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

[DDRhockey]

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

Yeah sorry it was czechoslovakia

 

[jj cale]

Yeah sorry it was czechoslovakia

Yep, Czechoslovakia, great teams back then, no disgrace dropping a game to them in that era.

 

[JackSlater]

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

Sorry to interrupt this bad quoting duel, but I've got some bad news. Canada did beat Sweden. That doesn't mean that Canada was the better team. The two teams had the same point total, but recall that the only game Canada lost was a game played when Canada had already won the gold medal. It's not a given that Canada beats that pretty strong Czech/Slovak team, but you can't take results too seriously when one team has already won the gold medal. They even played the backup goaltender.

 

[jj cale]

I don't see bad quotes.

It's over with anyway, the record books for all posterity say Canada was the winner of the gold medal for the WJC 1993. It does not and never will say " Sweden best team but won silver because they f***ed up and did not do enough to win against inferior team.

That is not how it works, let's end this now.........................Canada won gold and deserved to, could haves or should haves are weak.

Probably my favourite Canadian world junior team of all, very proud of that team and nothing anyone can say about them will ever change my mind on this. They were a great underdog story and played their frickin hearts out.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't see bad quotes.

It's over with anyway, the record books for all posterity say Canada was the winner of the gold medal for the WJC 1993. It does not and never will say " Sweden best team but won silver because they ****ed up and did not do enough to win against inferior team.

That is not how it works, let's end this now.........................Canada won gold and deserved to, could haves or should haves are weak.

Probably my favourite Canadian world junior team of all, very proud of that team and nothing anyone can say about them will ever change my mind on this. They were a great underdog story and played their frickin hearts out.

There were a series of bad quotes, it looks like a moderator fixed them. Anyway you are conflating "winning" with "the best team". Record books are meant for wins, not for something far more subjective like what the best team was. If you live in a world that is black and white where the winning team is therefore the best, as you seem to be implying, then that is a pretty ridiculous way to live. Canada got lucky, that's good enough and they deserved to win as there was no cheating or anything. Doesn't mean Canada was the best in that tournament, obviously.

 

[jj cale]

There were a series of bad quotes, it looks like a moderator fixed them. Anyway you are conflating "winning" with "the best team". Record books are meant for wins, not for something far more subjective like what the best team was. If you live in a world that is black and white where the winning team is therefore the best, as you seem to be implying, then that is a pretty ridiculous way to live. Canada got lucky, that's good enough and they deserved to win as there was no cheating or anything. Doesn't mean Canada was the best in that tournament, obviously.

Hey, let's not bother playing the games then jack, we will all just look at the rosters on paper, agree as a group who has the strongest team and select the winner.

Streamline things, the games don't matter.

Look, I get what you are saying to an extent, but it is not like it was a 1-0 game and legace did all the work and only by his sheer majesty did we win. When you score five goals on this supposed unshakeable juggernaut that is more then just a fluke.That Team Sweden wasn't perfect and had some flaws and we were good enough to expose them, when you are able to do that I don't see how you can call that a fluke.

A fluke is if some midget team from Saskatchewan had of beat them, but that was clearly not the case here.

I don't agree with when you used the WJC final where Fleury made his big gaff as a fluke win either as though Canada was the better team and lost on one fluke play. I remember the game, they came out and put the gears to us hard, that flub happened as a direct result of the pressure that U.S team put on Canada that whole period. They just ended up being a better team, no fluke excuses coming from this corner.

We end up sounding like a few select russian posters on here that are always using that stuff every time when their team loses when we engage in that.

I don't want to be like that when my team gets beaten fair and square.

 

[JackSlater]

Hey, let's not bother playing the games then jack, we will all just look at the rosters on paper, agree as a group who has the strongest team and select the winner.

Streamline things, the games don't matter.

Look, I get what you are saying to an extent, but it is not like it was a 1-0 game and legace did all the work and only by his sheer majesty did we win. When you score five goals on this supposed unshakeable juggernaut that is more then just a fluke.That Team Sweden wasn't perfect and had some flaws and we were good enough to expose them, when you are able to do that I don't see how you can call that a fluke.

A fluke is if some midget team from Saskatchewan had of beat them, but that was clearly not the case here.

I don't agree with when you used the WJC final where Fleury made his big gaff as a fluke win either as though Canada was the better team and lost on one fluke play. I remember the game, they came out and put the gears to us hard, that flub happened as a direct result of the pressure that U.S team put on Canada that whole period. They just ended up being a better team, no fluke excuses coming from this corner.

