How is Canada not more dominant?

[Bear12Good]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2083527

 

[jekoh]

I'm pretty sure Canada had that lucky bounce that tied the game late against the Czechs.

It's debatable what is or isn't a lucky bounce, but indeed it's amusing how easily people here seem to blame Canadian defeats on lucky bounces or lack thereof, or on one-game elimination, as if Canadian wins didn't involve any element of luck.

 

[jekoh]

OK. I'm sure statement is in some way relevant to what I said, but I just can't see it.

It is relevant to the funny idea that Canada was a lucky bounce away from winning in 1996 and 1998, when that 1998 team failed to win any game that mattered.

Of course it's even worse for 1996: they lost not one, not twice, but three times against the USA. Surely a lucky bounce would have been more likely to see Sweden beat them in the semis.

 

[team canada fan]

all you anti-Canada-ers are having to go back decade(s) to find an answer. If I had to go back 10 and 20 years to find `proof`that I did something good and nice for my gf, I`d be in trouble....
Whaddya done for me lately? The past 6 + years...I think it`s fair to say that Canada has been dominant! The best. Perfect? Won everything?? No. Not possible. Even my gf doesn`t expect that....

 

[Canuckistani]

It is relevant to the funny idea that Canada was a lucky bounce away from winning in 1996 and 1998, when that 1998 team failed to win any game that mattered.

Of course it's even worse for 1996: they lost not one, not twice, but three times against the USA. Surely a lucky bounce would have been more likely to see Sweden beat them in the semis.

There certainly is an element of luck in victories as well, but the whole issue of lucky bounces was only brought up in regards to the bizarre suggestion that Canada has somehow underachieved in winning 3/5 NHL Olympics and overall 8/12 best on best events.

Canada's record is as dominant as it could realistically be and could easily be even more so.

 

[Jablkon]

I love the style of play Canada has used since Vancouver, and it all stems from an active mobile defence. European teams were always quicker in the past and that's not the case any more. There's just no place for slower players now.

I would also add combination, especially in last two WHC. That just sometimes reminds me czechs or russians in 90s. It will probably different on smaller ice in September, still when I remember canadian plyers from 90s, thats quite a big difference...

 

[Paxton Fettel]

This is strange revision. The 2010 Canadian team happily takes Ovechkin, Malkin, Kovalchuk and Datsyuk. Probably Markov, definitely no other defenceman. Maybe Radulov. No to Semin, not the style of player Canada generally picks. That's at most 6 players, a far cry from half.

Style? Your opinion on Canada's style of players has nothing to do with the fact that Semin was a much better offensive force at the time than a bunch of guys on team Canada.
Also why wouldn't Gonchar make it? In 2009-10 he was a top 3 offensive Dman, and Pittsburgh's number 1 Dman in their Cup run.
Finally, Nabokov was still pretty good at the time, made the 1st NHL all-star team over Brodeur.

Objectively these guys would've made the team :
Ovechkin, Malkin, Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, Semin, Markov, Gonchar, Nabokov and maybe Radulov.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

I want us to win.

But i don't want dominance if that makes sense.

What makes sport is special that it gives a chance for anyone to win. It makes me smile when another country wins, to see the happiness, you remember what it means to everyone, that feeling. Sometimes always winning you don't cherish it as much as you should.

Thank goodness our sport isn't like a boring international sport like basketball where one country controls the world.

In our game, in International Hockey mostly it's all about luck, Canada could have lost both 2010, 2014 way earlier with a couple of bounces or bad draws.

 

[Paxton Fettel]

Panarin hasn't done enough, definitely not.

Not enough as in "not enough in the NHL?" He wasn't any less good last season when he was in the KHL. Maybe he was better.

 

[Back in Black]

For Russia wouldn't you say that ovechkin, Malkin, tarsenko, datsyuk, kucherov, Panarin and maybe even kuznetsov could make team canada? (Not including goalies)

Judging by their recent record in IIHF tournaments, I’d say no!

