Has the US underachieved or just had bad luck?

[SanDogBrewin]

Do you think that the only thing the US should take anything away from that game was "well it could have gone our way so we'll keep on doing what we're doing"?

No, the US has to even more than what they have been doing to be the beat the best. NTDP still has plenty of work to do.

 

[Yakushev72]

I simply disagree with the word dominating. I reserve that word for games like USA vs Finland.

You and I and everyone else have acknowledged that Canada had the better of the play, but its a little bit of an end zone dance and an insult to Team USA, who fought very hard to keep the game at a point where one stroke of a stick sends the game into overtime, to suggest that the team that scored one goal over the course of 60 minutes, and who outshot the US by a margin of 37-35, somehow dominated the game. It abandons all objectivity for the sake of subjective patriotism, and sends all logic and reason swirling down the toilet in favor of patriotic cheerleading, as in "Hey, hey...yeah, yeah...we're going to dominate them...Today!!!"

 

[Yakushev72]

You are right that Crosby was effective and an influence on his team but it was mostly in the form of him, as Captain, of buying into and executing their gameplan perfectly. The gameplan was to maximize their advantage of superior talent and depth, especially on D. Take Crosby out and move everyone else up the depth chart and it's hard to envision the result would be any different as long as everyone was on the same page.

There we go with the "superiority" again. Do you expect anybody other than patriotic Canadians to buy off on the concept of Canadian hockey superiority? In a philosophic argument, "superiority" is a fixed and invariable concept. For example, you could argue that if God exists, and God created humanity, then God is superior to all humans who he created.

Let me use a syllogism to disprove the suggestion that Canadian hockey teams are superior to all other hockey teams. If a hockey team is superior, then it wins every game by a margin that reflects its superiority (e.g., in the range of 8-15 goals per game). To illustrate that concept, the late Dick Beddoes of the Toronto Globe and Mail promised prior to the 1972 Series that if Canada didn't win all 8 games by at least 10 goals, that he would eat his column in a bowl of borscht (see the Globe and Mail archives for photos of Beddoes eating newsprint and borscht).

The fact that Canada has not won a World Championship since 2007 proves that Canada is not a superior hockey nation. The fact that Canada hasn't won a World Junior Championship since 2009 proves that Canada is not a superior nation. If you look at the whole spectrum of international hockey, especially in the last 7 or 8 years, Canada actually loses more often than it wins. You can make a strong argument that, in light of the massive resources that Canada throws at hockey, dwarfing expenditures of the rest of the world combined, there is no valid excuse for failing to be superior, and winning every single game by at least 12-15 goals, but the fact is that they are not.

 

[daver]

There we go with the "superiority" again. Do you expect anybody other than patriotic Canadians to buy off on the concept of Canadian hockey superiority? In a philosophic argument, "superiority" is a fixed and invariable concept. For example, you could argue that if God exists, and God created humanity, then God is superior to all humans who he created.

Let me use a syllogism to disprove the suggestion that Canadian hockey teams are superior to all other hockey teams. If a hockey team is superior, then it wins every game by a margin that reflects its superiority (e.g., in the range of 8-15 goals per game). To illustrate that concept, the late Dick Beddoes of the Toronto Globe and Mail promised prior to the 1972 Series that if Canada didn't win all 8 games by at least 10 goals, that he would eat his column in a bowl of borscht (see the Globe and Mail archives for photos of Beddoes eating newsprint and borscht).

The fact that Canada has not won a World Championship since 2007 proves that Canada is not a superior hockey nation. The fact that Canada hasn't won a World Junior Championship since 2009 proves that Canada is not a superior nation. If you look at the whole spectrum of international hockey, especially in the last 7 or 8 years, Canada actually loses more often than it wins. You can make a strong argument that, in light of the massive resources that Canada throws at hockey, dwarfing expenditures of the rest of the world combined, there is no valid excuse for failing to be superior, and winning every single game by at least 12-15 goals, but the fact is that they are not.

