Has U20 WJC turned from a development tournament into a national pride one?

[Joe Zanussi]

I think Jack Slater has been remarkably composed and fair throughout this discussion. It seems pretty clear that Canada has, over the years, had more players who couldn't play in this tourney because they were playing in the nhl. It seems logical to assume they would've won some more games had those guys been here...we cant say how many more games or medals, for sure, but it doesnt seem like he's crazy in his premise.

Often times, the best team doesnt win. But better players increase your odds.

 

[Yakushev72]

I think Jack Slater has been remarkably composed and fair throughout this discussion. It seems pretty clear that Canada has, over the years, had more players who couldn't play in this tourney because they were playing in the nhl. It seems logical to assume they would've won some more games had those guys been here...we cant say how many more games or medals, for sure, but it doesnt seem like he's crazy in his premise.

Often times, the best team doesnt win. But better players increase your odds.

"Assumption" of the kind you describe seems to be critically important to Canadians for ego support. In a way, it kind of allows you to win while the final scores say you lost.

Of course I agree that the best team doesn't always win! But it seems as though, when Canada does win, that you never hear anyone say "maybe we weren't the best team, but I'm happy we won anyway.

 

[JackSlater]

"Assumption" of the kind you describe seems to be critically important to Canadians for ego support. In a way, it kind of allows you to win while the final scores say you lost.

Of course I agree that the best team doesn't always win! But it seems as though, when Canada does win, that you never hear anyone say "maybe we weren't the best team, but I'm happy we won anyway.

I am 99% sure that Canada was not the best team at the 1993 WJC. It was a complete fluke that Sweden didn't win that tournament. I'm pretty sure that USSR had a better team than Canada did at the 1990 tournament too. I'm also very open to considering that Canada wasn't the best team at the 1991, 2006 and 2007 tournaments despite winning them. These are just a few off the top of my head. There you go!

 

[jj cale]

[QUOTE="JackSlater, post: 138075209, member: 101963"]I am 99% sure that Canada was not the best team at the 1993 WJC. It was a complete fluke that Sweden didn't win that tournament. I'm pretty sure that USSR had a better team than Canada did at the 1990 tournament too. I'm also very open to considering that Canada wasn't the best team at the 1991, 2006 and 2007 tournaments despite winning them. These are just a few off the top of my head. There you go![/QUOTE]


It wasn't a complete fluke , it was Manny Legace standing on his head in the game we played against them. For all intents and purposes that was the gold medal game.

We had some real great players on that team too, it is an underrated team. They were talented, got clutch goaltending and had a lot of heart, probably my favourite Team Canada at the world junors ever. Big underdog young team led mostly by guys in their draft year. Very proud of that team..........they earned it all the way.

 

[JackSlater]

It wasn't a complete fluke , it was Manny Legace standing on his head in the game we played against them. For all intents and purposes that was the gold medal game.

We had some real great players on that team too, it is an underrated team. They were talented, got clutch goaltending and had a lot of heart, probably my favourite Team Canada at the world junors ever. Big underdog young team led mostly by guys in their draft year. Very proud of that team..........they earned it all the way.

I agree for the most part, but when you won because Many Legace stood on his head... that's a fluke. It was a decently talented team but the best players weren't even drafted yet. Kariya, Pronger, Daigle, Gratton, all 1993 draft picks.

 

[jj cale]

I agree for the most part, but when you won because Many Legace stood on his head... that's a fluke. It was a decently talented team but the best players weren't even drafted yet. Kariya, Pronger, Daigle, Gratton, all 1993 draft picks.

I don't agree with that, we had tremendous pressure on them all game too, it was no one sided affair at all........the goals we scored proved it. Our goaltender was better then theirs, last time I checked the goalie is part of the team right? we may as well do away with the goalies and just leave the nets wide open and let the team with the skaters who score the most goals on a net without someone trying to stop the puck win if they aren't.

No fluke, we were better and won.



Before the game Forsberg mouthed off Canada was not good and that sweden was going to beat us...........................he was wrong.

and we earned it all the way, no question about it.

