luck (close losses at the top-level) and the fact that Americans don't seem to take the World Championships seriously. At all. As far as I know, the event isn't even broadcast in the US, and no country sees as few of its top-players attend the WC's as team USA does. The mediocre squads that do attend rarely make it to the semis and never beyond that (2013 seemed to be their year but the Swiss shut them out).

Much is said of the sub-par quality of the WCs compared to best-on-best events, but at least it provides fans of most teams with some of their greatest successes stories (Czechs 99-01/05/10, Slovakia 2002, Finland 2011, Russia 2008-2009). Since 1996 the US has only three bronze medals!

I don't mean to be hard on the Americans here - they were a lucky bounce away from having gold in 2002 and/or 2010, in which case there'd be no questions asked of their performance today. But I am nonetheless surprised that 1996 has turned out to be somewhat of an oddity on the hockey landscape.
Click to expand...

They haven't underachieved. They have reached the finals in 2 of the past 4 olympics and the semis this year. That's pretty much what you would expect from one of the best teams in the worlds. It's not like they're failing to win any elimination games.

Russia has had less success in the Olympics with equal talent.

The late 90's also produced the best hockey teams the USA has ever had. Everyone seems to be jumping on the American bandwagon more recently because they have been producing more NHL players and more elite goalies but the individual talent hasn't been nearly as good.

Leetch and Chelios are hall of famers and two of the top 4 defensmen from 1985-1997. There's not a defensmen on the USA team who you would consider top 4 of this decade or a hall of fame lock.

Hull, Guerin, Amonte, Weight, Tkachuk, LeClaire and Lafontaine were amazing forwards and elite point producers.

Kessel, Parise, and Kane aren't enough to replicate that.

I think the perceived success of the US team is hampered more by the expectations than the results.
 
Canuckistani said:
Back in 1996, after the USA's stunning World Cup win, all the talk was of America taking over hockey dominance. They had just won their first best-on-best event, had a roster stacked with all-stars, and seemed poised to continue on the same road to success.

Yet if someone had said in 1996 that the US wouldn't have another gold at the senior level eighteen years later, no one would have believed them.

Sure, they've come close at the olympics since (hard-fought losses to Canada in 2002, 2010 and 2014), have won three golds at the WJC, and continue to churn out quality players through their junior system. But the overall results at the national team level have to be described as dissappointing given the talent at their disposal.

As best I can tell, the problem is due to both bad luck (close losses at the top-level) and the fact that Americans don't seem to take the World Championships seriously. At all. As far as I know, the event isn't even broadcast in the US, and no country sees as few of its top-players attend the WC's as team USA does. The mediocre squads that do attend rarely make it to the semis and never beyond that (2013 seemed to be their year but the Swiss shut them out).

Much is said of the sub-par quality of the WCs compared to best-on-best events, but at least it provides fans of most teams with some of their greatest successes stories (Czechs 99-01/05/10, Slovakia 2002, Finland 2011, Russia 2008-2009). Since 1996 the US has only three bronze medals!

I don't mean to be hard on the Americans here - they were a lucky bounce away from having gold in 2002 and/or 2010, in which case there'd be no questions asked of their performance today. But I am nonetheless surprised that 1996 has turned out to be somewhat of an oddity on the hockey landscape.
Click to expand...

The World Championships are broadcast on NBC Sports in the US, the same network the NHL is on.

Something to consider, if the 1996 World Cup were in the same format as the Olympics or the 2004 World Cup, Canada would have won it and the US would have no championships. When major events come down to single elimination games, stuff can happen.
 
An Argument For said:
They haven't underachieved. They have reached the finals in 2 of the past 4 olympics and the semis this year. That's pretty much what you would expect from one of the best teams in the worlds. It's not like they're failing to win any elimination games.

Russia has had less success in the Olympics with equal talent.

The late 90's also produced the best hockey teams the USA has ever had. Everyone seems to be jumping on the American bandwagon more recently because they have been producing more NHL players and more elite goalies but the individual talent hasn't been nearly as good.

Leetch and Chelios are hall of famers and two of the top 4 defensmen from 1985-1997. There's not a defensmen on the USA team who you would consider top 4 of this decade or a hall of fame lock.

