If United States won seniors Worlds...

[BOS358]

huh? Canada won the WJC in 2020

Apparently, only some WJC's can qualify as "Best on Best," which reduces the tournament's legitimacy in the eyes of the hockey community...or maybe just a few clowns on this board. Truth is, outside of this board, nobody cares about "Best on Best."

 

[Siludin]

Thanks for the idea, hockey to football national team comparisons:


Finland=Uruguay

Small Country obsessed with the sport, plays well above their population, have won tournaments in the past. Youth development is very good. Both play physical brands of their sport considering which continent they’re on (Uruguay is a physical side on an otherwise skill oriented continent, Finland play a tight defensive style on a continent that is more known for possession and skill hockey)

Czech Republic=Hungary

Used to be really good, but since the fall communism players raised in the post communist age have failed to live up to the glorious accomplishments of the past. Both have players that can be considered amongst the greats of all time in their sport (Jagr, Puskas). Both have one standout performance that will live on in national folklore (Hungary bollocking England at Wembley, and Czech beating Russia to win gold in Nagano)

Sweden=Holland

Produce excellent, skill oriented players, both probably should have won more tournaments given the quality of players they produce (Sweden with one best on best win, Holland have won the Euros once). Both countries style of play place an emphasis on passing and possession. Both currently have a player that is one of the best if not the best defensive player in the world (Hedman, van Dijk)

USA=England (thanks for the original idea)

Both countries with large player pools and populations that have won relatively little, only 1 best on best victory for each (USA 1996 WCOH, England 1966 WC). Both are home to the best domestic league in the world (NHL and Premiership), and despite large injections of money from their domestic leagues into the national federation, keep falling short on the big stage. Both currently have a young generation of promising players that have had success at youth level (England u17 WC 2017, USA WJC 2017), but have yet to make their mark on the senior international stage. Both have a player that, while not the best of the upcoming generation, will be top 5 in the world for a while to come (Sancho, Matthews)

Russia=Argentina

Large countries in which the sport is most popularly amongst specific socioeconomic demographics (in more affluent areas of Argentina, rugby is the most popular, whereas amongst skint people in Russia, football is more popular). Both countries had great successes during the later part of the 20th century (Argentina with multiple continental championships and world cups, Russia winning a Canada Cup and routinely beating NHL all star teams), but have not had the same success in the 21st century despite producing two of the best players ever in their sport (Ovechkin, Messi). At the current moment, both nations seem to produce forwards en masse, yet have difficulty producing defensive players

Canada= Brazil

The most successful nations of all time and the countries in which the sport is most popular. Canada has won 9/13 of the best on best tournaments, and Brazil has won a record 5 world cups. Both have produced arguably the greatest player of all time in their sport (Gretzky, Pele)

Sweden should be Italy or something idk
Russia should be Spain

 

[Siludin]

Switzerland (hockey) = Croatia (football)

Not very big country but sport is important part of their culture. Have been close to win in big tournament but not quite managed to do it. However, neither one can be referred as consistent top team.

Czech Republic = Hungary sounds harsh, we are more like Italy.

Czechoslovakia is the Yugoslavia of hockey?

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Are there any rising threats in football to take #1? That could be equivalent to Finland in hockey.

 

[Peiskos]

You're aware that Russia and Canada have the same amount of Olympic gold medals 9 and Russia has won more World Championships at 27 than any other nation. Not Gretzky's fault but they also boast what most consider the greatest international players of all time because Gretzky wasn't really playing in big tournaments in his prime. I can call him the greatest player of all-time, but international seems a stretch, Kharlomov is usually a fixture in these arguments. At the very least there isn't a big gap here at all in terms of the countries.

That Canadian trick where you just throw out any tournament you don't like isn't how it works. Much like the last two best-on-best WJC that we all knew were a coronation to Canada dominance and wound up with them not winning, if it didn't happen you don't get to change it to whatever way you hope it counts. 9/13 where do you come up with those numbers? If we are throwing out the Soviet era, we are throwing out Canada's first 6 OG from a different era as well.

I don't think the World Championship would be a very big deal. Why should it be? They have rarely if ever played it in NA. It's a low profile event over here, played in the middle of the Stanley Cup playoffs during the middle of the day. I mean I love watching it, but you're not attracting new viewers with this thing over here as currently constructed.

I agree with the post by @Rabid Ranger that it does seem like they should have accidentally run into one over the years. More of the big boys have been coming, the USMNTDP has really helped massively at the international level. It has built substantially more depth to the program and it gives these guys a familiarity and now ultimately a recruiting tool the last few. It seems to be getting them a better team. As a USA fan, I really don't believe we have ever been this good and that is really exciting. I think we have passed the 96' World Cup winning team at this point in terms of talent. By the way that tournament would be a good example, it didn't move the needle considerably, but it did have some traction while it was going on. But these events seem to fade quickly in terms of helping a bunch more popularity. I have always wondered if that is in part because of the standoffish nature the NHL and IIHF have had with each other for years.