 

[Jablkon]

There certainly is an element of luck in victories as well, but the whole issue of lucky bounces was only brought up in regards to the bizarre suggestion that Canada has somehow underachieved in winning 3/5 NHL Olympics and overall 8/12 best on best events.

Canada's record is as dominant as it could realistically be and could easily be even more so.

I cant imagine how it could be even more. In 98 you were far from winning it. So as in 06. Canadian teams since 2010 have much higher quality than those teams before and it simply reflected in results. Hypotheticaly it could be even less golds, because you were quite lucky during 04WC. With better czechs and slovaks, competition was stronger till 06 and Canada was weaker in the same time in my opinion.

 

[Back in Black]

[/B]

I cant imagine how it could be even more. In 98 you were far from winning it. So as in 06. Canadian teams since 2010 have much higher quality than those teams before and it simply reflected in results. Hypotheticaly it could be even less golds, because you were quite lucky during 04WC. With better czechs and slovaks, competition was stronger till 06 and Canada was weaker in the same time in my opinion.

It’s true before 2010, Canada had some slugs on the team (90’s NHL style of Hockey). We finally caught on that we had to use fast skilled players.

 

[jekoh]

Canada's record is as dominant as it could realistically be and could easily be even more so.

Disagree with the bolded (not to mention that it contradicts the first part of your sentence). Of the tournaments that they didn't win, there's not one where they had shown to be the best team but didn't win because of bad luck. OTOH, it could certainly be argued that for instance in 2010 another team appeared to be better but lost because of the one-game elimination.

Mind you this is true for other teams too: Sweden's record in 2006 was far from impressive. Had this tournament been replayed the following month, they too would have been unlikely to repeat.

It's amusing how much some Canadian fans read into comments like that. Talk about being defensive

 

[Canuckistani]

Disagree with the bolded (not to mention that it contradicts the first part of your sentence).

where's the contradiction? Canada has been very dominant all things considered and could have also won in 98 with Sakic and kariya, while the final in 96 could easily have been a rout for Canada had Richter not stood on his head (and that was without M Lemieux, Kariya, Bourque, MacInnis and Roy).

 

[Jopo]

"Dominant" doesn't mean 100% winning record, regardless of opponents, rosters etc. circumstantial. It's just clear perceived statistical trend that is that strong historically there are no reasons speculate that such kind dominance would not likely continue in the future too, totally regardless of results of this or that tournament.

If, if, if... It's also possible to think that same 'bad luck' would've been cause of few other Canada losses in important critical matches (outcomes that never happened), making The Team less dominant in the historical track records and statistics.

Why there exist tendency to bring nearly all definitions, terms and conceptions to ad absurdum -style hyperboles? That habit seems to me widespread. What comes to hating Canada for being so good in the game of hockey... No sense at all.

 

[jj cale]

It's clear some people are very bored and just need things to talk and be belligerent about when you start making threads that can be summed up as "why does Canada not win each and every single game?"

Is that where we are currently at even with the Stanley cup Finals coming up?

 

[JackSlater]

It is relevant to the funny idea that Canada was a lucky bounce away from winning in 1996 and 1998, when that 1998 team failed to win any game that mattered.

Of course it's even worse for 1996: they lost not one, not twice, but three times against the USA. Surely a lucky bounce would have been more likely to see Sweden beat them in the semis.

I see, so obviously you simply quoted me incorrectly, since I am not the poster made that statement.

Style? Your opinion on Canada's style of players has nothing to do with the fact that Semin was a much better offensive force at the time than a bunch of guys on team Canada.
Also why wouldn't Gonchar make it? In 2009-10 he was a top 3 offensive Dman, and Pittsburgh's number 1 Dman in their Cup run.
Finally, Nabokov was still pretty good at the time, made the 1st NHL all-star team over Brodeur.

