Hockey needs Canada to lose...

[GuloGulo]

I never said they were bad players, Sweden and the Czechs simply did not have the same type of skilled players as they developed in the 90's. And these players have played on both levels of competition which makes them that more superior than those who played in the 70's. And the U.S.S.R. didn't begin winning until the early 60's the world championships, after Canada had won 19. We are talking about development here. How many great Czech players can you name before 1990? How many Swedes?

You MUST be kidding me. Sven Tumba, Borje Salming, Kallur, Kent Nilsson, B-A Gustafsson, Naslund, Loob, Ulf Lill-Projsarn, Nilsson, Sandstrom, Hedberg, Steen, Pelle Lindbergh, Ulf Sterner, L-G Pettersson... oh man the list goes on and ever on. And before you even go there - no, not all of these players had successful NHL career. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, nor that they didn't play splendid hockey for their time.

NHL career != hockey career.

The czech-&-slovaks had Stastnys, Klima, Hlinka, Bubla and others.

Lest I forget the magnificent J Kurri of Finland.

Does it strike you that thanks to the eastern block collapse, players from europe suddenly could move easily to NA, play in the NHL and create exposure for themselves. They didn't come out of nowhere. They would still have been stars, just unknown to hockey fans who only know hockey as the NHL.

 

[Connorrhea]

You MUST be kidding me. Sven Tumba, Borje Salming, Kallur, Kent Nilsson, B-A Gustafsson, Naslund, Loob, Ulf Lill-Projsarn, Nilsson, Sandstrom, Hedberg, Steen, Pelle Lindbergh, Ulf Sterner, L-G Pettersson... oh man the list goes on and ever on. And before you even go there - no, not all of these players had successful NHL career. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, nor that they didn't play splendid hockey for their time.

NHL career != hockey career.

The czech-&-slovaks had Stastnys, Klima, Hlinka, Bubla and others.

Lest I forget the magnificent J Kurri of Finland.

Does it strike you that thanks to the eastern block collapse, players from europe suddenly could move easily to NA, play in the NHL and create exposure for themselves. They didn't come out of nowhere. They would still have been stars, just unknown to hockey fans who only know hockey as the NHL.

"Not all of these players had successfull careers." And you're point is? Are you seriously comparing them to Gretzky, Messier, Orr, Coffey, Anderson, Bossy, Trottier, Potvin, Robinson, Lafleur...come on, you practically made a swedish team up from the best players you could come up with.

 

[Legolas]

I'm not saying this olympics alone is going to boost hockey, I'm saying its good for hockey when Canada gets eliminated in tournaments because are viewed as being the best and if Russia beats us, Latvia might say, "hey, if Russia can develop a system good enough to beat Canada, why can't we." And if some of you haven't noticed, the Germans are getting better with each competition. Development takes time, some of you are interpreting that I am saying it happens overnight.

Don't look at Olympics, look at world championships, world juniors, women's hockey, Canada Cup, we dominated the first 60-70 years of the 1900's.

I agree again to a certain degree, but I just have a hard time appreciating that globally the game grows when Canada loses. I'll agree that having one dominant country reigning over everything all the time is bad for the game because it gets boring for viewers and the mentality presumably is that other countries won't bother trying to compete because they will think the exercise is futile. But, we're way beyond that stage now. There's an established group of hockey powers, with several tiers of other countries below investing various levels of resources in growing the game and their national programs. I'll agree that us, or any country for that matter, winning all the time isn't healthy, but I disagree that us losing at these Olympics is helpful to anything.

As far as Canada losing, we've been losing quite a bit lately so I don't see it as being helpful that we keep losing. We lost the Junior Tournament for years before winning back-to-back titles. Is that related to the increased development of other countries' junior programs? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Furthermore, if you look at the recent string of success during the Gretzky-era, the only significant wins we've had in Europe are the back-to-back World Championships. We haven't won a junior tournament in Europe in over a decade, and we obviously haven't won an Olympic gold medal for even longer before 2002. Even if we win in 2010, we'll be winning it at home, which will somewhat take away from the accomplishment.

 

[Zaddik]

i don't think canada losing is whats needed for the game to grow like the womens side of hockey. like someone alluded to before, canada hasn't been exactly dominant in olympic hockey for a while and they've only been recently deemed 'dominant' after their win in salt lake.

but being that as it may, this year has been a big surprise, coutries are putting up strong fights and canada losing was the product of that. and plus, things are alot more tighter.