We end up sounding like a few select russian posters on here that are always using that stuff every time when their team loses when we engage in that.

I don't want to be like that when my team gets beaten fair and square.

You're all over the place here. The Canadian team in 1993 wasn't better than the Swedish team in 1993, and yet it won. The best team doesn't always win. Your strawman about "not playing the games" is irrelevant to what I said. Sports is about finding the winner, not about finding the best team. In many cases we already know the better team before the game begins, and yet it is played anyway because we don't know the winner. Canada won in 1993 but probably wasn't the best team. USA won in 2004 but probably wasn't the best team. These things happen. I'm sure that it has happened in many international tournaments. To be so absolute as to believe that the best team is always the winning team is absurd. The goal is of course to win, but winning, especially in a one game elimination situation, doesn't tell us all that much about which team is best.

 

[86Habs]

I don't agree with when you used the WJC final where Fleury made his big gaff as a fluke win either as though Canada was the better team and lost on one fluke play. I remember the game, they came out and put the gears to us hard, that flub happened as a direct result of the pressure that U.S team put on Canada that whole period. They just ended up being a better team, no fluke excuses coming from this corner.

We end up sounding like a few select russian posters on here that are always using that stuff every time when their team loses when we engage in that.

I don't want to be like that when my team gets beaten fair and square.

That was me who said that, not Jack. O'Sullivan's goal itself (which was the winning goal of course) could be considered a fluke play, but I certainly wouldn't consider the Americans' win a fluke. Canada and the U.S. were fairly evenly-matched teams and the U.S. was fully deserving of the victory. Conversely, I would probably consider Belarus's win over Sweden in the 2002 Olympics to be a fluke. I'll maintain that 1993 Sweden beats 1993 Canada 7 or 8 times out of 10. It so happens that Legace put in a career-defining performance that game (one you couldn't realistically expect him to repeat), but you're right in that Canada put 5 pucks in the Swedish net and were deserving of the victory. On that note, I wouldn't consider Canada's win a "fluke"; they needed a legendary performance from Legace, but weren't reliant on any singular or series of lucky or improbable plays to win. Legace* simply brought his A+ game that day, which is a huge credit to him.

* Further, its not like Legace was some huge underdog that came out of nowhere. He was drafted fairly low (188th), but he was the OHL goaltender of the year in 1993, was lights out that entire tournament, and was later a consistent, if unspectacular goalie at the NHL level.

 

[jj cale]

Yes I stand corrected on that, Jack was not the one who had mentioned that particular U.S-Canada game, I had that mixed up.

 

[jj cale]

You're all over the place here. The Canadian team in 1993 wasn't better than the Swedish team in 1993, and yet it won. The best team doesn't always win. Your strawman about "not playing the games" is irrelevant to what I said. Sports is about finding the winner, not about finding the best team. In many cases we already know the better team before the game begins, and yet it is played anyway because we don't know the winner. Canada won in 1993 but probably wasn't the best team. USA won in 2004 but probably wasn't the best team. These things happen. I'm sure that it has happened in many international tournaments. To be so absolute as to believe that the best team is always the winning team is absurd. The goal is of course to win, but winning, especially in a one game elimination situation, doesn't tell us all that much about which team is best.

lol, o.k.

Let's just give the topic a rest, life is short after all.

 

[JackSlater]

lol, o.k.

Let's just give the topic a rest, life is short after all.

There isn't much else to say. If you think that the 1993 Canadian team was better than the 1993 Swedish team then you ignore what is pretty obvious. If your belief is that the winning team is automatically the better team then there is no point since it is difficult to change such a ridiculous opinion. I must accept the blame though for this deviating so far from the purpose of the thread.

 

[jj cale]

There isn't much else to say. If you think that the 1993 Canadian team was better than the 1993 Swedish team then you ignore what is pretty obvious. If your belief is that the winning team is automatically the better team then there is no point since it is difficult to change such a ridiculous opinion. I must accept the blame though for this deviating so far from the purpose of the thread.

Once again Jack, why bother to play the games then?


That is why they hold tournaments for gods sake, you are making the assertion that whoever is the best team on paper is automatically the best team, that is what is ridiculous.


you're out in left field here, you are usually so spot on with so many things around here, but not today, you are going on nothing but your opinion based on no facts.This viewpoint you have is little more then sylvia browne stuff, All nonsense and it surprises me coming from you.