Remember the game well, earned it all the way Jack.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't agree with that, we had tremendous pressure on them all game too, it was no one sided affair at all........the goals we scored proved it. Our goaltender was better then theirs, last time I checked the goalie is part of the team right? we may as well do away with the goalies and just leave the nets wide open and let the team with the skaters who score the most goals on a net without someone trying to stop the puck win if they aren't.

No fluke, we were better and won.

Before the game Forsberg mouthed off Canada was not good and that sweden was going to beat us...........................he was wrong.

and we earned it all the way, no question about it.

Remember the game well, earned it all the way Jack.

I remember it as well, Sweden was the better team, Legace just had the week of his life. If the goaltender had been Hasek or Roy or something I may not consider it a fluke, but that was Legace playing way above his natural level. Sweden outplayed Canada but the team that plays better doesn't always win. I would guess that if those two teams played 10 times, Sweden would win 8 times. I'm glad about how it all turned out though.

 

[jj cale]

I remember it as well, Sweden was the better team, Legace just had the week of his life. If the goaltender had been Hasek or Roy or something I may not consider it a fluke, but that was Legace playing way above his natural level. Sweden outplayed Canada but the team that plays better doesn't always win. I would guess that if those two teams played 10 times, Sweden would win 8 times. I'm glad about how it all turned out though.

Still disagree, aside from the Forsberg line that swedish team really wasn't all that great. Pretty leaky defense and guys like Kariya, Girard etc made them pay. Canada had lots of talent. Did Swedens skaters have a bit better of the play? yes I think they did but it wasn't like some 70% better of play, more like 55-60%. And obviously our goalie was far better and as I said....................he's part of the team.

That swedish team was a great offensive team both in forwards and on the backend but it had holes and pretty big ones you can't afford in these tournaments, they werent great defensively as a team and had a below average goalie, we exposed that.

Canada deserved to win and did. you make it sound like Legace was Andre racicot, he wasn't, he went on to have a real respectable NHL career.No fluke to this guy, guess we will have to disagree here.

 

[JackSlater]

Still disagree, aside from the Forsberg line that swedish team really wasn't all that great. Pretty leaky defense and guys like Kariya, Girard etc made them pay. Canada had lots of talent. Did Swedens skaters have a bit better of the play? yes I think they did but it wasn't like some 70% better of play, more like 55-60%. And obviously our goalie was far better and as I said....................he's part of the team.

That swedish team was a great offensive team both in forwards and on the backend but it had holes and pretty big ones you can't afford in these tournaments, they werent great defensively as a team and had a below average goalie, we exposed that.

Canada deserved to win and did. you make it sound like Legace was Andre racicot, he wasn't, he went on to have a real respectable NHL career.No fluke to this guy, guess we will have to disagree here.

I'm not going to pursue this anymore unless a thread about that specific tournament is made, but going by what you are saying there are basically no flukes. Legace is part of the team, but he played well above his level in that tournament and specifically in that game. That is a fluke, just like a random fourth liner scoring a hat trick would be a fluke. This allegedly Swedish defence allowed fewer goals than the Canadian defence did, and their team scored more goals by a fair amount (even if you remove both teams' games against Japan). They beat Canada by three goals in a pre-tournament game, without Forsberg, and then outplayed Canada handily in the game they did play. Manny Legace played exceptionally, but also exceptionally above his ability. If Legace gave a normal performance Sweden wins that game and takes the gold medal. I'm glad Canada won, but I'm not going to pretend that it was the best team that year. Add In Lindros, Niedermayer and company and it may well have been though.

 

[jj cale]

I'm not going to pursue this anymore unless a thread about that specific tournament is made, but going by what you are saying there are basically no flukes. Legace is part of the team, but he played well above his level in that tournament and specifically in that game. That is a fluke, just like a random fourth liner scoring a hat trick would be a fluke. This allegedly Swedish defence allowed fewer goals than the Canadian defence did, and their team scored more goals by a fair amount (even if you remove both teams' games against Japan). They beat Canada by three goals in a pre-tournament game, without Forsberg, and then outplayed Canada handily in the game they did play. Manny Legace played exceptionally, but also exceptionally above his ability. If Legace gave a normal performance Sweden wins that game and takes the gold medal. I'm glad Canada won, but I'm not going to pretend that it was the best team that year. Add In Lindros, Niedermayer and company and it may well have been though.