 

[Connorrhea]

I agree again to a certain degree, but I just have a hard time appreciating that globally the game grows when Canada loses. I'll agree that having one dominant country reigning over everything all the time is bad for the game because it gets boring for viewers and the mentality presumably is that other countries won't bother trying to compete because they will think the exercise is futile. But, we're way beyond that stage now. There's an established group of hockey powers, with several tiers of other countries below investing various levels of resources in growing the game and their national programs. I'll agree that us, or any country for that matter, winning all the time isn't healthy, but I disagree that us losing at these Olympics is helpful to anything.

As far as Canada losing, we've been losing quite a bit lately so I don't see it as being helpful that we keep losing. We lost the Junior Tournament for years before winning back-to-back titles. Is that related to the increased development of other countries' junior programs? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Furthermore, if you look at the recent string of success during the Gretzky-era, the only significant wins we've had in Europe are the back-to-back World Championships. We haven't won a junior tournament in Europe in over a decade, and we obviously haven't won an Olympic gold medal for even longer before 2002. Even if we win in 2010, we'll be winning it at home, which will somewhat take away from the accomplishment.

My argument derives from the last 5 years which has seen Canadian women and men DOMINATE. (The women winning the world championships, the olympics twice, the men winning a world championship, the olympics, the world cup, the world juniors twice in a row) At a time when hockey looked to be at its worst we were the country, who is the envy of all other countries that play hockey, were beating everyone in sight. If you didn't understand how great this team is suppose to be and how massive of a disappointment this is, just read all the newspapers and listen to all the analysts.

Someone started this whole "let's look at the history of Canadian hockey" thing rather than understanding where arguments lie.

And the reason this is so big, is because NHLers are partcipiating the Olympics. Again, NHLers are considered the best hockey players playing in the toughest league in the world and Canada just got beat on the biggest stage of sports in the world.

 

[jekoh]

First of all, no olympic medals,

Yes, they did win medals in the olympics

second of all, maybe you need to look at who participated in those world championships.

Well the Soviets did, that was my point.

And the Soviets at the time were more or less on par with Canada.

In the 70s, not 1910 or 1948.

More proof of how important beating Canada is...after Forsberg's shootout winner in 1994, Sweden created a stamp featuring his goal.

One would think it has more to do with the fact that it was Sweden's first ever gold medal than with beating a team that had not won the title since the fifties.

 

[Connorrhea]

Yes, they did win medals in the olympics


Well the Soviets did, that was my point.

And the Soviets at the time were more or less on par with Canada.

In the 70s, not 1910 or 1948..

Gold medals that is, and I guess you only care what happend in the 70's, like the rest of the 1900's don't have any relevance. Great argument...stick to the topic rather than always changing it to statistics that don't agree with you.

 

[Vladiator]

First of all, I have to disagree with the comment that hockey needs Canada. That statement is just purely false. If all Canadians stopped caring about hockey, the sport would survive. Obviously, without Canada, the sport would take a hit in popularity, and talent levels, but, the sport is well enough ingrained around the world to survive on its own. If the NHL folded, there would be enough hockey occuring overseas, in the European leagues.

I have to disagree that Canada has had it's fill, and others deserve a turn. We only have one gold medal in the last 50 years. That's quite a bruise to an ego to a country that has felt that it has been the best country at the sport for that time period. It's not that we feel that we are entitled to the victory, but, we are honestly puzzled that when we don't win, when the best players are involved.

The Canada Cups (now the World Cup) are nice, as well as the Junior Championships, and even the Women Gold Medals, but, we know that those aren't held to the highest value around the world. The Olympics are the one tournament that all hockey countries see as being an elite tournament. A big part of that is because it's one of the few tournaments that Canada doesn't dominate, but, it still pains a lot of Canadians that they can't point to the one universally recognized achievement in the sport as an example of their hockey prowess.

As Canadians, we just have to suck it up, and look to re-group in 4 years. I think most people can look at the sport now, and realize that at the international level, the sport is extremely competitive, and any time you ice a team that isn't working cohesively, you are going to struggle.

I hope that in 2010 Canada can go on to win the gold, and to make that a start of a run of gold medals that spans 3 or 4 Olympics. The problem is, you can never take that for granted in sports, especially one that is as competitive as international hockey is right now.

Nice post

 

[Resolute]

Hockey most certantly does not need Canada to lose.

Hockey needs other nations to win.

