Has the US underachieved or just had bad luck?

[EbencoyE]

European teams will always have more opportunity to play together than the North Americans as it is a benefit of not being good enough to play in the NHL. (And the EHT is only four teams, and so intermittent that it is largely irrelevant) Even Europeans don't take the EHT as more than simply glorified exhibition games anyway. The fringe players may be playing hard to earn WHC roster spots, but it really has no impact whatsoever on how any teams play in the WHC. They're simply quick cash grabs by the federations/tv networks that allow players who aren't even good enough to make WHC rosters a chance to wear their national jerseys.

This doesn't change the fact that you have NHL players (stars in Canada's case) going up against mostly European-based players who play in what are basically minor leagues.

Again, the EHT and a longer training schedule (for part of the roster) of the European teams is simply an excuse, not a reason for underachievement.

The U.S. DOES send one of the best rosters to the tournament every year, contrary to your opinion. Just look at the rosters of all the teams, on paper there is absolutely no reason for the U.S. not to be competitive year in and year out. The fact that our best rosters have some of the worst results and our worst rosters have some of the best results should be proof that it is simply a case of apathy, not ability.

 

[Zine]

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.

Just because a team is stocked full of NHLers doesn't make it talented, or a quality team......especially when it's 2nd or 3rd tier NHLers.

Imo, most years the USA has finished exactly where they should have at the WC.

 

[EbencoyE]

Just because a team is stocked full of NHLers doesn't make it talented, or a quality team......especially when it's 2nd or 3rd tier NHLers.

Imo, most years the USA has finished exactly where they should have at the WC.

Actually, it does. They are, after all, NHL players and not playing in Europe because they can't cut it. (Obviously there are exceptions to this in the rare instances some players prefer to play at home or get more money playing in Europe, but they are few and far between)

Again, I'm not saying we should have a medal from every WHC ever, I'm just saying we have much better depth than TWO BRONZE MEDALS EVER would tell you. Especially when we don't even have that many top tier NHL players in the first place. Our Olympic roster was half 2nd tier NHLers.

 

[An Argument For]

European teams will always have more opportunity to play together than the North Americans as it is a benefit of not being good enough to play in the NHL. (And the EHT is only four teams, and so intermittent that it is largely irrelevant) Even Europeans don't take the EHT as more than simply glorified exhibition games anyway. The fringe players may be playing hard to earn WHC roster spots, but it really has no impact whatsoever on how any teams play in the WHC. They're simply quick cash grabs by the federations/tv networks that allow players who aren't even good enough to make WHC rosters a chance to wear their national jerseys.

This doesn't change the fact that you have NHL players (stars in Canada's case) going up against mostly European-based players who play in what are basically minor leagues.

Well in my opinion even a half dozen exhibition games make a big difference. Simply skating next to someone, having a few dozen shifts together, just getting the chance to talk really makes them easier to play with. That familiarity is a big bonus going into a short tournament.

Secondly, most NHL players who go to this tournament for Canada and especially the U.S, with a few exceptions, are either very young stars 19-21 or lower level players, getting put in with no practice against international veterans. There are a number of good players in Europe who could fight for an NHL roster spot if they wanted to. Very few of them would excel but they could definitely play on the bottom lines or be good in the AHL. So when you take guys like that who are fairly talented, have been around the pros for a decade and are fully developed men and hockey players.. they're going to be tough to play against.

 

[An Argument For]

Actually, it does. They are, after all, NHL players and not playing in Europe because they can't cut it. (Obviously there are exceptions to this in the rare instances some players prefer to play at home or get more money playing in Europe, but they are few and far between)

There are quite a few. AHL life can be pretty ****** and unless you're either quite young or highly touted, a lot of these guys can stay close to home and make 2-4x as much as they can fighting for an NHL roster spot.

 

[EbencoyE]

There are quite a few. AHL life can be pretty ****** and unless you're either quite young or highly touted, a lot of these guys can stay close to home and make 2-4x as much as they can fighting for an NHL roster spot.

I was talking about NHL-caliber players, not AHLers. Obviously minor leaguers will go to higher paying European teams quite frequently. That has nothing to do with the solid-NHLer-filled U.S. roster that is far superior than said European players. Our occasional AHL goalie who never sees any action (besides Gibson who outplayed Bishop and was awesome) doesn't factor into this.

The only real benefit European teams have over the U.S. is that they will more commonly (though only some teams, not all European teams have NHL stars, like, say, the Swiss who we lost to in the semi's last year) get star players to join their rosters - but that is usually only a handful at most and usually only for the knockout round at that which means they have even less chemistry.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

The U.S. was the healthiest team going into the Olympics. Now the players are dropping like flies. I guess I am glad it happened AFTER the Olympics so no one could use it as an excuse.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

And remember, a lot of time the WC doesn't mean anything for Canada/USA. Sure, it's nice to sport your country and all, but there are some players who do decline to play. Has that ever happened in the Olympics (besides Vis, Kipper, ect)? No.

And I mean cmon, Canada never cares about the WC but have won the Olympics 3/5 times since NHL were allowed to participate. I wouldn't be worried if the USA isn't producing at the WC.