Where do the numbers come from? Its a widely established and known fact that Russia has still yet to win a best vs best tournament under the Russian flag, the USSR only ever won 1 best vs best tournament, the 1981 Canada Cup.

There have been 14 best vs best tournaments in the history of the sport, Canada has won a staggering 10 of them, no other country has won more than 1, this is a known fact. There is no point in attempting to deny it.

List of Best vs Best hockey tournaments throughout history.

1972 Summit Series - Canada (1)
1976 Canada Cup - Canada (2)
1981 Canada Cup - USSR (1)
1984 Canada Cup - Canada (3)
1987 Canada Cup - Canada (4)
1991 Canada Cup - Canada (5)
1996 World Cup of Hockey - USA (1)
1998 Olympics - Czech Republic (1)
2002 Olympics - Canada (6)
2004 World Cup of Hockey - Canada (7)
2006 Olympics - Sweden (1)
2010 Olympics - Canada (8)
2014 Olympics - Canada (9)
2016 World Cup of Hockey - Canada (10)

Canada has utterly dominated hockey at the highest level (best vs best) since the 1970's. It really hasn't even been close. How someone in 2021 can be totally oblivious to this fact is mind boggling lol.

Its really no surprise either, Canada just has an exorbitant amount of depth.

 

[Albatros]

There have been 14 best vs best tournaments in the history of the sport

That's your personal opinion, not a fact.

 

[Peiskos]

That's your personal opinion, not a fact.

How is it not a fact? the tournaments I listed clearly were the ones where the best players were available to attend, there is even literally a wiki article on it.

Are you attempting to suggest for example that the 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014 Olympics were not best vs best tournaments? what a bizarre take

List of international ice hockey competitions featuring NHL players

Canada has utterly dominated hockey at the best vs best level since the early 1970's this is a widely known and established fact.

 

[Albatros]

How is it not a fact? the tournaments I listed clearly were the ones where the best players were available to attend, there is even literally a wiki article on it.

Anyone can create a wiki article. You list for example the 1991 Canada Cup as a "best vs. best" tournament although the USSR sent an enhanced Dynamo Moscow team. But perhaps the whole idea of of this concept is to serve as an euphemism for whenever Canada had a particularly strong team with success.

 

[Peiskos]

Anyone can create a wiki article. You list for example the 1991 Canada Cup as a "best vs. best" tournament although the USSR sent an enhanced Dynamo Moscow team. But perhaps the whole idea of of this concept is to serve as an euphemism for whenever Canada had a particularly strong team with success.

Lol so now you're suggesting I created that wiki article?

If you want to cherry pick tournaments that is your opinion, but even so my point still remains. You've still yet to answer my question.

It is widely acknowledged that the 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014 Olympics were best vs best tournaments. How could they have not been? look at the rosters of all the countries, every nation had their fully loaded rosters of the best players they had.

Are you denying that the 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014 Olympics were best vs best? and that Canada won 3/5?

In addition let me ask you this, which country has won the most best vs best tournaments if it isn't Canada? I'm struggling to understand your bizarre logic here..

 

[BOS358]

Where can one find a list of tournaments that were officially certified as "Best on Best?" It has to exist somewhere...

 

[Albatros]

Lol so now you're suggesting I created that wiki article?

If you want to cherry pick tournaments that is your opinion, but even so my point still remains. You've still yet to answer my question.

It is widely acknowledged that the 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014 Olympics were best vs best tournaments. How could they have not been? look at the rosters of all the countries, every nation had their fully loaded rosters of the best players they had.

Are you denying that the 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014 Olympics were best vs best? and that Canada won 3/5?

In addition let me ask you this, which country has won the most best vs best tournaments if it isn't Canada? I'm struggling to understand your bizarre logic here..

The Olympics would come closest to living up to such a claim, not exactly but at least broadly yes I agree.

 

[Peiskos]

Where can one find a list of tournaments that were officially certified as "Best on Best?" It has to exist somewhere...

What does certified best vs best even mean. All you can do is look at the rosters of each country to see how loaded they were.

It is safe to say for example that the five Olympic hockey tournament starting from 1998 to 2014 were best vs best tournaments because every country clearly assembled their best possible rosters.

You can also say that the 1996 and 2004 World Cup of Hockey were best vs best tournaments as once again the rosters of each nation were the best players each country had at the time. When it comes to the 2016 World Cup of Hockey I can see how people wouldn't consider it best vs best with the gimmick North America and Europe teams.

