I feel America did great in this tournament....

[Big Phil]

The US is in a transition phase right now. Give em a few years, they'll be bigger than ever.

Really? Hmmm. Not sure who is going to pick up the slack. Scott Gomez maybe, at 25.

The USA has had this problem since '96 when they had no one coming up to take the olders guys place. On this team you had, Modano, Amonte, Guerin, all 34, Weight 33, Tkachuk 32, Chelios 42, Hull 40, Leetch 36. That's our core from '96. No big US name has come up in the past 8 years. I think if you have a '06 Olympic tourny you have a good amount of players returning cause there just isnt any names right now.

 

[puck swami]

I thought Mike Ulmer was over the line, but hey, being anti-American has never been more popular these days in Canada and around the world. If it makes him feel better, fine. I just wish he seek a more objective viewpoint.

Up to last week, Team USA had been superb in the last three editions of the international tourneys where the best players actually play.

In the 96 World Cup - US won Gold, 2002 Olympics - Silver and 2004 World Junior - Gold (arguably the best total performance by any country in those tourneys). I don't count world championships because those teams are "B" teams for all countries.

And the Americans were a bounce or two from this World Cup final this year, holding Finland to 12 shots. That's not to say that Finland didn't deserve to win (they did) but the line between victory and defeat was a very small one. That's hockey...

USA Hockey is fine...

 

[beeker16]

you're one of the good ones monkey_00.

I don't understand how someone can look past the anti-american sentiment in favor of some honest and thoughtful insight and commentary.

so thanks for not following the bandwagon much like the rest of the canadian posters and posting something intelligent.

cheers
JC

 

[Papa Smurf]

2004 World Junior - Gold (arguably the best total performance by any country in those tourneys).

I dont think they can compare to Team Canada of 1991 and 1996.

 

[puck swami]

I dont think they can compare to Team Canada of 1991 and 1996.

My fault - I didn't express myself as well as I should have. There are three tourneys in international hockey where the best players play - the World Cup, the Olympics and the World Juniors. Up until last week, the last time Team USA played in each of those tourneys (the 1996 World Cup, the 2002 Olympics and the 2004 World Juniors), the USA team recorded two top finishes (WC, WJ) and a second place finish (Oly). Canada finished with top finish (Oly) and two second place finishes (WC, WJ) at those same tourneys.

I'm not making the claim that the US is the best hockey country in the world - certainly Canada has proven that it owns that position. But I get frustrated when people like Mike Ulmer cannot see the progress that has been made in bringing USA hockey to a top level hockey program that is every bit as good as the five or six other progams that battle Canada for that top spot. I think the USA has earned that distinction, and that the progress that has been made is much more than "miniscule."

 

[Mountain Dude]

My fault - I didn't express myself as well as I should have. There are three tourneys in international hockey where the best players play - the World Cup, the Olympics and the World Juniors. Up until last week, the last time Team USA played in each of those tourneys (the 1996 World Cup, the 2002 Olympics and the 2004 World Juniors), the USA team recorded two top finishes (WC, WJ) and a second place finish (Oly). Canada finished with top finish (Oly) and two second place finishes (WC, WJ) at those same tourneys.

I'm not making the claim that the US is the best hockey country in the world - certainly Canada has proven that it owns that position. But I get frustrated when people like Mike Ulmer cannot see the progress that has been made in bringing USA hockey to a top level hockey program that is every bit as good as the five or six other progams that battle Canada for that top spot. I think the USA has earned that distinction, and that the progress that has been made is much more than "miniscule."

The world juniors aren't best on best.

 

[Crossroads*]

The world juniors aren't best on best.

It is for that age group.

 

[Granny99]

My fault - I didn't express myself as well as I should have. There are three tourneys in international hockey where the best players play - the World Cup, the Olympics and the World Juniors. Up until last week, the last time Team USA played in each of those tourneys (the 1996 World Cup, the 2002 Olympics and the 2004 World Juniors), the USA team recorded two top finishes (WC, WJ) and a second place finish (Oly). Canada finished with top finish (Oly) and two second place finishes (WC, WJ) at those same tourneys.

I'm not making the claim that the US is the best hockey country in the world - certainly Canada has proven that it owns that position. But I get frustrated when people like Mike Ulmer cannot see the progress that has been made in bringing USA hockey to a top level hockey program that is every bit as good as the five or six other progams that battle Canada for that top spot. I think the USA has earned that distinction, and that the progress that has been made is much more than "miniscule."

I see you have conveniently left out the 98 Olympics in your argument? A 5th place finish AND some childish antics as well. Not trying to bash US Hockey as they have had some good tournaments in the last decade, but all the facts must be taken into account.

 

[Mountain Dude]

It is for that age group.

It still isn't, because if you're good enough to make the NHL when you're 18, you're still eligible to play, but your team might not let you go.

Therefore it is not a best on best.