The game does not get better when Canada sends a terrible team that lacks heart, determination and grit.

The game gets better when other nations can beat Canada when Canada is at it's best.

 

[Legolas]

My argument derives from the last 5 years which has seen Canadian women and men DOMINATE. (The women winning the world championships, the olympics twice, the men winning a world championship, the olympics, the world cup, the world juniors twice in a row) At a time when hockey looked to be at its worst we were the country, who is the envy of all other countries that play hockey, were beating everyone in sight. If you didn't understand how great this team is suppose to be and how massive of a disappointment this is, just read all the newspapers and listen to all the analysts.

And the reason this is so big, is because NHLers are partcipiating the Olympics. Again, NHLers are considered the best hockey players playing in the toughest league in the world and Canada just got beat on the biggest stage of sports in the world.

I agree completely on the issue of women's hockey. Sweden beating the US was awesome for the game, and I'm glad they didn't beat us, although I admit that would have been great for the game too. Other countries can now see that it isn't just Canada and USA and that it is possible for other countries to catch up.

I also agree that Canada losing is big news. Similarly to the United States losing at basketball, or Brazil losing in soccer, it's always big news when one of the favourites and the traditional superpower loses.

But men's hockey and women's hockey are at entirely different stages of development. Women's hockey was almost at the point of being removed from the Olympics because not enough countries are even competitive enough to field a real team. Men's hockey is entirely different. The parity is much higher. It has already been proven time and again (especially in the Olympics) that Canada can be beaten, just like any other country can be beaten. I can accept that if Canada had gone on a string of winning every gold medal for 6 Olympic Games using NHL players then that may have had a poor impact on some developing countries because the reasoning would be "Now that it's best-on-best, Canada dominates again" but that obviously is not the case. I honestly believe that if Canada had won in Nagano, Salt Lake City, and Torino, it could have just as easily inspired the European nations to invest more in hockey to try and fight back.

 

[Gerry4001]

OK for Canada to LOSE?

OK for Canada to LOSE?

In the last 54 years Canada has won ONE, UNO, gold medal.
Good for others to win? What?

Man, oh, man. Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe, Bobby ORR,
Espo, Guy Lafleur, Gretzky (at his prime), and Mario (at his prime)
were not allowed to play. We let the others win it for 50 years,
while knowing we deserved it, the world was getting all the medals
and the annual world championships to boot. We had to grin and bare it with nothing
to show for it except for the Canada Cups since 76 that we organized ourselves.
Canada has helped the hockey world plenty but it seems that it never helped Canada.
They still want us to lose.

Canada plays hockey to WIN and deserves so.

 

[Vladiator]

I'm not saying this olympics alone is going to boost hockey, I'm saying its good for hockey when Canada gets eliminated in tournaments because are viewed as being the best and if Russia beats us, Latvia might say, "hey, if Russia can develop a system good enough to beat Canada, why can't we." And if some of you haven't noticed, the Germans are getting better with each competition. Development takes time, some of you are interpreting that I am saying it happens overnight.

Don't look at Olympics, look at world championships, world juniors, women's hockey, Canada Cup, we dominated the first 60-70 years of the 1900's.



The NHL is what is keeping hockey alive around the globe. If the NHL folded, and all the players went to Europe, those elite league teams wouldn't have the money to afford such high profile talent. The breeding ground would end because Swedish players who have dreamed to play in the NHL, where they can make lost of money and be free, but instead, decide not to play hockey because they won't make much in the Swedish elite league that could fold at any time. Thus the popularity decreases, the teams lose money and they fold as well.

The growth that needs the most help is in the U.S. If the game was more exciting and able to sell to the people, arenas would be sold out, they'd have enough tv to ad to the revenue sharing (like the NFL and NBA) and the league would be healthy. The U.S. needs to win a major competition for the NHL really survive there. Without that, there is no interest in the game and the NHL cannot make enough money in Canada to stay alive.

I think what will boost hockey in Latvia is the fact that they lost 9:2 to Russia, not because Russia beat Canada. They will realise that they pretty much suck (I can say it, I lived there) and that they need to improve.

The hockey will survive without the NHL. Look until 1990s, no one in Russia knew what the NHL was about? You could not see NHL teams playing nor we knew about NHL players (apart from those who we saw in international games). But once the Cold War ended, NHL received the intake of players such as Bure, Fedorov, Mogilny, Konstantinov, Kamensky and so on and so forth. Prior to that we had Yakushev, Kharlamov, Mikhailov, Bobrov, Firsov... We didn't have NHL but those were the golden days of Russian hockey as far as the depth of the hockey players pool goes!

