At the WJC, since 2006, the United States has won a total of 2 gold and 3 bronze medals. By comparison, Russia won 1 gold, 5 Silver, and 4 bronze medals. In overall medals, since 2006, Russia has won 10 while the USA has won just 5. The WJC is a good overall indicator of the strength of hockey programs comparatively.
How is Canada not more dominant?
- Thread starter Nordic*
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
At the WJC, since 2006, the United States has won a total of 2 gold and 3 bronze medals. By comparison, Russia won 1 gold, 5 Silver, and 4 bronze medals. In overall medals, since 2006, Russia has won 10 while the USA has won just 5. The WJC is a good overall indicator of the strength of hockey programs comparatively.
PensBandwagonerNo272*
Forgot About Sid
- Sep 10, 2012
- 12,530
- 9
I don't think a team can be any more dominant in a 1 game sudden death formatted tournament.
Make these tournaments played with NHL-style 7 game series and I have a hard time believing Canada would ever lose.
Make these tournaments played with NHL-style 7 game series and I have a hard time believing Canada would ever lose.
Wouldn't be possible to have 7 game playoff style series for international hockey. Wouldn't work for almost any international sport; there's overseeing entity to impose a parity / cap.
Canada doesn't totally wreck every team because you can only send ~23 players, and their top 23 isn't an entire stratosphere better than the top 23 of the other Top 6 nations. A cap floor team can beat a cap ceiling team in a one-off game. By comparison, the USA's basketball roster is far, far better than the rest than Canada's is as opposed to their competition.
Whether that means Canada's ice hockey just isn't as strong relative to USA basketball's, or the other nations are better at ice hockey than other nations at basketball is another matter. More countries play basketball than hockey though, so there's that.
No one dominates soccer the way either of these national teams own their sport though. Germany's football/soccer team doesn't come close to being able to destroy their opponents the way Canada and the USA can at hockey and basketball. That's not a knock on Germany; their sport is wayyyyy harder to dominate at and is far more crowded, with a whole cluster of current top 20 teams (that list fluctuates by the month even) that could conceivably win the World Cup. There's only 6, and it basically doesn't change, that can make that claim in hockey in best-on-best, and optimistically, 2 or 3 in basketball.
Canada doesn't totally wreck every team because you can only send ~23 players, and their top 23 isn't an entire stratosphere better than the top 23 of the other Top 6 nations. A cap floor team can beat a cap ceiling team in a one-off game. By comparison, the USA's basketball roster is far, far better than the rest than Canada's is as opposed to their competition.
Whether that means Canada's ice hockey just isn't as strong relative to USA basketball's, or the other nations are better at ice hockey than other nations at basketball is another matter. More countries play basketball than hockey though, so there's that.
No one dominates soccer the way either of these national teams own their sport though. Germany's football/soccer team doesn't come close to being able to destroy their opponents the way Canada and the USA can at hockey and basketball. That's not a knock on Germany; their sport is wayyyyy harder to dominate at and is far more crowded, with a whole cluster of current top 20 teams (that list fluctuates by the month even) that could conceivably win the World Cup. There's only 6, and it basically doesn't change, that can make that claim in hockey in best-on-best, and optimistically, 2 or 3 in basketball.
Canuck21t
Registered User
Canada was not quite there yet in skill in 2004. In 2006, things started to get better, but Hockey Canada slected the wrong players. Crosby was already very good and should have been on the Olympic team, but the management at the time was still into having role-playing players. I remember hating some of the choices, namely Todd Burtuzzi. Of course I was disappointed at Canada's result, but at the same time I thought that maybe finally Hockey Canada would now change its way of selecting players and fortunately it did. In 2010, our checking line was consisting of Nash, Toews and Richards. The times when Hockey Canada used to select players like Zamuner and Draper are in the past and I hope it stays this way for a long time.
Last edited:
Realistic point. Good to see, that not all the people considering era around 02 and 04 canadians golds as a domination. From czech perspective it is bit depressing to see how canada built team full of stars who accepting and fulfill any role while we have to bring role players and ommit Hudler etc. Czech 04 WC team was closer to our "ideal". i.e. cz first liners in 4th line. It is like going backwards in metedolgy development because you do not have any other chance to compete. Quite a trap....
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,797
- 15,450
I don't see a big difference in skill between 2004 and today for Canada. A big deeper maybe, more on defence, but that tends to fluctuate era to era. The early 2000s was just a bad development time for Canada.
Also... Draper was not the problem in any of his international tournaments.
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
Because since 1995, the game of hockey became dumbed-down. It is a defense-first, systems game - talent has largely been removed from the equation. So, when you get the most talented group of players in the world together, it doesn't matter that much. Play the system, grind and get a few garbage goals - put your talent aside, be a team player in the system, dammit!!!!!
Excuse me. Dammit. Hockey is the team sport where the whole team is more important then an individual part of it. It was always that way and as long as rules are not changed dramatically, it also will be. Most talented guys are always those who can play best in their roles for the team.
It's not a sport of poster boys, celebrities, and stars first. The team is what make those ones.
Like everything else under the Sun, also Hockey is under continuous evolution. If no-name grinder team can beat a team of individual talented star roster, it's only good as it is just how it has always been. Only overall average level of talent has increased.
Accept it. Favor the talent, but not before the team. A talent isn't alone on the Ice.
And the way the "team" structure is played currently, the game of hockey is so damn boring. The "team" concept is designed to snuff out creativity and that is why I haven't watched any of this year's playoffs.
Without creativity in the game, I turn the channel to basketball.
"Team concept designed to snuff out a talent" is damn effective concept for winning and for getting high results in tournaments. It's only perfectly logical if a team try outplay an opponent's best individual talent(s), that forces to concentrate tactical schemes by utilization of whole team, not PPG 1.0+ entertainer squad of it.