Don't agree but as you said.....we won't pursue it further in this thread about a different matter.

 

[pulverapa]

WJC-mania in Sweden kicked off in 2007 and from that point it has grown to huge proportions. It's a combination of improvements of the junior hockey program, great coverage from national television, success, and a great time of the year to have a tournament on.

 

[garbageteam]

Weirdly for me the worlds now take on an uber significance. It's now the only senior level international hockey we have left.

It's still plenty significant and enjoyable for me... but unlike the Olympics or even the WJC there's just no one interested in talking about it or even watching it in a bar with me save for a few forum-goers on a corner of HFBoards.

 

[Xokkeu]

It's still plenty significant and enjoyable for me... but unlike the Olympics or even the WJC there's just no one interested in talking about it or even watching it in a bar with me save for a few forum-goers on a corner of HFBoards.

Yeah ditto. I've started making the worlds an annual trip because I love hockey and I think Europe is absolutely lovely in May.

 

[Zegras Zebra]

To get back on track a little bit, the World Juniors can be seen as both a national pride tournament, as well as seen as a measuring stick to evaluate prospects (if not to "develop talent"). For most fans of the tournament it is their first opportunity to be introduced to the next generation of NHL players and get a sense of how they will play in the next level. It has become an annual tradition that for many is more exciting and looked forward to than Christmas and/ or New Years Eve. Of course any time one country plays against another in any sport there is a significant amount of national pride and the World Juniors are no exception to that rule.

 

[86Habs]

I agree for the most part, but when you won because Many Legace stood on his head... that's a fluke. It was a decently talented team but the best players weren't even drafted yet. Kariya, Pronger, Daigle, Gratton, all 1993 draft picks.

Not to derail the thread, but one could also look at the 2004 loss to the Americans, largely related to Fleury's mishandling of the puck, as a fluke. A goaltender of Fleury's quality comes up with that play 95% of the time. At this level, you win some and you lose some.

With respect to 1993, I'd wager Sweden would beat Canada 7 or 8 times out of 10, which is more to do with the abnormally high quality of the Swedish team that year than any sort of off-year for Canada. I rewatched that game last Christmas and of the undrafted players, really only Kariya and Pronger were key pieces. True to the style of Canadian teams of that era, there were a couple of good junior scorers and a bunch of two-way guys like Lapointe, Wright, McAmmond, Lafayette, and Shantz who led the team. There were an ungodly number of penalties, which unfortunately resulted in a fairly choppy game.

 

[JackSlater]

Not to derail the thread, but one could also look at the 2004 loss to the Americans, largely related to Fleury's mishandling of the puck, as a fluke. A goaltender of Fleury's quality comes up with that play 95% of the time. At this level, you win some and you lose some.

With respect to 1993, I'd wager Sweden would beat Canada 7 or 8 times out of 10, which is more to do with the abnormally high quality of the Swedish team that year than any sort of off-year for Canada. I rewatched that game last Christmas and of the undrafted players, really only Kariya and Pronger were key pieces. True to the style of Canadian teams of that era, there were a couple of good junior scorers and a bunch of two-way guys like Lapointe, Wright, McAmmond, Lafayette, and Shantz who led the team. There were an ungodly number of penalties, which unfortunately resulted in a fairly choppy game.

The 2004 loss to USA is something of an inverse as I am very confident that Sweden was better in 1993 and that Canada was better in 2004, though I think that the gap between Sweden and Canada was bigger than the gap between Canada and USA. Fleury's gaffe was pretty bad, but honestly he wasn't that good in the tournament or in that game outside of that moment. I thought that it should have been a 3-1 game. There are always going to be fluke wins and losses over the course of decades.

 

[DDRhockey]

[QUOTE="JackSlater, post: 138075209, member: 101963"]I am 99% sure that Canada was not the best team at the 1993 WJC. It was a complete fluke that Sweden didn't win that tournament. I'm pretty sure that USSR had a better team than Canada did at the 1990 tournament too. I'm also very open to considering that Canada wasn't the best team at the 1991, 2006 and 2007 tournaments despite winning them. These are just a few off the top of my head. There you go!

It wasn't a complete fluke , it was Manny Legace standing on his head in the game we played against them. For all intents and purposes that was the gold medal game.