 

[Vladiator]

OK for Canada to LOSE?

In the last 54 years Canada has won ONE, UNO, gold medal.
Good for others to win? What?

Man, oh, man. Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe, Bobby ORR,
Espo, Guy Lafleur, Gretzky (at his prime), and Mario (at his prime)
were not allowed to play. We let the others win it for 50 years,
while knowing we deserved it, the world was getting all the medals
and the annual world championships to boot. We had to grin and bare it with nothing
to show for it except for the Canada Cups since 76 that we organized ourselves.
Canada has helped the hockey world plenty but it seems that it never helped Canada.
They still want us to lose.

Canada plays hockey to WIN and deserves so.

You had THREE CHANCES to win the Olympics in the best-on-best format. You won one. How come you deserved to win all those in the previous 50 years?

 

[jekoh]

Gold medals that is, and I guess you only care what happend in the 70's, like the rest of the 1900's don't have any relevance. Great argument...stick to the topic rather than always changing it to statistics that don't agree with you.

Your claim was that Czechoslovakia started to have good teams and produce top talent in 1990. And that's BS, they've had good teams and top players since the 70s. The rest of the 1900's has indeed very little relevance.

 

[Vladiator]

And the U.S.S.R. didn't begin winning until the early 60's the world championships, after Canada had won 19. We are talking about development here. How many great Czech players can you name before 1990? How many Swedes?

Just a piece of history -- USSR's first Olympics were 1956. We won it.

Weren't Jagr and Hasik Czech players before 1990? Or the player does not count unless you have heard about him?

 

[Vaive-Alive]

<Insert Hockey Power here> losing to another established hockey power does not support the notion that there is a trickle-down transfer of hope and inspiration to developing hockey nations. Canadians perceive their team as being the best - and infact up until yesterday they were the defending champions. But it's that perception that drives someone to write a thread like "Hockey needs Canada to lose...". Thats just an attempt to try and smooth over a tough to swallow loss. Its a bad reach. Its almost implying that Canada has given a 'gift' to international hockey by losing. Thats the canadian hurt ego talking - I don't like this loss either. But its not like Canada alone stands out as the dominant force in international tournaments. <Insert Hockey Power here > losing to a less established hockey power might have some effect although that is debatable. Canada losing to Russia? Come on. Teams that want to compete internationally will improve if they invest money, time and effort in the sport - and countries like Switzerland are doing that. Teams that want to win international tournaments need to develop talent that is good enough to play in the NHL. Russia, Sweden, Finland, Canada, US, Slovakia and the Czechs all contain an overwhelming majority of NHL players. They are all elite teams. And when one of the four remaining teams wins this year's Gold, I'll be surprised if I read "Hockey needs <Insert Hockey Power here> to lose..." from a Canadian poster next time around. Perhaps if Finland wins this year's gold, and goes out in the quarterfinal round in 2010 we'll see a similar post from a finnish fan. But Canada losing won't encourage Latvia to spend more money, time and effort to improve it's hockey program anymore than Russia losing, or Finland, or Slovakia, or Sweden, or...<Insert Hockey Power here>.

At the end of the day - we lost, and it sucks to be a Team Canada fan. Period. Kudos to the Russians - they deserved to win this round. They have always been a great adversary and a force to be reckoned with. In time, we may see countries like Switzerland and Latvia join the group of elite hockey nations, but it won't ever be because Canada lost to one of the other elite hockey powers.

 

[Connorrhea]

OK for Canada to LOSE?

In the last 54 years Canada has won ONE, UNO, gold medal.
Good for others to win? What?

Man, oh, man. Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe, Bobby ORR,
Espo, Guy Lafleur, Gretzky (at his prime), and Mario (at his prime)
were not allowed to play. We let the others win it for 50 years,
while knowing we deserved it, the world was getting all the medals
and the annual world championships to boot. We had to grin and bare it with nothing
to show for it except for the Canada Cups since 76 that we organized ourselves.
Canada has helped the hockey world plenty but it seems that it never helped Canada.
They still want us to lose.

Canada plays hockey to WIN and deserves so.