You make claims like Sweden would win 8 times out of ten but it is all speculation and nothing else, the only data we have on what would happen if those two teams faced is that Canada won yet you make a claim like that, where did you get this rock solid information about events that never happened, a seance?

I am not even really disagreeing with your premise as i also admit and believe that the best team does not always win I just think using that Swedish team is a bad example to showcase your argument. The 1980 miracle on ice is a good example to show what you are saying is valid, I have no doubt the soviet side was a far better team that got caught when they played a game far from their best against an inspired U.S side. But that Swedish team was not the Soviets and the Canadian team was a damn good team with enough talent to go into that game wondering who was going to win, no one was looking at that thing as any garuntee like Lake Placid. Just a bad example IMO.

Anyway, 1993 is over a long time ago and yes we have deviated far from the real topic here. I am concentrating on the 2017 tournament and hoping for the best for the team.

 

[JackSlater]

Once again Jack, why bother to play the games then?


That is why they hold tournaments for gods sake, you are making the assertion that whoever is the best team on paper is automatically the best team, that is what is ridiculous.


you're out in left field here, you are usually so spot on with so many things around here, but not today, you are going on nothing but your opinion based on no facts.This viewpoint you have is little more then sylvia browne stuff, All nonsense and it surprises me coming from you.

You make claims like Sweden would win 8 times out of ten but it is all speculation and nothing else, the only data we have on what would happen if those two teams faced is that Canada won yet you make a claim like that, where did you get this rock solid information about events that never happened, a seance?

Anyway, 1993 is over a long time ago and yes we have deviated far from the real topic here. I am concentrating on the 2017 tournament and hoping for the best for the team.

If you want to reply to what I said, at least address what I said instead of creating a straw man that you can take a run at. I did not say that Sweden had the better team on paper and is therefore better. In fact, you are the one who looked at their roster and tried to make claims based on that. I said that Sweden played better in the game that they played in the tournament even though Canada won, Sweden won the pre-tournament game comfortably even without Forsberg, Sweden played somewhat better against the other teams in the tournament. A team getting a lucky win in a single game doesn't change that Sweden looked like the better team.

You must also realize that your claim that Canada was better is speculation. Unless we talk purely about results all discussion is speculation. Speculation based on actually seeing something is better than a "seance" however so you can keep your next ridiculous analogy (paraphrasing Yakushev72 of all people I believe) and try to think of something better. There is enough evidence for me that Sweden was better, based on the games that Canada and Sweden played and the other tournament games. As already noted if you hold the simplistic (and ridiculous) notion that the team that won one game is by default the better team then there is little that is going to make headway with you.

As to your first question, tournaments are held to find winners. It's pretty obvious. I don't see anyone disputing that Canada was the winner.

 

[jj cale]

I've replied to everything and on point. What have you done but engage in speculation as if it is fact?


Give me your proof they were the better team and I will agree with you, and I hope it is more then goals for and against in a tournament or saying it was a miracle job by legace because that has already been debunked here.

 

[JackSlater]

I've replied to everything and on point. What have you done but engage in speculation as if it is fact?


Give me your proof they were the better team and I will agree with you, and I hope it is more then goals for and against in a tournament or saying it was a miracle job by legace because that has already been debunked here.

You haven't been on point in many instances. You have mentioned numerous things that I never said in an attempt to make your position more tenable. You mentioned that I was just talking about on paper roster, when it was actually you who mentioned on paper roster (as a benefit for Canada). You talked about some nonsense about record books and whatnot, when I never questioned that Canada won.

You've debunked nothing. It is well established that Legace's performance in that tournament, and in the Sweden game in particular, was one of the top performances in Canadian WJC history. You can go online and find various TSN discussions about that, or just wait for the WJC tournament this year because it is a given that they will stil mention it 25 years later. The World Junior book produced by Hockey Canada describes it as likely the best Canadian goaltending performance ever at the tournament. If you think that a journeyman goaltender putting in a performance that is still talked about 25 years later as one of the greatest in Canadian international hockey history is "debunking" the idea that Legace's performance was lucky for Canada then I think you don't know what "debunk" means. That Canada won a game by one goal and the goaltending performance is still talked about as one of Canada's best ever makes it seem that many agree that Canada was outplayed in that game, not that agreement makes it true.