Hull, Guerin, Amonte, Weight, Tkachuk, LeClaire and Lafontaine were amazing forwards and elite point producers.

Kessel, Parise, and Kane aren't enough to replicate that.

I think the perceived success of the US team is hampered more by the expectations than the results.
Click to expand...

If you are making an all generation team of NHL players in the post 2004 lockout era, I don't see how Suter isn't making that team?
 
Xokkeu said:
If you are making an all generation team of NHL players in the post 2004 lockout era, I don't see how Suter isn't making that team?
Click to expand...

Suter one of the best four defencemen in the league since 04?

Lidstrom, Chara, Keith, Neidermayer, Weber, Pronger are all ahead of him without much debate. After that there's a handful of defensmen who you could, and I would, argue are better. Suter has had a couple of great seasons. He's nowhere near a Leetch or a Chelios.
 
We definitely underachieve. People can make excuses about our rosters at the World Championships but they are still almost entirely made up of NHL players. We usually have the 2nd or 3rd best roster on paper and yet we only have two bronzes EVER to show for it.

The Olympics are more of a mixed bag. 1998 was definitely underachievement. 2006 just wasn't that good of a team more than anything. Sochi was getting outplayed in one game to Canada and just not giving a **** in the bronze medal game.
 
Canuckistani said:
I don't mean to be hard on the Americans here - they were a lucky bounce away from having gold in 2002 and/or 2010
Click to expand...

Side note: I don't think they were one bounce away from gold in 2002, they were at least one Sakic away, from what I remember even more.
 
They have not underachieved. They are just not that good. :sarcasm:

Canada is the best!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Underachieved but at the same time I think they have played to the best of their abilities given the talent that has been available to them over the years, the US is somewhat like Finland in some aspects, not the greatest team on paper but they always seem to be in the discussion to win gold but always seem finish either off the podium or 2nd or 3rd.
 
An Argument For said:
Suter one of the best four defencemen in the league since 04?

Lidstrom, Chara, Keith, Neidermayer, Weber, Pronger are all ahead of him without much debate. After that there's a handful of defensmen who you could, and I would, argue are better. Suter has had a couple of great seasons. He's nowhere near a Leetch or a Chelios.
Click to expand...

While Lidstrom and Pronger played after 2004, I was referring to players coming into the league after the lockout. I don't consider Pronger and Lidstrom part of the same generation of players. Lidstrom is 14 odd years older than Suter. Pronger is a full decade older.

I would say your dismissal of any debate regarding Suter vs Weber/Keith is entirely off base.
 
USA has performed well. Winning in 1996, runner up in 2002 and 2010 and a solid showing in 2014. They have underperformed relative to Finland (everyone has), but they have been at least as good as Sweden, Russia or Czech Republic since 1996 in best on best tournaments. USA has turned it up at the junior level in the last decade (which was a weakness even prior to their success in the 90s). The WC sees USA send teams further from their actual ability than any other country, so it isn't surprising that the results have not been exemplary.
 
I don't think USA has underachieved at all. They've made it to the finals two out of the past five Olympics, which is tied for 2nd with Sweden. Finland is a great hockey team with an extraordinary coach and system; it doesn't surprise me that the US lost to them. Seriously, Finland beat Russia and USA in regulation, lost to Canada in overtime, and almost beat Sweden. They've won four medals in the past five Olympics, so anyone downplaying Finland either thinks hockey is played on paper, or are ignorant. The USA has the third or fourth best team on paper and look where they finished: fourth. But like I said, hockey isn't played on paper or else Canada would win by a landslide. USA has nothing to be ashamed of.
Not only that but the USA has won two gold medals in the WJC in the past four years, so their development is definitely improving. they just need a Stamkos, Tavares, McDavid, or Giroux type of player in order to rival with the best.
 
I would say that '96 team was a generational thing, a lot of right players at the right time, and then in Vancouver 2010 they overachieved perhaps setting expectations too high since. They've been doing really well at the world juniors recently, but the mens national team while very deep is still lacking elite centers and defensemen.
 
Xokkeu said:
Yeah it was tied 2-2 in the 2nd period and then Sakic just went ape all over.
Click to expand...