We had some real great players on that team too, it is an underrated team. They were talented, got clutch goaltending and had a lot of heart, probably my favourite Team Canada at the world junors ever. Big underdog young team led mostly by guys in their draft year. Very proud of that team..........they earned it all the way.[/QUOTE]
It was round robin only no playoffs. Kinda ridicilous way to crown a winner. Sweden was better that year.

 

[jj cale]

It wasn't a complete fluke , it was Manny Legace standing on his head in the game we played against them. For all intents and purposes that was the gold medal game.

We had some real great players on that team too, it is an underrated team. They were talented, got clutch goaltending and had a lot of heart, probably my favourite Team Canada at the world junors ever. Big underdog young team led mostly by guys in their draft year. Very proud of that team..........they earned it all the way.

It was round robin only no playoffs. Kinda ridicilous way to crown a winner. Sweden was better that year.[/QUOTE]


Apparently not, they didn't win.

 

[DDRhockey]

It was round robin only no playoffs. Kinda ridicilous way to crown a winner. Sweden was better that year.

Apparently not, they didn't win.[/QUOTE]
Actually they tied canada and lost the gold on tiebreaker which is more ridicilous.

 

[jj cale]

Apparently not, they didn't win.

Actually they tied canada and lost the gold on tiebreaker which is more ridicilous.[/QUOTE]


No, if Sweden beats us they don't have to worry about this ridiculous tiebreaker you speak of, they control their own destiny............but they didn't, they lost to us didn't they? I mean if they were so great and all and they were robbed of this title as a few of you seem to think we should have been been pushed aside and they would have danced on to the gold as they layed beatings on such powerhouses as Japan.

But they didn't beat us and this myth that it was Legace and only Legace turning into Jesus is what is ridiculous.......................we scored 5 f***in goals on them that game!!!

And Legace didn't score a single one of them. I won't stand here and let that team be disrespected, they EARNED that gold.

 

[DDRhockey]

Actually they tied canada and lost the gold on tiebreaker which is more ridicilous.

No, if Sweden beats us they don't have to worry about this ridiculous tiebreaker you speak of, they control their own destiny............but they didn't, they lost to us didn't they? I mean if they were so great and all and they were robbed of this title as a few of you seem to think we should have been been pushed aside and they would have danced on to the gold as they layed beatings on such powerhouses as Japan.

But they didn't beat and this myth that it was Legace and only Legace turning into Jesus is what is ridiculous.......................we scored 5 ****in goals on them that game!!!

And Legace didn't score a single one of them. I won't stand here and let that team be disrespected, they EARNED that gold.

Thats the thing though. Canada lost to russia and sweden steamrolled russia. Round robin play to determine gold is stupid. Canada certainly has won its share of worthy golds but this one is a questionmark.

 

[jj cale]

Thats the thing though. Canada lost to russia and sweden steamrolled russia. Round robin play to determine gold is stupid. Canada certainly has won its share of worthy golds but this one is a questionmark.

That is the system they used back then, I guess every gold won before the system was changed is a questionmark then. I doubt fans of those winning teams are going to agree with that.

Sweden had as good a chance under that system as any other team there and hey........................they were the best team right?

You say it, other fans in this thread here say it, even good old Peter Forsberg was saying it before the game against Canada.

But you actually have to prove it on the ice, they failed to do so.

Don't see how Canada and the showing they put in at that tournament should be penalised because this supposed "best" team couldnt deliver the mail and control their own destiny when it counted.

Great team or not they were not the best team THAT tournament. we can't go."oh sorry you screwed up the plot, we know you should have won so we will have another
tournament next week just to fix all this"



Once again, this was no one man Legace show, Canada scored five freaking goals on sweden that game. Nuff said!!

 

[DDRhockey]

Well i hope you seriously dont think round robin only would be a good tournament system to use today?

 

[jj cale]

Well i hope you seriously dont think round robin only would be a good tournament system to use today?

No I don't, I am glad the system was changed.

 

[jj cale]

Thats the thing though. Canada lost to russia and sweden steamrolled russia. Round robin play to determine gold is stupid. Canada certainly has won its share of worthy golds but this one is a questionmark.

By the way, we did not lose to Russia....................we pounded the snot out of them 9-1.