Objectively these guys would've made the team :
Ovechkin, Malkin, Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, Semin, Markov, Gonchar, Nabokov and maybe Radulov.

Following Canada's rosters it's obvious that Semin wouldn't make it. Canada simply doesn't like taking one dimenstional offensive players. Looking through Canada's history and seeing who was cut indicates this. Considering they cut Green, I'm also skeptical that they would take the numbers of Washington players at face value. Semin would have been good enough to play, but stylistically he's the kind of player Canada always cuts. As for Gonchar, he would have to beat out his left side competition, as Babcock likes balance on that side. He doesn't beat out Pronger, Niedermayer or Keith. All that's left is seventh defefenceman (Seabrook). Gonchar might beat out Seabrook, but not if Markov is already there to take that spot. No chance Nabokov makes it either with Brodeur and Luongo as locks, and Fleury as seemingly the goalie of the future.

Even if the players you listed all made the team, which is certainly not the case, it's still not at 50%.

Not enough as in "not enough in the NHL?" He wasn't any less good last season when he was in the KHL. Maybe he was better.

Maybe he was. Doesn't change that he obviously wouldn't be picked for Canada. Hockey Canada doesn't care about KHL performance (elite Canadian KHL performers can't even get World Championship spots, which I actually think is unfortunate) and one very good year as Kane's sidekick isn't going to get him a spot on the Canadian team, especially as a player who doesn't yet bring much other than offence.

 

[Jopo]

Canada's realistic, historical and statistical Dominance in the light of Olympic Medal Records:

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 Canada (CAN) 13 5 2 20
2 Soviet Union (URS) 7 1 1 9
3 United States (USA) 3 12 2 17
4 Sweden (SWE) 2 4 5 11
5 Czech Republic (CZE) 1 0 1 2
5 Great Britain (GBR) 1 0 1 2
7 Unified Team (EUN) 1 0 0 1
8 Czechoslovakia (TCH) 0 4 4 8
9 Finland (FIN) 0 2 6 8
10 Russia (RUS) 0 1 1 2
11 Switzerland (SUI) 0 0 3 3
12 Germany (GER) 0 0 1 1
12 West Germany (FRG) 0 0 1 1

Lot of things on that chart "could've been something else then it is if...", but it's one of best measures to define meaning of Dominance. Glorious, and not anywhere near 100%.

 

[Canuckistani]

Canada's realistic, historical and statistical Dominance in the light of Olympic Medal Records:

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 Canada (CAN) 13 5 2 20
2 Soviet Union (URS) 7 1 1 9
3 United States (USA) 3 12 2 17
4 Sweden (SWE) 2 4 5 11
5 Czech Republic (CZE) 1 0 1 2
5 Great Britain (GBR) 1 0 1 2
7 Unified Team (EUN) 1 0 0 1
8 Czechoslovakia (TCH) 0 4 4 8
9 Finland (FIN) 0 2 6 8
10 Russia (RUS) 0 1 1 2
11 Switzerland (SUI) 0 0 3 3
12 Germany (GER) 0 0 1 1
12 West Germany (FRG) 0 0 1 1

Lot of things on that chart "could've been something else then it is if...", but it's one of best measures to define meaning of Dominance. Glorious, and not anywhere near 100%.

The overall Olympic standings are misleading considering that most of Canada's golds came when barely anyone else knew how to play hockey, and most Russian/Soviet golds came when they were sending their best pros to beat up no-name amateurs.

 

[Jopo]

The overall Olympic standings are misleading considering that most of Canada's golds came when barely anyone else knew how to play hockey, and most Russian/Soviet golds came when they were sending their best pros to beat up no-name amateurs.

True. Yeah. Meanwhile elsewhere?

The Red Machine was amateur team, heh. Military ranks and all.