 

[Albatros]

It is safe to say for example that the five Olympic hockey tournament starting from 1998 to 2014 were best vs best tournaments because every country clearly assembled their best possible rosters.

This is not true, the format was rigged against smaller countries so that it was impossible for teams like Germany or Slovakia to have their best players.

You can also say that the 1996 and 2004 World Cup of Hockey were best vs best tournaments as once again the rosters of each nation were the best players each country had at the time.

Would you say that for example 2004 Team Russia consisted of the best Russian players?

 

[Hanji]

Where do the numbers come from? Its a widely established and known fact that Russia has still yet to win a best vs best tournament under the Russian flag, the USSR only ever won 1 best vs best tournament, the 1981 Canada Cup.

There have been 14 best vs best tournaments in the history of the sport, Canada has won a staggering 10 of them, no other country has won more than 1, this is a known fact. There is no point in attempting to deny it.

List of Best vs Best hockey tournaments throughout history.

1972 Summit Series - Canada (1)
1976 Canada Cup - Canada (2)
1981 Canada Cup - USSR (1)
1984 Canada Cup - Canada (3)
1987 Canada Cup - Canada (4)
1991 Canada Cup - Canada (5)
1996 World Cup of Hockey - USA (1)
1998 Olympics - Czech Republic (1)
2002 Olympics - Canada (6)
2004 World Cup of Hockey - Canada (7)
2006 Olympics - Sweden (1)
2010 Olympics - Canada (8)
2014 Olympics - Canada (9)
2016 World Cup of Hockey - Canada (10)

Canada has utterly dominated hockey at the highest level (best vs best) since the 1970's. It really hasn't even been close. How someone in 2021 can be totally oblivious to this fact is mind boggling lol.

Its really no surprise either, Canada just has an exorbitant amount of depth.

These are cherrypicked a little. If you’re including the summit series, why not include the ‘79 challenge cup and Rendez-vous '87? Also the 2005 world championships should be included if the criteria is every country having the opportunity to send their best.

 

[Peiskos]

These are cherrypicked a little. If you’re including the summit series, why not include the ‘79 challenge cup and Rendez-vous '87? Also the 2005 world championships should be included if the criteria is every country having the opportunity to send their best.

I don't include the 1979 challenge cup because it wasn't a fully Canadian team, the team had 3 Swedes on it lol. Borje Salming, Ulf Nilsson and Anders Hedberg. 1979 Challenge Cup (ice hockey)

Most certainly wasn't a Canadian national team, in fact it was referred to as an NHL all star roster, not Team Canada.

As for the 87 Rendez vous, each team won a game and it was declared a tie, so there was no winner, hence no need to include it.

But sure, add 2005 but my underlying point still remains...no country has won more best vs best tournaments than Canada and by a landslide.

 

[Peiskos]

This is not true, the format was rigged against smaller countries so that it was impossible for teams like Germany or Slovakia to have their best players.



Would you say that for example 2004 Team Russia consisted of the best Russian players?

Lets be serious, Germany and Slovakia wouldn't have even stood a chance against Canada anyways, so its really pointless to bring that up when we already know what the result would have been at the time. No offence to Germany/Slovakia but be realistic.

As for the 2004 Russian team, yea I mean it had Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Kovalev, Markov, Volchenkov, Yashin, Gonchar, Samsonov, Afinogenov, Kozlov etc...how was that not the best players Russia had in 2004?

 

[Hanji]

I don't include the 1979 challenge cup because it wasn't a fully Canadian team, the team had 3 Swedes on it lol. Borje Salming, Ulf Nilsson and Anders Hedberg. 1979 Challenge Cup (ice hockey)

Most certainly wasn't a Canadian national team, in fact it was referred to as an NHL all star roster, not Team Canada.

As for the 87 Rendez vous, each team won a game and it was declared a tie, so there was no winner, hence no need to include it.

But sure, add 2005 but my underlying point still remains...no country has won more best vs best tournaments than Canada and by a landslide.

oh I agree Canada has won the most. But my point is your original list seemed quite Canada prejudiced and it was stated as fact. You omitted tourneys for particular certain reasons yet including others under similar circumstances because you won, and vice versa.

And do we consider a tournament best on best of one of the favorites doesn't send a true A team despite everyone else doing so? I dunno.

 

[Peiskos]

oh I agree Canada has won the most. But my point is your original list seemed quite Canada prejudiced and it was stated as fact. Omitting tourneys for particular certain reasons yet including others under similar circumstances because you won, and vice versa.

And do we consider a tournament best on best of one of the favorites doesn't send a true A team despite everyone else doing so? I dunno.

Well I think I included all the main ones, I gave reasons why I didn't include the 79' challenge cup and 87' rendez vous which I think you now agree was the right decision? I wasn't trying to cherry pick.