Holy ****! Easy there.

So not winning by 12 - 15 goals = not superior, makes sense to me.

As I said, their game plan was to take advantage of what they thought was their superior talent and depth and I would say that it worked, wouldn't you?

 

[Yakushev72]

Holy ****! Easy there.

So not winning by 12 - 15 goals = not superior, makes sense to me.

As I said, their game plan was to take advantage of what they thought was their superior talent and depth and I would say that it worked, wouldn't you?

I would agree that Canada was the best coached team, and had the best game plan. This is reflected in playing really smart hockey along the way, and being one of the two most highly motivated teams, along side Finland. IMO, they also featured the consensus No. 1 hockey player in the World in Sidney Crosby, who I considered to be absolutely causal regarding their success.

I totally reject the obviously false premise that Canada had superior depth and talent. They had only two dominant performances, one against Austria, by far the worst team in the tournament, and Sweden, although the margin of victory was only three goals. It is totally ludicrous to claim superiority over other teams, and then offer 1-0 and 2-1 games as evidence of superiority. If you are superior to another team, you are going to win games by double figures, such as 12-0.

 

[Frank the Tank]

The bar for Canadian success always moves higher. I guess a Canadian gold medal performance will not be truly impressive until Canada wins in an Olympics hosted in Asia, using the hybrid Finnish ice dimensions, missing Crosby in addition to Stamkos and Tavares (or the equivalent top-3 centers), and each margin of victory is by no less than 8 goals all the while using European referees who once a had poor vacation experience visiting Canada. This win must also represent a 10th straight victory for Canada at all levels of hockey. Then we can say Canada has earned their spot as the top hockey nation.

With the bar so low in comparison, how can one claim that the US has underachieved?

 

[Yakushev72]

The bar for Canadian success always moves higher. I guess a Canadian gold medal performance will not be truly impressive until Canada wins in an Olympics hosted in Asia, using the hybrid Finnish ice dimensions, missing Crosby in addition to Stamkos and Tavares (or the equivalent top-3 centers), and each margin of victory is by no less than 8 goals all the while using European referees who once a had poor vacation experience visiting Canada. This win must also represent a 10th straight victory for Canada at all levels of hockey. Then we can say Canada has earned their spot as the top hockey nation.

With the bar so low in comparison, how can one claim that the US has underachieved?

It seems like you are changing the conversation altogether by using term "impressive" as a substitute for "superior." I could live with the description of Canadian performance in Sochi as "impressive." That lowers the bar considerably from the inflated terminology used by your compatriot.

 

[daver]

I would agree that Canada was the best coached team, and had the best game plan. This is reflected in playing really smart hockey along the way, and being one of the two most highly motivated teams, along side Finland. IMO, they also featured the consensus No. 1 hockey player in the World in Sidney Crosby, who I considered to be absolutely causal regarding their success.

I totally reject the obviously false premise that Canada had superior depth and talent. They had only two dominant performances, one against Austria, by far the worst team in the tournament, and Sweden, although the margin of victory was only three goals. It is totally ludicrous to claim superiority over other teams, and then offer 1-0 and 2-1 games as evidence of superiority. If you are superior to another team, you are going to win games by double figures, such as 12-0.

I thought 2014 would finally shut the rhetoric down for awhile. I guess not.

Keep fighting the good fight!

 

[SanDogBrewin]

It seems like you are changing the conversation altogether by using term "impressive" as a substitute for "superior." I could live with the description of Canadian performance in Sochi as "impressive." That lowers the bar considerably from the inflated terminology used by your compatriot.

Yes it was "impressive" but this thread is about wanting to hear "Canada dominated". The 2002 Gold Medal game was a "superior" win. You can hear n see that in JRs quote after the game. But not 2010 and 2014.

Interesting how much they fish for superiority

"This win must also represent a 10th straight victory for Canada at all levels of hockey"

What levels ? against which countries ?