Save All Stars gala nights for appropriate moments and be entertained, and real hockey games for real hockey tournaments.
It is not always that clear are NHL playoffs that entertaining to watch either, for their apparently high level of of skill, talent and purpose, btw.
A team that can ensure it's overall production over an opponent better, is better by definition here. One goal more is enough, but in same breath, that doesn't mean that games ending like 7-5, 6-5 OT, 8-7 and so on, would be somehow indicators for high talent and the level of play, right?
Latest good example was Team Canada's full system, tactics and attitude recovery, the second coming against Team Finland in WCH Final Game compared to it's "talented" and "entertaining" demonstration in the premiliary game. Nobody would claim that first game would be somehow exemplary game of hockey for it's entertainment value or quality, do they?
Save All Stars gala nights for appropriate moments and be entertained, and real hockey games for real hockey tournaments.
It is not always that clear are NHL playoffs that entertaining to watch either, for their apparently high level of of skill, talent and purpose, btw.
A team that can ensure it's overall production over an opponent better, is better by definition here. One goal more is enough, but in same breath, that doesn't mean that games ending like 7-5, 6-5 OT, 8-7 and so on, would be somehow indicators for high talent and the level of play, right?
Latest good example was Team Canada's full system, tactics and attitude recovery, the second coming against Team Finland in WCH Final Game compared to it's "talented" and "entertaining" demonstration in the premiliary game. Nobody would claim that first game would be somehow exemplary game of hockey for it's entertainment value or quality, do they?
Zegras Zebra
Registered User
I would agree that since 1995 hockey has been changed to a game more focused on playing a defensive system where the purpose is to prevent more chances for the opponent to score as opposed to the pre-1995 notion which was to out score your opponent. I will disagree that the level of talent hasn't gone down, the type of talent needed to be successful at the NHL level has changed. Before 1995 a player with "talent" typically scored as many goals as possible often with limited focus on other areas of the game. Today a player with "talent" generally has a more balanced skillset where in addition to scoring goals players need to set up their teammates with accurate passes, get in lanes to stop the opposing rush into the offensive zone, blocking shots, etc. The game may be more boring in some ways as there are less goals scored from great individual plays compared to shots deflected from the point, but the game still requires a large amount of skill to be successful even though that skill set has changed since the early 1990's.
Conspiracy Theorist
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2016
- 5,862
- 2,098
This years WJC might tell whether Canada's domination is permanent. USA and Finland are having a strong team in WJC.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,797
- 15,450
WJC results can change drastically based on a single game. The draft is what shows the future. Finland and especially USA look very strong in this regard in recent years.
Last edited:
Draper was a good skater, plus a good 2 way guy. I remember he was on a checking line with Thornton on one of our Teams ( 2004 World Cup, think it was )...and that line performed really well...
Draper's only serious flaw was he couldn't finish...Even so, he wasn't a terrible selection back then...
Having Getzlaf but no Perry, plus Getzlaf and Jumbo Joe on the same team, in lieu of Hall who woulda set the tourney ablaze alongside Crosby...
That's what I call, terrible, terrible team selection...
Like some of the other team selectors, TC's braintrust are guilty of overthinking sometimes
Canuck21t
Registered User
Those are for sure big names, but I dare say that today's Canadian players have better skills than back then in the late '90s and early '00s. If you look at the stats in those days, few Canadians were among the top scorers. I remember back then so many were saying other countries are getting better and closing the gap. Instead, Canada got better and it's 20 years later and other countries are still in the process of closing the gap.In wintern olympics in 1998 Canada rolled this roster:
Rob Blake - Los Angeles Kings
Ray Bourque - Boston Bruins
Rod Brind'Amour - Philadelphia Flyers
Martin Brodeur - New Jersey Devils
Shayne Corson - Montreal Canadiens
Éric Desjardins - Philadelphia Flyers
Theoren Fleury - Calgary Flames
Adam Foote - Colorado Avalanche
Wayne Gretzky - New York Rangers
Curtis Joseph - Edmonton Oilers
Trevor Linden - New York Islanders
Eric Lindros (C) - Philadelphia Flyers
Al MacInnis - St. Louis Blues
Joe Nieuwendyk - Dallas Stars
Keith Primeau - Carolina Hurricanes
Chris Pronger - St. Louis Blues
Mark Recchi - Montreal Canadiens
Patrick Roy - Colorado Avalanche
Joe Sakic (A) - Colorado Avalanche
Brendan Shanahan - Detroit Red Wings
Scott Stevens (A) - New Jersey Devils
Steve Yzerman (A) - Detroit Red Wings
Rob Zamuner- Tampa Bay Lightning
And Finland kicked their *****.
Finland never comes first when you're think of players, but as a team it's really tough to beat
Last edited:
Also in terms of predicting for the future hard to use this tournament as much of a judge when Canada are missing McDavid and Ekblad (among others) who would have been the two best players in the tournament.
Assessing the Canadian future while ignoring those two players is a pretty futile exercise.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,174
I say that often. In fact, even going back to the 1976 Canada Cup we probably should have dominated even more with that roster. To tell you the truth, we only were behind for a combined 7 minutes the entire tournament so that really is being in the driver's seat but we lost a game 1-0 and needed overtime in Game 2. Other than that Canada was in control. I just thought we should have done even better. I think that in every tournament.
My thought is that every other country brings their "A" game against Canada. So Canada never has that team which comes out looking flat. Sometimes Canada is that good that they make the team look that way but they are all putting their best foot forward in that game.
So the bottom line is, in a single game elimination format things can happen.