It depends, I think there should be a threshold or cut off, I think every team should have at least 90% of its best possible roster. I think its clear that the 1996 & 2004 World Cup of Hockey along with the 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014 Olympics did.

I know that many others have as well, but for the sake of focusing on relatively modern day tournaments I like to focus on these ones.

 

[Albatros]

Lets be serious, Germany and Slovakia wouldn't have even stood a chance against Canada anyways, so its really pointless to bring that up when we already know what the result would have been at the time. No offence to Germany/Slovakia but be realistic.

Canada won Germany 3:2 in 2002. Would it still have been 3:2 if Germany had fair access to their players? We will never know. But what we know is that best comes with an asterisk.

As for the 2004 Russian team, yea I mean it had Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Kovalev, Markov, Volchenkov, Yashin, Gonchar, Samsonov, Afinogenov, Kozlov etc...how was that not the best players Russia had in 2004?

Nabokov, Khabibulin, Zubov, Zhitnik, Fedorov, Slava Kozlov, Morozov, Zhamnov, Malakhov, Mogilny etc.

 

[BOS358]

What does certified best vs best even mean. All you can do is look at the rosters of each country to see how loaded they were.

With all the arguments over whether a tournament qualifies as "best on best," I figured there has to be some certification criteria for the term. Surely the good folks on this board wouldn't invent a concept that has no real meaning out of thin air. Since there's so much talk of "best on best" on this board (but strangely, none anywhere else,) I'm guessing somewhere there has to be an official definition of the term with a list of events that earned the title.

 

[MrGold]

With all the arguments over whether a tournament qualifies as "best on best," I figured there has to be some certification criteria for the term. Surely the good folks on this board wouldn't invent a concept that has no real meaning out of thin air. Since there's so much talk of "best on best" on this board (but strangely, none anywhere else,) I'm guessing somewhere there has to be an official definition of the term with a list of events that earned the title.

Out of the blue I'd say it's not best on best if the event conflicts with NHL schedule?

 

[Mathieukferland]

Where do the numbers come from? Its a widely established and known fact that Russia has still yet to win a best vs best tournament under the Russian flag, the USSR only ever won 1 best vs best tournament, the 1981 Canada Cup.

There have been 14 best vs best tournaments in the history of the sport, Canada has won a staggering 10 of them, no other country has won more than 1, this is a known fact. There is no point in attempting to deny it.

List of Best vs Best hockey tournaments throughout history.

1972 Summit Series - Canada (1)
1976 Canada Cup - Canada (2)
1981 Canada Cup - USSR (1)
1984 Canada Cup - Canada (3)
1987 Canada Cup - Canada (4)
1991 Canada Cup - Canada (5)
1996 World Cup of Hockey - USA (1)
1998 Olympics - Czech Republic (1)
2002 Olympics - Canada (6)
2004 World Cup of Hockey - Canada (7)
2006 Olympics - Sweden (1)
2010 Olympics - Canada (8)
2014 Olympics - Canada (9)
2016 World Cup of Hockey - Canada (10)

Canada has utterly dominated hockey at the highest level (best vs best) since the 1970's. It really hasn't even been close. How someone in 2021 can be totally oblivious to this fact is mind boggling lol.

Its really no surprise either, Canada just has an exorbitant amount of depth.

I didn’t include any of the Summit Series because it was only Canada VS USSR, but realistically at that time no one else was beating those two

 

[CpatainCanuck]

With all the arguments over whether a tournament qualifies as "best on best," I figured there has to be some certification criteria for the term. Surely the good folks on this board wouldn't invent a concept that has no real meaning out of thin air. Since there's so much talk of "best on best" on this board (but strangely, none anywhere else,) I'm guessing somewhere there has to be an official definition of the term with a list of events that earned the title.

Other than a handful of special cases that have been mentioned in this thread, it's not that hard to understand. If someone claims they don't understand they are either ignorant of hockey history or deliberately being obtuse.

 

[kudla]

Lets be serious, Germany and Slovakia wouldn't have even stood a chance against Canada anyways, so its really pointless to bring that up when we already know what the result would have been at the time. No offence to Germany/Slovakia but be realistic.

As for the 2004 Russian team, yea I mean it had Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Kovalev, Markov, Volchenkov, Yashin, Gonchar, Samsonov, Afinogenov, Kozlov etc...how was that not the best players Russia had in 2004?

Saying that Slovakia wouldn't have stood a chance is a bit disrespectful, look at the rosters we had in 1998-2010. In 2010 Canada barely got trough us to the finals

 

[member 305909]

Are there any rising threats in football to take #1? That could be equivalent to Finland in hockey.

There's no threat to football as the global most popular sport.

However, it will never become the most popular sport in North-America and I have noticed that immensely pisses off some people.