Has the US underachieved or just had bad luck?
- Thread starter Canuckistani
- Start date
Last edited by a moderator:
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
False: In 1996 Canada had the much better team.
False: A 1-0 is never domination. You read too much Canadian media hype. I give you an "A" patriotism.
Your last statement is absolute hilarity coming from you
Including an exhibition game, the U.S. beat us 3 out of 4 games.
I disagree.
Your last statement is absolute hilarity coming from you
It made me smile, too.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
I feel the 2010 team was better than both teams. In 2002 Canada destroyed the US. If the USDL plateaued then they wouldn't win GOLD at the Junior levels or medaled at last years Mens WC.
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
The idea that the U.S. depth will be tested by 2018 due to age/injury is a fallacy. We have great depth at wing, on defense, and in goal and that will only get better. The lack of a superstar center is vexing but Galchenyuk will be a good one.
Backes, Brown, Kesler, Parise, Pavelski, Statsny will all be 33 or 34. Brown, Kesler, Parise and Statsny have already lost a step (or even two). That's concerning considering I don't see any U.S. players, since the 2008 draft, close to the same level as those six.
Only 4 of the 13 forwards you took to Sochi will be under the age of 30 in Korea. Considering you didn't have even one forward, 30 or over in 2014, that can't be ignored.
I am not sure what you mean by "tested". Will the U.S. be one of the better teams? Of course - Sweden, Finland and Russia will all have trouble replacing their aging stars. Will the gap between Canada and the U.S. be far greater in 2018 than it was in 2014??? As Marv Albert would say... YES!!!
Anyway.... prove me wrong. Educate me. As I have said to others, I love a good "List".
Last edited by a moderator:
KeepCalmandCorsiOn
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2013
- 683
- 0
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,814
- 15,486
USA has a roster that should enable them to finish at least on par with the countries other than Canada, particularly Finland. This is especially true when USA is probably the healthiest team in the tournament. Semi finals is an appropriate finish though. I don't think it's relevant to consider the third place game results when the two countries clearly have very different perspectives on a bronze medal, rightly or wrongly.
toewsintangibles
Leadership analyst
- Dec 23, 2012
- 1,541
- 123
Frank the Tank
The Godfather
False: In 1996 Canada had the much better team.
False: A 1-0 is never domination. You read too much Canadian media hype. I give you an "A" patriotism.
Your last statement is absolute hilarity coming from you
I agree that a one goal game is not a dominating win by definition; however, the word can still be applied to a game where one team exerted control over a significant majority of the game. This perception was not all Canadian media hype. I watched all the Olympic games on the NBC networks and I heard the words one-sided and domination come out of the mouths of numerous commentators and broadcast personnel (Olczyk, Milbury, Roenick, McGuire). Most of them attributed the close score to Quick making numerous big saves.
i think we've only under achieved in 1998. we made the gold medal game in 2 of the other games, lost a semifinal by a goal, and weren't very good in 2006. 98 team was stacked on paper and woefully underachieved, but i cant say that about any other team we've had.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
I agree, Finland always finds ways to grind out big games at all age levels. There U20 win this year was pretty awesome too watch. Especially against there hated rivals in the Gold Medal game.
I really don't think NHL players are going to be allowed to back to be honest. I also like the idea of the World Cup coming back. The last two were a lot of fun to watch.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
Gotta give Price some credit as well. He played really great that game and the whole tournament.
Not to take anything away from Price but after the first 10 minutes of the 1st period he really didn't have to do much else in that semi game against the U.S, he faced little quality chances from the U.S for the next 50 minutes of the game.Maybe if he lets in some of those early quality chances it becomes a different game but the fact that he didn't is where Prices good play came into effect.
That game was proof that 1-0 games can indeed be whitewashes.If you didn't watch the game you would think it was a close game but if you watched it it was a total one sided affair dominant victory.
That game was proof that 1-0 games can indeed be whitewashes.If you didn't watch the game you would think it was a close game but if you watched it it was a total one sided affair dominant victory.
Rankings aren't fixed - they can change from year to year - but, with primary emphasis on the Olympics and the WJC in 2014, I would rank the US as tied with Russia for 4th place. Canada is No. 1 based on the Olympics, with Finland and Sweden tied for 2nd (giving Sweden the benefit of the doubt).
I realize that I'm calling a lot of ties, but I don't see a sufficient basis to rank Sweden over Finland or the US over Russia. One obvious consideration is that the US did not medal in either the Olympics or the WJC. Also, despite the unbelievable performance by T. J. Oshie in the Shootout against Russia, there is really no convincing basis, in my view, to rank the US ahead of Russia. I do have some reservations about using the Olympics as the dominant factor in ratings, because contending teams generally separate themselves on the basis of a single game.
I realize that I'm calling a lot of ties, but I don't see a sufficient basis to rank Sweden over Finland or the US over Russia. One obvious consideration is that the US did not medal in either the Olympics or the WJC. Also, despite the unbelievable performance by T. J. Oshie in the Shootout against Russia, there is really no convincing basis, in my view, to rank the US ahead of Russia. I do have some reservations about using the Olympics as the dominant factor in ratings, because contending teams generally separate themselves on the basis of a single game.
I would love to have you convince me that it is at least theoretically possible to have a 1-0 game as a "one sided affair dominant victory." To me, that's a contradiction in terms, especially the part about a team that was only able to finish once in an entire game being dominant.
I was one who did watch the game, and while I could accept the premise that Canada got the better of the play, it is never dominant when literally one stroke of the stick puts the game into overtime and a possible shootout.
It seems to be a constant Canadian refrain, that the US goalies are the only reason the game was even close. We heard the same thing in 2010 that the only reason the game was close was Ryan Miller, even though shots were 39-36 for Canada and the US team was one of the highest scoring teams in the tournament. We hear the same thing that Canada owned the US in the 2014 game, again despite the shot count being 37-31, showing the game was pretty close. The US had some good scoring chances but couldn't convert.
Domination in a one goal game is more like the 57 shots to 16 that Canada had vs Latvia. Or the 36 to 24 shot count with a corresponding 3-0 win over Sweden.
This whole non sense of a domination by Canada is simply a myth perpetrated by their fans where winning isn't enough, they need their team to fit the role their assign to them in their mythology. That they are a dominate unstoppable force, instead of just the team that beat a bunch of other good teams.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,814
- 15,486
Maybe you're right, Xokkeu. Maybe you're right.
Ah yes, the spin is on. Fans who were watching the game at the time, including American fans, were pretty clear in their assessment of the game, and there was basically agreement that the 1-0 score was very flattering to the American team. As was the media, including the American media. I think they are all part of the Canadian conspiracy as well. Fake American accounts set up on this website for Canadian propaganda and Canadian moles in American media.
Frank the Tank
The Godfather
It is not just Canadians portraying the 2014 match this way. As I said previously, I watched all the Olympic hockey on NBC networks and the American broadcast personalities were also conceding that the 1-0 score flattered the USA. IIRC, in post-game interviews a few US players even mentioned that Canada significantly outplayed them. That was not the case in 2010 where Canada controlled the pace of the gold medal game until they went up 2-0 and decided to sit back and defend the lead and the US took over the flow of play, eventually tying the game 2-2 to force OT.
Here is an article from an American news source:
Washington Post
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
When the US plays well "there goalie stood on there head". Set your watch to that.
Good to see someone come here with an unbiased approach. 1-0 games, in any sport, are never domination
Look Canada played the better game and deservedly won, but this idea that the US was dominated like Latvia is simply off.