 

[Yakushev72]

Yes it was "impressive" but this thread is about wanting to hear "Canada dominated". The 2002 Gold Medal game was a "superior" win. You can hear n see that in JRs quote after the game. But not 2010 and 2014.

Interesting how much they fish for superiority

"This win must also represent a 10th straight victory for Canada at all levels of hockey"

What levels ? against which countries ?

It sure seemed to me that the US fully outplayed Canada in Vancouver. How do you keep a straight face in describing a 1-0 win in Sochi as being "dominant?" I have to attribute the hyperbole to the "mirror, mirror on the wall" factor, especially considering the massive financial and other resource outlay that Canada devotes to hockey.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Yes it was "impressive" but this thread is about wanting to hear "Canada dominated". The 2002 Gold Medal game was a "superior" win. You can hear n see that in JRs quote after the game. But not 2010 and 2014.

Interesting how much they fish for superiority

"This win must also represent a 10th straight victory for Canada at all levels of hockey"

What levels ? against which countries ?

My use of excessive hyperbole to make the point that a detractor can always find flaws in victory seems to have escaped your notice.

As I mentioned previously, Canada winning 1-0 over the US was a close game on the score board, and yet many people who watched the game (including myself) felt that the score flattered the Americans. Unlike certain posters have postulated, the media sources linked previously have demonstrated that this is not a view that is held purely within Canada. Indeed, although this contrasting viewpoint supposedly has not been provided from your pre-approved (and still anonymous) hockey news sources, it does exist in numerous American media sources.

overall, Canada won gold in 2014 in the most dominant performance we have witnessed since the NHL attended starting in 1998. By winning outside NA, on European ice dimensions, going undefeated, and winning back-to-back gold medals a lot of previous criticisms of Hockey Canada were muted. Whether this performance qualifies as "impressive," "superior," or "dominant" under ones personal adjective rankings will have us running around in circles.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I would agree that Canada was the best coached team, and had the best game plan. This is reflected in playing really smart hockey along the way, and being one of the two most highly motivated teams, along side Finland. IMO, they also featured the consensus No. 1 hockey player in the World in Sidney Crosby, who I considered to be absolutely causal regarding their success.

I totally reject the obviously false premise that Canada had superior depth and talent. They had only two dominant performances, one against Austria, by far the worst team in the tournament, and Sweden, although the margin of victory was only three goals. It is totally ludicrous to claim superiority over other teams, and then offer 1-0 and 2-1 games as evidence of superiority. If you are superior to another team, you are going to win games by double figures, such as 12-0.

Russia wasn't motivated? at home and after failing so badly in Vancouver while getting blown out by their arch rival?

You cannot tell me they were not motivated, they just weren't very good.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

It sure seemed to me that the US fully outplayed Canada in Vancouver. How do you keep a straight face in describing a 1-0 win in Sochi as being "dominant?" I have to attribute the hyperbole to the "mirror, mirror on the wall" factor, especially considering the massive financial and other resource outlay that Canada devotes to hockey.

They fully outplayed Canada in vancouver did they?

So why don't they have gold from those games then?.

There is always a slant with why Canada won to some of you.

1. It's nhl sized ice

2.it's at home

3.it's on the same continent

4. it's NHL refs

5.other teams had injuries

6. no one else had good coaching

7. Canada had better coaching.

8. it was on big ice and and overseas but they did not win 10-0

8. the sun was shining.

9. the sun wasn't shining

increase the list.

It doesn't matter how or where or when they win............there is a logical reason why they won and it has nothing to do with being the better team.

The only time a team deservedly wins is when Canada doesn't.

40 years of winning the most and there is still always an excuse for why.


Can you please tell me at what point and by what means a Canadian win ever becomes deserved in your view?

I want to pin guys like you down to something so we will have a barometer to strive for that we can reach in order to know we have finally done it.

Because simply winning apparently is not enough for one team in particular.

They need to do something EXTRA, something big.

We just don't know what it is yet.