We lost a few by shootout, and the majority of the olympics we didn't have our best players because they were playing in the NHL and the rest of the world knew it, and still recognized us as having the best hockey players in the world. You people have to look past the medals and realize the truth. We always had the best talent, the rest of the world knew it, and the professional game we play in the NHL is superior to that of european leagues which consitute men and boys playing on big ice surfaces. Although now you can see 18 year olds in the NHL, but back in those days the NHL was considered the league where the real men play. In Europe, it was a mix.

Oh, and Jagr was drafted in 1990 and didn't become a star for a few years, and Hasek was a nobody until he went to Buffalo in the early-mid 90's.

To the poster above, this thread is not to swallow a tough loss. I've been saying this to people for the last few years. Canada dominating hockey is bad for business...period! Canada winning is only good for Canada. Why do you think the Americans dislike hockey, because we created it and we gloat about how great we are and that is not the way to promote a product. It's not because Canada lost to another super power, its because Canada didn't win again.

 

[Vladiator]

We lost a few by shootout, and the majority of the olympics we didn't have our best players because they were playing in the NHL and the rest of the world knew it, and still recognized us as having the best hockey players in the world.

Who recognised as the best when were you losing? Please, provide quotes and articles... BTW, Russia never has the best players anymore. Every time some one pulls out. But is it an excuse to our inability to win for the last 10 years?

You people have to look past the medals and realize the truth. We always had the best talent, the rest of the world knew it, and the professional game we play in the NHL is superior to that of european leagues which consitute men and boys playing on big ice surfaces. Although now you can see 18 year olds in the NHL, but back in those days the NHL was considered the league where the real men play. In Europe, it was a mix.

So how come you struggled with USSR in 1972 and ever since? If your style of play was so much superior, how come it became much more Europenised since 1970s? And if kids playing playing in mens league produces players like Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Bure, Kharlamov, etc, I will take it. Also you last5 sentence indicates that the current NHL moves towars becoming a less superior European-style league. Damn you Sidney Crosby (18 y.o.)!

Oh, and Jagr was drafted in 1990 and didn't become a star for a few years, and Hasek was a nobody until he went to Buffalo in the early-mid 90's.

So NHL produced the palyers such as Jagr, Bure and Forseberg?

 

[Connorrhea]

Who recognised as the best when were you losing? Please, provide quotes and articles... BTW, Russia never has the best players anymore. Every time some one pulls out. But is it an excuse to our inability to win for the last 10 years?




So how come you struggled with USSR in 1972 and ever since? If your style of play was so much superior, how come it became much more Europenised since 1970s? And if kids playing playing in mens league produces players like Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Bure, Kharlamov, etc, I will take it. Also you last5 sentence indicates that the current NHL moves towars becoming a less superior European-style league. Damn you Sidney Crosby (18 y.o.)!



So NHL produced the palyers such as Jagr, Bure and Forseberg?

Yes we were recognized as the best. I honestly can't believe how to don't understand that. Maybe you're not old enough. We lost in the gold medal game to sweden in a shootout and in the semis to the Czech's in a shootout and those countries celebrated as if they had won the war.

We struggled with the USSR in 72 because we underestimated them and took them lightly, but we won didn't we. They only beat us once in the Canada cup.

The NHL didn't produce Bure or Forsberg, but they developed into superstars in the NHL, something which they wouldn't have had been recognized as greatly for if they only played in Europe. Look at Arturs Irbe, he wouldn't be as glorified in Latvia had he not played in the NHL.

And no, I am not saying the NHL is becoming less European, in fact it has become more in terms of letting in young talent. The NHL used to be an old man's league, you had to be 21 to be drafted until Ken Linseman changed that rule in the 80's.

 

[Puck33]

As disappointing as it was to witness this all-star roster score in only 11 of the last 12 periods, us Canadian hockey fans have to understand that this is what hockey needs.

Gretzky said it best at the 2002 games when he said the world wanted Canada to lose, and you know what....he was right, but he doesn't seem to understand why.

Like any other sport, hockey needs someone else to take over in order for it to grow. Look at women's hockey. Sweden gets to the finals and now women's hockey will grow in Sweden.

If Canada continues to win all the tournaments, the rest of the world will not care. Just look at what the "miracle on ice" did for U.S. hockey.

Our women won the last two olympics, and men won Salt Lake, then the world cup and we won the last two juniors...that is NOT good for hockey when the rest of the world is sitting there watching Canada win all the time.