What constitutes proof? There is no definitive proof either way. There is proof that Canada won, something I am well aware of and a point that you are conflating with "Canada was the best". I already told you the evidence that Sweden was better, but you seem to prefer two things - either to make up a straw man that you can knock down, or to simply say something along the lines of "but Canada won!" as if winning means that the team was better. That Canada was lucky enough to win against Sweden is nice and I am glad that it happened, but one win doesn't definitively decide which was the better team.

 

[DDRhockey]

I've replied to everything and on point. What have you done but engage in speculation as if it is fact?


Give me your proof they were the better team and I will agree with you, and I hope it is more then goals for and against in a tournament or saying it was a miracle job by legace because that has already been debunked here.

Massive GF advantage

 

[JackSlater]

Massive GF advantage

Ehhh Sweden's ridiculously massive blowout of Japan skews things a bit much. There comes a point in a blowout where adding goals doesn't really mean anything. If you remove Sweden's Japan game and Canada's Japan game from consideration I'm sure that it paints a picture closer to the respective levels of Sweden and Canada.

 

[DDRhockey]

Ehhh Sweden's ridiculously massive blowout of Japan skews things a bit much. There comes a point in a blowout where adding goals doesn't really mean anything. If you remove Sweden's Japan game and Canada's Japan game from consideration I'm sure that it paints a picture closer to the respective levels of Sweden and Canada.

The point though is that canada didnt score as many on japan. In the end sweden had 20 gf+ga on canada scoring at a 5-1 ratio every game in average.

 

[jj cale]

Still waiting for that proof of this "for sure better team lost" and "they would win 8 out of 10 times" of a mythical fantasy 10 game series that never happened and never can.

A classic unfalsifiable claim that God believers use when claiming the existence of a supreme being, I mean.................how can you ever really prove that what they say is not true in the manner that you can prove a table is in front of you?

What do we get as proof?..............Because i said so.

I am done with this, an opinion is not a fact when discussing those two teams. The only fact we do have is That when those two teams did face off Canada won, that's it.

 

[JackSlater]

The point though is that canada didnt score as many on japan. In the end sweden had 20 gf+ga on canada scoring at a 5-1 ratio every game in average.

Sure, but I just don't see a significant difference between Sweden winning 10-1 and Sweden winning 20-1. At some point the goals in a clear blowout stop having significance. The random 20-1 win somewhat distorts the picture, in my eyes anyway.

Still waiting for that proof of this "for sure better team lost" and "they would win 8 out of 10 times" of a mythical fantasy 10 game series that never happened and never can.

A classic unfalsifiable claim that God believers use when claiming the existence of a supreme being, I mean.................how can you ever really prove that what they say is not true in the manner that you can prove a table is in front of you?

What do we get as proof?..............Because i said so.

I am done with this, an opinion is not a fact when discussing those two teams. The only fact we do have is That when those two teams did face off Canada won, that's it.

I don't know if this is a parody or what. I already told you that it is not something that can be definitively proven either way. I provided the reasons why I am quite confident that Sweden is better, but you prefer to set up straw men instead. If you lack the ability to consider evidence and instead require a time machine or a set of alternate realities, as you seem to be suggesting, then you are never going to be satisfied.

I also strongly recommend that you actually read the reasons that I gave instead of disingenuously claiming that all I have said is "Because i said so." Lying about what I have said does not strengthen your position.

As for your grand finale, once again, yes I agree that the fact we have is that Canada won. I already said that, and yet you cling to it as if it is proof of your point. It isn't. This is also your third time stating that you are finished with it, so I will simply wait for your next attempt and hope that you don't stoop to lying about what I said to make your claim seem stronger.

 

[canuck2010]

The point though is that canada didnt score as many on japan. In the end sweden had 20 gf+ga on canada scoring at a 5-1 ratio every game in average.

Running up the score on an opponent that is clearly inferior proves nothing.

 

[DDRhockey]

Running up the score on an opponent that is clearly inferior proves nothing.

Canada scored 15 or 16 on some minor teams couple of years ago.

 

[NyQuil]

Canada scored 15 or 16 on some minor teams couple of years ago.

It's pretty rare and it's meaningless in any event.

 

[DDRhockey]

It's pretty rare and it's meaningless in any event.

just saying that sweden isnt the only one who has been doing this

 

[NyQuil]

just saying that sweden isnt the only one who has been doing this

It's pretty rare for Canada.

In fact, I wouldn't mind if you cited the games in question.