 

[JackSlater]

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.

I disagree that USA sends one of the best rosters every year. They have sent some positively putrid rosters. Add in the lack of familiarity with the ice size relative to Europeans and a certain level of apathy for the tournament, and their results are not surprising. I agree that USA could do better, and in that sense USA underperforms in the WC. My point was moreso that it isn't really accurate to judge USA by that tournament.

 

[RandV]

I disagree that USA sends one of the best rosters every year. They have sent some positively putrid rosters. Add in the lack of familiarity with the ice size relative to Europeans and a certain level of apathy for the tournament, and their results are not surprising. I agree that USA could do better, and in that sense USA underperforms in the WC. My point was moreso that it isn't really accurate to judge USA by that tournament.

Yeah I think his memory is a little faulty, or he's basing his opinion only on the last few years as the US has started improving it's depth. It's only been the last 5+ years that they've started sending good teams, before that though it could be AHL quality. Like in 2003 they embarrased themselves with this roster:

U.S.A.
Position Player Club
Goaltenders
Ryan Miller Buffalo Sabres
Chris Rogles Kölner Haie
Damian Rhodes Greenville Grrrowl

Defencemen
Brett Hauer Genève-Servette HC
Mike Mottau Saint John Flames
Jordan Leopold Calgary Flames
Joe Corvo Los Angeles Kings
Phil Housley Toronto Maple Leafs
Jim Fahey San Jose Sharks
John Gruden Eisbären Berlin
Francis Bouillon Montreal Canadiens

Forwards
Matt Cullen Florida Panthers
Kevin Miller HC Davos
John Pohl Worcester Ice Cats
Chris Ferraro Portland Pirates
Ted Drury Hamburg Freezers
Niko Dimitrakos San Jose Sharks
Peter Ferraro Portland Pirates
Adam Hall Nashville Predators
Marty Reasoner Edmonton Oilers
Kelly Fairchild Eisbären Berlin
Craig Johnson Los Angeles Kings
Brad Defauw Carolina Hurricanes
Coaches Lou Vairo
Jay Leach

That team finished 13th and had to play in the relegation round, I'm guessing that after that they smartened up and started taking it a little more seriously.

 

[Fongule]

Bylsma ......

 

[Big Phil]

They haven't underacheived at all in recent years. In 2010 the fact that they took a star-studded Canadian team to overtime in the Gold medal game is remarkable. Just look at that Canadian 2010 roster. 2014 they certainly weren't my gold medal favourite, but weren't a team to take lightly either.

However, the 1996-'02 American teams scared me. Three names that come to mind always made me worried: Brett Hull, Brian Leetch and Mike Richter. Hull always performed in the clutch and Richter while inconsistent always had that unique ability to steal a game right under your nose, like in 1996. And Leetch had that ability to jump up in the rush out of thin air. He always seemed to bring his "A" game. No one on the current US team had near the game breaking ability as them. Patrick Kane perhaps is one that made me a little nervous, but unlike some others Phil Kessel never scares me. I guess as a Leaf fan I am aware of his one-dimension and how easy he can be stopped in an important game. So who does that leave? Kesler? Callahan? Parise? Hmmm. Still a far cry from Modano, Lafontaine, Amonte, Weight, Guerin, Tkachuk and Leclair.

There was an overlap in 1998 or so. If you took the Americans' best defensemen and forwards to fill a team, you could argue that their top end talent was comparable to Canada's. Goalies I would say Canada still had the edge, but not by much. Where as now, there is no way any more than 3 or 4 defensemen and forwards combined crack the Canadian line up. So that's the difference right there.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

There was an overlap in 1998 or so. If you took the Americans' best defensemen and forwards to fill a team, you could argue that their top end talent was comparable to Canada's. Goalies I would say Canada still had the edge, but not by much. Where as now, there is no way any more than 3 or 4 defensemen and forwards combined crack the Canadian line up. So that's the difference right there.

It's pretty crazy to be honest. Everyone always says that the USA will catch Canada one day, and yet the Canadians have actually grown apart from them even more.

Either way, the world itself has caught up to Canada I'd say.

Anyone here think Eichel might change the game for Team USA?

 

[jhoops89]

After 2010 I thought it was bad luck, but now after 2014 I think it's under achievement.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

After 2010 I thought it was bad luck, but now after 2014 I think it's under achievement.

Or, you know, they're not as good as everyone thought.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Or, you know, they're not as good as everyone thought.

Amen!!!!

 

[Big Phil]

It's pretty crazy to be honest. Everyone always says that the USA will catch Canada one day, and yet the Canadians have actually grown apart from them even more.

Either way, the world itself has caught up to Canada I'd say.

Anyone here think Eichel might change the game for Team USA?

I remember in 1996 after the World Cup loss the idea was that Canada had an older core of a team (Gretzky, Coffey, Messier, etc.) and our star players were all getting up there in the NHL while the Americans had a much younger core and it was only a matter of time before the best players in the world were American. It was a little scary to be honest, they could ice a very comparable team to Canada around 1996 or 1998. It was very close to us. Then that core dwindled. Modano, Hull, Amonte, Weight, Roenick, Leclair, Tkachuk, Guerin, Leetch, Suter, Chelios, Richter all got too old and the wave of players that followed them were...............Drury, Gomez and guys like that. None struck a lot of fear in you and the US team seemed to have less firepower than before.