Unless, outside of the U.S., you have satellite, it is hard to watch NHL games. So when international tournaments involving NHLers takes place, the influence comes from watching your country succeed in that tournament. Swiss hockey will grow just like Czech and Slovakian hockey has because they upset a few teams.

Like Jim Kelly said on the fan590 yesterday, its not our arrogance as a nation, its our ignorance of not realizing that the rest of the world is just as good as Canada.

Just a thought about the Russia/Canada game...I think we owe Russia a victory. The analysts can say that we have not beaten them in the Olympics since 1980, but come on....how many years to the Russian's have to sit and listen to 1972 and 1987? Now we know how it feels to be on the other end.

I love my country and I want them to win, but I know it's better if they take a step back and let someone else take over.

Feel free to agree/disagree.

2002 was canadas first gold in 50 years.

 

[Connorrhea]

2002 was canadas first gold in 50 years.

For the last freakin time, the Olympics aren't the only international competition, and stop looking at the stats. You people are only interested in that now because NHL players are in the Olympics. Prior to 1998, nobody gave a damn that Canada hadn't won an olympic gold since 1952.

We have won 23 World Championships, 12 World Juniors, all but 2 of the Canada/World Cups and Olympic gold SEVEN (7) times...tied with the Soviet Union.

Here again, look at the medal tables: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Junior_Hockey_Championship

We have won more gold and more medals in all major tournaments than any other country.

 

[Vladiator]

Yes we were recognized as the best. I honestly can't believe how to don't understand that. Maybe you're not old enough. We lost in the gold medal game to sweden in a shootout and in the semis to the Czech's in a shootout and those countries celebrated as if they had won the war.

We struggled with the USSR in 72 because we underestimated them and took them lightly, but we won didn't we. They only beat us once in the Canada cup.

The NHL didn't produce Bure or Forsberg, but they developed into superstars in the NHL, something which they wouldn't have had been recognized as greatly for if they only played in Europe. Look at Arturs Irbe, he wouldn't be as glorified in Latvia had he not played in the NHL.

And no, I am not saying the NHL is becoming less European, in fact it has become more in terms of letting in young talent. The NHL used to be an old man's league, you had to be 21 to be drafted until Ken Linseman changed that rule in the 80's.

What Olypics are you talking about? Anyways, the result was the same when they beat USSR.

Canada's Cup has always been more important for Canada than USSR or anyone else. There were other series between our countries when Russia dominated.

Below is a summary of all matches between Russia and Canada.

http://www.geocities.com/canadavsrussia/stats.html

May be you are just too old to change you opinion on things. because in the view of the information widely available nowadays, it is very narrow-minded to still claim you total domination and worldwide admiration.

 

[Connorrhea]

^^^

Again, if you read an earlier post of mine, I was talking about our domination over the last 5 years (men and women) and the results of the lockout because the NHL doesn't make enough money because only Canadians care.

Someone else turned this into a historical debate.

I am full Canadian, I love my country, but it would be nice to see someone else take the spotlight instead of hearing Canadians brag about how great we are and how we have the best players and people like Don Cherry saying how everyone needs to play the Canadian style of hockey. Canada is never the underdog, but Canadians are just like Gretzky and his coaching staff, too damn loyal to understand.

 

[Vladiator]

For the last freakin time, the Olympics aren't the only international competition, and stop looking at the stats. You people are only interested in that now because NHL players are in the Olympics. Prior to 1998, nobody gave a damn that Canada hadn't won an olympic gold since 1952.

We have won 23 World Championships, 12 World Juniors, all but 2 of the Canada/World Cups and Olympic gold SEVEN (7) times...tied with the Soviet Union.

Here again, look at the medal tables: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Junior_Hockey_Championship

We have won more gold and more medals in all major tournaments than any other country.

The medals you won before USSR playing in international competitions - 15 World Championships, 6 Olympics...

 

[Puck33]

For the last freakin time, the Olympics aren't the only international competition, and stop looking at the stats. You people are only interested in that now because NHL players are in the Olympics. Prior to 1998, nobody gave a damn that Canada hadn't won an olympic gold since 1952.

We have won 23 World Championships, 12 World Juniors, all but 2 of the Canada/World Cups and Olympic gold SEVEN (7) times...tied with the Soviet Union.

Here again, look at the medal tables: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Junior_Hockey_Championship

We have won more gold and more medals in all major tournaments than any other country.

Hmmmm ok just omit the biggest games of all time and yes bigger than the WJC, they may not even have the WJC next year.