 

[FiLe]

Give Finland their fair due. They dominated Russia, the United States, and only lost to Sweden because Rask was sick and missed the game, which forced them to use a backup goalie whose poor performance kept them out of the Gold Medal game. If I recall correctly, they played Canada to a standstill and only lost in overtime, if my memory serves me correctly. {I haven't researched the facts, so I can't say with certainty that Finland and Canada even played each other, but I seem to recall that scenario}

Finland lost the semi to Sweden due to poor scoring. Our guys only found the net once, and even that was a lucky bounce from Lundqvist's backside. We were missing some key forwards, and that was our downfall.

And that "poor backup" was Kari Lehtonen, a guy who would have been in contention for the starter job in every other team out there. He allowed two, neither of which was exactly a big softy.

Yes, Finland in other circumstances Finland could have well won that game, but not for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[Xokkeu]

That game wasn't even complete domination as it was a fairly even 1st period

Complete domination are Sharks-Oilers games where the Sharks have 60 SOG but lose 2-0

Yeah that game was truly just a team having a couple of bad breaks go against them and just quit. UP until Finland went up 2-0 the game was pretty close. Then you have Kane miss two Penalties, a bad goal and a lapse in concentration and the team just quit playing.

 

[Xokkeu]

My use of excessive hyperbole to make the point that a detractor can always find flaws in victory seems to have escaped your notice.

As I mentioned previously, Canada winning 1-0 over the US was a close game on the score board, and yet many people who watched the game (including myself) felt that the score flattered the Americans. Unlike certain posters have postulated, the media sources linked previously have demonstrated that this is not a view that is held purely within Canada. Indeed, although this contrasting viewpoint supposedly has not been provided from your pre-approved (and still anonymous) hockey news sources, it does exist in numerous American media sources.

overall, Canada won gold in 2014 in the most dominant performance we have witnessed since the NHL attended starting in 1998. By winning outside NA, on European ice dimensions, going undefeated, and winning back-to-back gold medals a lot of previous criticisms of Hockey Canada were muted. Whether this performance qualifies as "impressive," "superior," or "dominant" under ones personal adjective rankings will have us running around in circles.

Definitely the most impressive performance in the Olympics since 1998. I'd rate the games in terms of how much Canada carried the play in this order

Austria
Latvia
Norway
Sweden
Finland
USA

Finland and the US played Canada pretty close. You see it on the scoreboard, with the Latvia game being a true outlier in score vs possessive control. The US had enough chances in their game that they conceivably could have won the game or even sent it to OT, even though it lost the possessive battle. Finland was obviously one bounce from winning. Canada was the best team, deserved to win, but this wasn't the Harlem Globetrotters on ice Sochi 14.

 

[Xokkeu]

Finland lost the semi to Sweden due to poor scoring. Our guys only found the net once, and even that was a lucky bounce from Lundqvist's backside. We were missing some key forwards, and that was our downfall.

And that "poor backup" was Kari Lehtonen, a guy who would have been in contention for the starter job in every other team out there. He allowed two, neither of which was exactly a big softy.

Yes, Finland in other circumstances Finland could have well won that game, but not for the reasons you mentioned.

Never saw a replay but I was in the stadium and I thought he gave up a soft one to Karlsson.

 

[fmrdh]

I think if USA played Sweden in an all or nothing game, they would win.

 

[daver]

Finland and the US played Canada pretty close. You see it on the scoreboard, with the Latvia game being a true outlier in score vs possessive control. The US had enough chances in their game that they conceivably could have won the game or even sent it to OT, even though it lost the possessive battle. Finland was obviously one bounce from winning. Canada was the best team, deserved to win, but this wasn't the Harlem Globetrotters on ice Sochi 14.

This seems like circular logic. They only them played them close because that's what the score indicated. Other than that, they didn't play them particularly close, Finland more so than the US. And I thought the US game was the best game I had ever seen out of a NHL-era Team Canada.

I don't think TC would have an issue generating more goals if the situation dictated it. For the most part, the situation didn't require it.