To be honest, they've never made me more scared than the mid to late 1990s. It hasn't improved, it has gone down. Kane, Kessel, Parise, Kesler, Pavelski are all good players but only one of them (Kane) makes the HHOF in the future in my mind. Where as the older American core will have plenty to make it.

 

[Frank the Tank]

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.

The US has what I would term elite centers. What they lack are game-changing superstar centers. It is just a case of USA (in their prime years) icing the likes of Modano, Weight, and Roenick and Canada can still outclass them with the likes of Lindros, Sakic, Lemieux, and Yzerman. Now Canada has Crosby, Stamkos, Getzlaf, Tavares, and Toews (arguably 5 of the 7-8 best centers in the game) and all the US can counter with are the likes of Pavelski, Kessel, and Backes. They always seem to be a tier below.

 

[Xokkeu]

The US has what I would term elite centers. What they lack are game-changing superstar centers. It is just a case of USA (in their prime years) icing the likes of Modano, Weight, and Roenick and Canada can still outclass them with the likes of Lindros, Sakic, Lemieux, and Yzerman. Now Canada has Crosby, Stamkos, Getzlaf, Tavares, and Toews (arguably 5 of the 7-8 best centers in the game) and all the US can counter with are the likes of Pavelski, Kessel, and Backes. They always seem to be a tier below.

Kessel isn't a center. Maybe you meant Kesler.

 

[chunkylover53]

Kessel isn't a center. Maybe you meant Kesler.

He probably meant Kesler. But still, it's staggering and perplexing that they don't have a true megastar center all these years. I mean Backes, Pavelski, Kesler, Statsny, and Stepan were their centers. They aren't bad players but ....

 

[Summer Rose]

Regarding the teams we send to the WC's, David Moss played for the USA last year.


That's right. David Moss.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

They haven't underacheived at all in recent years. In 2010 the fact that they took a star-studded Canadian team to overtime in the Gold medal game is remarkable. Just look at that Canadian 2010 roster. 2014 they certainly weren't my gold medal favourite, but weren't a team to take lightly either.

However, the 1996-'02 American teams scared me. Three names that come to mind always made me worried: Brett Hull, Brian Leetch and Mike Richter. Hull always performed in the clutch and Richter while inconsistent always had that unique ability to steal a game right under your nose, like in 1996. And Leetch had that ability to jump up in the rush out of thin air. He always seemed to bring his "A" game. No one on the current US team had near the game breaking ability as them. Patrick Kane perhaps is one that made me a little nervous, but unlike some others Phil Kessel never scares me. I guess as a Leaf fan I am aware of his one-dimension and how easy he can be stopped in an important game. So who does that leave? Kesler? Callahan? Parise? Hmmm. Still a far cry from Modano, Lafontaine, Amonte, Weight, Guerin, Tkachuk and Leclair.

There was an overlap in 1998 or so. If you took the Americans' best defensemen and forwards to fill a team, you could argue that their top end talent was comparable to Canada's. Goalies I would say Canada still had the edge, but not by much. Where as now, there is no way any more than 3 or 4 defensemen and forwards combined crack the Canadian line up. So that's the difference right there.

When you consider that the 96 USA World Cup team did not have the advantage of playing and practicing together more than anyone else I would have to say that they were the best non Canadian team ever. They beat a highly motivated Team Canada 3 out of 4 times on the small ice and on paper their roster was very, very good. Great tournament too, Chelios and Lindros hated each other, lots of drama.

 

[tony d]

Bad luck, they've done good but have ran into a hot Team Canada on 3 occasions.

 

[Xokkeu]

When you consider that the 96 USA World Cup team did not have the advantage of playing and practicing together more than anyone else I would have to say that they were the best non Canadian team ever. They beat a highly motivated Team Canada 3 out of 4 times on the small ice and on paper their roster was very, very good. Great tournament too, Chelios and Lindros hated each other, lots of drama.

I know Richter played well, but this whole idea that many people seem to have that he's the only reason the US team won the tournament always baffled me. The US beat Canada 3 times and the only game Canada won was in overtime. The US was clearly the better team in 1996 and I think people really forget that. I'd really love to know what happened to the team in 1998, you know the true behind the scenes reasons. As for the Olympics, in 2002, 2010 and 2014 Canada was just the better team, although it was close.

 

[Xokkeu]

He probably meant Kesler. But still, it's staggering and perplexing that they don't have a true megastar center all these years. I mean Backes, Pavelski, Kesler, Statsny, and Stepan were their centers. They aren't bad players but ....

Although I agree with your general point, (if I'm picking, I obviously am taking Crosby, Stamkos, Toews etc over those guys) Pavelski is the 8th highest scoring center in the league. He's near a point per game and plays outstanding in all zones. I think he's very underrated. Sort of tangent point, but...