Combined with World Championship and Canada Cup/World Cup stats the same overall dominance still remain, regardless of abominations and difficulties with comparability of USSR dominance era, that was at least partially caused by different rules sets for different teams in definition of Hockey Professional (But not trying to downplay the Red Machine's very high level of team play here).

 

[JackSlater]

Canada's realistic, historical and statistical Dominance in the light of Olympic Medal Records:

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 Canada (CAN) 13 5 2 20
2 Soviet Union (URS) 7 1 1 9
3 United States (USA) 3 12 2 17
4 Sweden (SWE) 2 4 5 11
5 Czech Republic (CZE) 1 0 1 2
5 Great Britain (GBR) 1 0 1 2
7 Unified Team (EUN) 1 0 0 1
8 Czechoslovakia (TCH) 0 4 4 8
9 Finland (FIN) 0 2 6 8
10 Russia (RUS) 0 1 1 2
11 Switzerland (SUI) 0 0 3 3
12 Germany (GER) 0 0 1 1
12 West Germany (FRG) 0 0 1 1

Lot of things on that chart "could've been something else then it is if...", but it's one of best measures to define meaning of Dominance. Glorious, and not anywhere near 100%.

When discussing Canada the Olympics prior to 1998 are completely irrelevant.

 

[Jopo]

Also, it seems that in longer run Team Canada cannot anymore take attitude of "Gold or Bust" in non-best-on-best international tournaments if going to maintain it's historical dominance.

The Red Machine's "non-professional" dominance era acted as hellish uplifting impact for many European countries in their level of hockey.

At least in Finland every notable achievement against USSR hegemony have been written with golden letters to the pages of a History of Finnish Hockey. First goals, first win etc.

 

[Yakushev72]

Canada's realistic, historical and statistical Dominance in the light of Olympic Medal Records:

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 Canada (CAN) 13 5 2 20
2 Soviet Union (URS) 7 1 1 9
3 United States (USA) 3 12 2 17
4 Sweden (SWE) 2 4 5 11
5 Czech Republic (CZE) 1 0 1 2
5 Great Britain (GBR) 1 0 1 2
7 Unified Team (EUN) 1 0 0 1
8 Czechoslovakia (TCH) 0 4 4 8
9 Finland (FIN) 0 2 6 8
10 Russia (RUS) 0 1 1 2
11 Switzerland (SUI) 0 0 3 3
12 Germany (GER) 0 0 1 1
12 West Germany (FRG) 0 0 1 1

Lot of things on that chart "could've been something else then it is if...", but it's one of best measures to define meaning of Dominance. Glorious, and not anywhere near 100%.

Irrelevant as stated because the Soviet Union last sent an entry to the 1992 Olympics, under the name Unified Team, six Olympic Games ago. Presumably, if the Soviet Union was still intact and retained the same system for training players, the results in the subsequent Olympics would have been much different than they turned out for Russia. After the Soviet Union departed, Canada has never had any consistent competition for Olympic Gold Medals, even though their actual record of having won Gold 60% of the time argues that they have not always taken advantage of their huge advantages.

 

[Yakushev72]

The overall Olympic standings are misleading considering that most of Canada's golds came when barely anyone else knew how to play hockey, and most Russian/Soviet golds came when they were sending their best pros to beat up no-name amateurs.

Yes, but their competition against Canada's very best in competitions that did not meet the criteria for best on best, like the Canada Cups and the Challenge Cup, showed that the Soviet teams were clearly the full equals of the very best teams in Canadian hockey history.

 

[jj cale]

Yes, but their competition against Canada's very best in competitions that did not meet the criteria for best on best, like the Canada Cups and the Challenge Cup, showed that the Soviet teams were clearly the full equals of the very best teams in Canadian hockey history.

Yes, the soviet teams were surely the equals to the best Canada produced back then.

Now that we have the history lesson out of the way maybe we can get to talking about both teams today.

The 1970's don't seem to be too pertinent to 2016, maybe an inability to recognize this by certain people is the reason things aren't equal between the two sides now.