 

[daver]

It sure seemed to me that the US fully outplayed Canada in Vancouver. How do you keep a straight face in describing a 1-0 win in Sochi as being "dominant?" I have to attribute the hyperbole to the "mirror, mirror on the wall" factor, especially considering the massive financial and other resource outlay that Canada devotes to hockey.

Maybe I misreading your comment or maybe this is a cultural thing but you realize that the amount of players, time and money put into hockey does have not anything to do with the government right?

We win because hockey is part of our culture and we have pride in being the best.

 

[FiLe]

Never saw a replay but I was in the stadium and I thought he gave up a soft one to Karlsson.

Whether he did or not, I'd still say it's hard to say if one deserves a slot in the GMG if one struggles with scoring and therefore essentially needs to rely on the goalie posting a shutout to get there.

Don't get me wrong, I would have taken it (as I would have taken the hypothetical gold medal if achieved that way), but I'd hardly call it a dominant effort. Same goes, of course, for other countries as well. It doesn't really matter who has the puck possession if they can't bury it. Even if Canada didn't exactly need to ride on Price the same way Finland needed Rask, their win against the US was hardly the clinic some people seem eager to paint it to be.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

Unlike certain posters have postulated, the media sources linked previously have demonstrated that this is not a view that is held purely within Canada. (and still anonymous) hockey news sources, it does exist in numerous American media sources.

Lot of previous criticisms of Hockey Canada were muted.

If you want to believe that Sports Illustrated and the NY Times are good sources for hockey in the US that is up to you, they are most certainly not. Open up an SI, any one, and view there one page coverage of it's favorite sport - the NHL. That is an NFL, MLB and College Sports magazine. New Yorkers open up the Times to read about politics, arts, Theater, crossword puzzles and lame opinion pieces. Reminds me of Globe baseball and football writers venturing over into the unknown to criticize sports teams they nothing about. That's like Steven A trying to talk about hockey.

Who was criticizing Canadian Hockey right before the Olympics ?

Most certainly not me. 1-0 is and always will be 1-0, no matter how you slice it.

 

[JackSlater]

We win because hockey is part of our culture and we have pride in being the best.

... which in turn leads to Canada investing much more into hockey than any other nation. Canada is quite comfortably the best hockey nation, but it is much more a function of math than anything else.

 

[Yakushev72]

Russia wasn't motivated? at home and after failing so badly in Vancouver while getting blown out by their arch rival?

You cannot tell me they were not motivated, they just weren't very good.

Russia hasn't been good enough to compete for an Olympic medal since 1998, when
the last of the Soviet-era kids were still in their prime. The fact that Canadians still obsess on Russia as being their only real rival is testament to the impact that the Soviets made in the 70's and 80's.

And yes, motivation was a huge problem for Russia in Sochi. The Russians played a very spirited game against the United States, but the US is considered by Russians to be their main rival. Stop accepting the pre-packaged, lazy pablum that NA announcers feed you about the Russians (e.g., "the Russians are going to be really pumped to play in Russia"), because the so-called passion and hunger for a medal was never really there.

Of course, of equal importance was the fact that Russia didn't really have a good enough team to compete for a medal there. However, I would say that Russia would have quite likely been highly motivated to play Canada, because Canada was favored by everyone to win. Since anything can happen when emotion and passion is there, Canada may have caught a break by not having been scheduled to play Russia.

There is no rivalry at all for Russia with Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Norway, and in all of those games, Russia showed no intensity at all. Finland is very good at executing its defense-only strategy, but its really hard to get motivated to play the Finns when they just trap, trap, trap to slow the game down to a halt. The introduction of junior leagues and expanded pro leagues in Russia should help down the road, but for now, I'm the first to admit that Russia just isn't very good.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Anyone else feeling a post-Olympic depression??? Even the NHL playoffs aren't giving me a lift. I need a quality international tournament to give me my fix and the World Championships and U-18's won't cut it.