Sakic-Iginla was gold (no pun intended) that Olympics. I do think one of the things USA is missing is elite centres, which seem to be lacking compared to the rest of their positions.
 
They haven't underachieved or had bad luck....they've performed exactly the way they are capable and have produced results that should be expected of american hockey. You could say they were unlucky to draw canada in the semis. The final could have easily been canada usa if a couple little things went different but thats the way she goes....overall i look at the final olympic standings and say....ya..ya that looks about right.
 
chunkylover53 said:
I do think one of the things USA is missing is elite centres, which seem to be lacking compared to the rest of their positions.
Click to expand...

A possibly stupid but nevertheless a genuine question: can that be some sort of parallel thing from the gold-or-bust attitude (that some people gave as the reason for Team USA not thinking much of the loser finals): one should thrive to be the superstar making all the goals rather than the second-fiddler who hands out the assists, and thus the guys with most talent end up being wingers rather than centers?
 
They had two very strong tornamnets in 02 and 10. Good have been two golds if they were a little more lucky.

Of course 1998 was a disgrace.

Overall i don't think they did too bad.

2 silver+ 1 4th place in 5 tournamnets isn't all that bad.
 
I think the Americans did have the best team in 1996 World Cup but with the exception of missing Roenick that was the best possible team they could put together and it still took some of the best goaltending I've ever seen in any tournament by Mike Richter to beat Canada. Their is a very strong chance that if Canada had Mario, Kariya, MacInnis, Bourque, and Roy that Canada knocks them out in two straight in the finals. So going forward it's not that surprising that they have been a top contender but haven't won another best vs best tournament since then.
 
Lempo said:
A possibly stupid but nevertheless a genuine question: can that be some sort of parallel thing from the gold-or-bust attitude (that some people gave as the reason for Team USA not thinking much of the loser finals): one should thrive to be the superstar making all the goals rather than the second-fiddler who hands out the assists, and thus the guys with most talent end up being wingers rather than centers?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's it. For whatever reason the current generation of American players just don't fit well as centers.

Patrick Kane is not a goal scorer, but for whatever reason he doesn't fit well at center.
 
JackSlater said:
The WC sees USA send teams further from their actual ability than any other country, so it isn't surprising that the results have not been exemplary.
Click to expand...

Uh... we still send one of the best rosters to the tournament every year composed of almost all NHL players besides maybe a couple Euro/college standouts. That's definitely underachieving. The fact that we only have two bronzes in the WHC is a joke. I'm not saying we should be medalling every year, but we often get outright embarrassed. Last year's bronze winning team wasn't even that good even by WHC standards. They just actually showed up for once. We had a much better roster the year before which only showed up for the game against Canada. This is the problem with our WHC teams - apathy.

I don't see how the fact that it isn't close to our "ideal" team means we have no reason to be competitive in a tournament where everyone is picking rosters by the same rules. (and where the country with the second most amount of hockey players in the world should still be a top team no matter how many restrictions on the roster are in place)

You are giving excuses, not reasons.
 
EbencoyE said:
Uh... we still send one of the best rosters to the tournament every year composed of almost all NHL players besides maybe a couple Euro/college standouts. That's definitely underachieving. The fact that we only have two bronzes in the WHC is a joke. I'm not saying we should be medalling every year, but we often get outright embarrassed. Last year's bronze winning team wasn't even that good even by WHC standards. They just actually showed up for once. We had a much better roster the year before which only showed up for the game against Canada. This is the problem with our WHC teams - apathy.

I don't see how the fact that it isn't close to our "ideal" team means we have no reason to be competitive in a tournament where everyone is picking rosters by the same rules. (and where the country with the second most amount of hockey players in the world should still be a top team no matter how many restrictions on the roster are in place)

You are giving excuses, not reasons.
Click to expand...

No you don't. The United States World Championshisp rosters have been good at times but not quite great.

Also the US has the same problem as Canada. The Euros play 12 EHT games throughout the year, have a month long training campa and more exhibition games and are fortunate enough to have good rosters continuity.

Canada and the US bascially just call up 23 guys after the longest season in professional hockey and ask them to be in Europe next week to start playing a tournament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom