Is 4 Nations a “Best on Best”?

[ACC1224]

Of course it’s best on best. Which team isn’t bringing their best lineup?

 

[Jumptheshark]

this is a silly comment considering none of those countries even have enough nhl players to fill out a roster, let alone talent to hang with the other 4

Yes they do and since you ask? Swiss and Chechia area a head of USA and Sweden in the current rankings. Sweden and The Fins are going with players from their home leagues as well.

 

[MessierII]

Lol no

 

[Old Man Jags]

It’s best on best for Canada and the US. It’s probably nearly best on best for Sweden and Finland as well, but not quite - because if they could choose from among all their players, Finland for example would also take various Europe-based players.

What the NHL fetishists here do not sufficiently appreciate is that to many teams the system matters a lot, and involves taking players from Europe (sometimes in preference of available options from the NHL) who fit the system better. They consider those final team selections their best possible teams.

As for having only four teams? I think those are the four best teams in the world now (ignoring Russia as they are not an option now). But that does not mean that surprises involving lower-ranked top teams would be impossible.

For example, everyone assumed that the first ever best on best Olympics in Nagano would be won by Canada or the US. Anything else was impossible. So what happed? The Czechs knocked out the best the US had to offer, then the best Canada had and subsequently, Russia. They did it with a team that had many Europe-based players, and the coach left quite a few NHL players out of the team in favour of some Europe-based players who fitted how he wanted to play, and considered that line-up “the best”.

 

[AlwaysSunnyInDetroit]

Yes they do and since you ask? Swiss and Chechia area a head of USA and Sweden in the current rankings. Sweden and The Fins are going with players from their home leagues as well.

the 4 nations tournament is an nhl product and every single player participating is an nhl player. germany only has 7 current nhl players and switzerland has 11. czechia has 28 but 8 of them are goalies, 4 are defenseman, and 5 of the forwards are jakub lauko, ivan ivan, jan jenik, matej blumel, adam klapka

are necas, hertl, pastrnak, gudas, hronek going to play 60 minutes every game against canada and usa rolling 4 lines of all stars every night?

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

No

More than 4 countries play hockey in this world

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

What's with the laugh react?



(yes, I just wanted an excuse to share that on here)



Well at least people had interest to begin with, unlike this "best on best"...

Because banning Russia is pure Agenda. There’s more than one war currently ongoing now, and they don’t involve Russia

 

[Senor Catface]

Because banning Russia is pure Agenda. There’s more than one war currently ongoing now, and they don’t involve Russia

Well, you're wrong. That's exactly why they didn't invite the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Rwanda to the competition.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Best of those four specific countries, I guess, but that's it.

But until we see a full tournament that includes Russia, Germany, Slovakia and the Czech Republic it'll never be a true "best on best" tourney.

Hopefully by the 2026 Olympics the IIHF will finally figure it out.

 

[heksagon]

Of course it’s best on best. Which team isn’t bringing their best lineup?

Arguably Finland, because we would likely bring in European based players (especially defensemen) if we were allowed to. We are scraping the very bottom of our NHL barrel because of all the injuries, and the top European league defenders are a little better. And Finland has historically never went with a full NHL lineup in an IIHF best on best. But that's a pretty small difference in the grand scheme of things, as the majority of our best are still in the NHL, so your main point still kind of stands.

 

[kerrabria]

No, because several of the best forwards and goaltenders in the world won’t be there.

No, because Russia is better than Finland, so it’s not even best teams against best teams.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Well, you're wrong. That's exactly why they didn't invite the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Rwanda to the competition.

I’m talking about all sports competitions

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

Not even close

 

[ijuka]

Pretty obviously it's best on best.

So is the all star game.

 

[kerrabria]

Kaprizov - Kopitar - Kucherov
Stutzle - Draisaitl - Pastrnak
Panarin - Hischier - Necas
Ovechkin - Malkin - Meier

Josi - Seider
Sergachev - Hronek
Siegenthaler - Provorov

Sorokin

If a team comprised of ineligible players could potentially go undefeated in this tournament, then no, it’s not best on best.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Not even close.

 

[heksagon]

No, because several of the best forwards and goaltenders in the world won’t be there.

No, because Russia is better than Finland, so it’s not even best teams against best teams.

Proof on Russia being better than Finland?

Best on Best results? Clearly no.

On paper? Kind of yes, but kind of no. Russia has clearly better wingers, but Finland clearly better centers. The latter are usually considered more important. Russia has better goaltenders but you can only ice one and it ends up being almost equal because of that. On defence Russia has better depth but Heiskanen clears all Russian D-men.

 

[Northerner]

I’m sure it’s posted elsewhere…but I’m lazy.

No. It's the stoopidest "tournament" in the history of tournaments.


No idea why it's happening and don't even know if I'll tune in.



If a half dozen superstars get their legs broken over this silliness, Bettman will have only himself to blame.

Just 5 countries have enough players for a full roster. And Russia can't participate in anything right now so this is the best that we are going to get!

They can't? Then why are Ovechkin and Kaprizov and a dozen other Russians playing in the NHL right now?

 

[just a hockey fan]

A multitude of reasons.

A. NHL teams have guys on contract at times effectively for "futures", guys who have not fully developed but they hope might be more than a 3rd pairing or bottom six guy some day. Often when these guys hit mid-20s? They end up back in Europe... despite being better at 25-29 in prime than were in NHL at 21-24.

B. Some players who could be depth NHLers (and get offered a contract as such) would rather be home earning 300,000-500,000 a year than a 900k NHL contract where they might get sent to the AHL. Heck, I know of some players who got offered more to stay in NHL and went back or stayed home because of family reasons.

C. Some young guys who will be in the NHL soon are still playing in Europe and might already be better than depth guys.

D. Some guys who are more talented might be seen as NHL "tweeners" even if capable of say 40 points or so talent wise... but are perceived as unfit for an NHL bottom six. Whereas a national team generally pick less for role and more to have as much scoring talent as possible and fit in who PKs etc after.

Hence why the last "best on best" tournament that Finland played in:

They had ELEVEN of their 25 man roster playing in Europe. (they had 23 players who played in the NHL that year... and tonnes more in the AHL... but only 14 were decided to be good enough for the 25 man roster)

At the last 2 World Championships Olli Maatta was there... he was not the #1, nope... Mikko Lehtonen was, who plays in Switzerland. And Oliwer Kaski, who plays in Sweden, played over him too. Rasmus Rissanen had similar ice time...

The Finns had multiple NHL contracted fwds also playing behind guys who play in Europe!

The best ~12 Finns in the world are all in the NHL... but of the top 25 or so? Well, maybe more like 16-17 are.


The NHL is the best league in the world. But it does not have a monopoly on all the best players! It is naive to think so.

Very well put!

Would be great if North Americans understood and accepted the fact that there are players in Europe who would be included for the European countries because they are at the very least as good (if not better) as their countrymen who are bottom of the lineup players in the NHL. No reason for Europeans to stay in the AHL past their ELC expiring or when they turn 23-24 to grind away when they aren't suited for 4th line duties if they can go and play in Switzerland for example and get a role as a point producer. I'm sure Finland would've picked players from Europe as injury replacements if they were allowed.

 

[kerrabria]

Proof on Russia being better than Finland?

Best on Best results? Clearly no.

On paper? Kind of yes, but kind of no. Russia has clearly better wingers, but Finland clearly better centers. The latter are usually considered more important. Russia has better goaltenders but you can only ice one and it ends up being almost equal because of that. On defence Russia has better depth but Heiskanen clears all Russian D-men.

Russia doesn't blow Finland out of the water, but just on paper, I think the Russians have a clear edge.
Yes, Finland has much better centers and a more well-rounded roster, but Russia can ice multiple offensive gamebreakers for an entire 60 minutes. That's backed up with a blueline comprised only of Top 4 d-men and your choice of a Top 3 goalie in the world.

Barkov and Heiskenanen can't always be on the ice, and when they are, they'll have limited offensive impact since they'll need to play shutdown hockey (the 2020 and 2024 SCFs are good use cases for this).

Finns won't like this last comment, but I do think it's worth mentioning that Finland's captain, 1C, and best player is an ethnic Russian dual citizen, and if he had chosen to play for Russia, then this wouldn't even be a conversation.

 

[ACC1224]

Arguably Finland, because we would likely bring in European based players (especially defensemen) if we were allowed to. We are scraping the very bottom of our NHL barrel because of all the injuries, and the top European league defenders are a little better. And Finland has historically never went with a full NHL lineup in an IIHF best on best. But that's a pretty small difference in the grand scheme of things, as the majority of our best are still in the NHL, so your main point still kind of stands.

Thanks, didn't realize that.

 

[heksagon]

Russia doesn't blow Finland out of the water, but just on paper, I think the Russians have a clear edge.
Yes, Finland has much better centers and a more well-rounded roster, but Russia can ice multiple offensive gamebreakers for an entire 60 minutes. That's backed up with a blueline comprised only of Top 4 d-men and your choice of a Top 3 goalie in the world.

Barkov and Heiskenanen can't always be on the ice, and when they are, they'll have limited offensive impact since they'll need to play shutdown hockey (the 2020 and 2024 SCFs are good use cases for this).

Finns won't like this last comment, but I do think it's worth mentioning that Finland's captain, 1C, and best player is an ethnic Russian dual citizen, and if he had chosen to play for Russia, then this wouldn't even be a conversation.

Yeah I can see your argument for Russia on paper, but I still would take Finland over them in a best on best largely because of the elite two-way forwards. It's very very close though. Russia would hypothetically have immensely talented wingers.

The last comment doesn't really bother me since I've seen it so many times, but I do not think it's particularly worth mentioning.

It might be worth mentioning if it was ever a debate what Barkov chose, but it wasn't: He was never even approached by the Russian NT. He has lived his whole youth life in Finland and is a product of the Finnish hockey system all the way through. It's as pointless as asking what if Mika Zibanejad chose Finland instead, because he has a Finnish mom. In fact Mika's case would be more relevant since he WAS supposed to play for Finland in the youth NT, but byrocracy came in the way. It's still not worth mentioning when comparing Finland and Sweden for example.

 

[Zine]

Gee, i wonder who would choose to play for 300k/usd with a Liiga team if you are good enough to play in the NHL and make the average 2M$/year nhlers make.

A multitude of reasons.

A. NHL teams have guys on contract at times effectively for "futures", guys who have not fully developed but they hope might be more than a 3rd pairing or bottom six guy some day. Often when these guys hit mid-20s? They end up back in Europe... despite being better at 25-29 in prime than were in NHL at 21-24.

B. Some players who could be depth NHLers (and get offered a contract as such) would rather be home earning 300,000-500,000 a year than a 900k NHL contract where they might get sent to the AHL. Heck, I know of some players who got offered more to stay in NHL and went back or stayed home because of family reasons.

C. Some young guys who will be in the NHL soon are still playing in Europe and might already be better than depth guys.

D. Some guys who are more talented might be seen as NHL "tweeners" even if capable of say 40 points or so talent wise... but are perceived as unfit for an NHL bottom six. Whereas a national team generally pick less for role and more to have as much scoring talent as possible and fit in who PKs etc after.

Hence why the last "best on best" tournament that Finland played in:

They had ELEVEN of their 25 man roster playing in Europe. (they had 23 players who played in the NHL that year... and tonnes more in the AHL... but only 14 were decided to be good enough for the 25 man roster)

At the last 2 World Championships Olli Maatta was there... he was not the #1, nope... Mikko Lehtonen was, who plays in Switzerland. And Oliwer Kaski, who plays in Sweden, played over him too. Rasmus Rissanen had similar ice time...

The Finns had multiple NHL contracted fwds also playing behind guys who play in Europe!

The best ~12 Finns in the world are all in the NHL... but of the top 25 or so? Well, maybe more like 16-17 are.


The NHL is the best league in the world. But it does not have a monopoly on all the best players! It is naive to think so.

Don't overlook taxes.
The NHL is where the money is, but NHLers are also taxed at an enormous rate.

I'm not sure what rates are in Fin, Swe, etc., but a $1 million NHL salary is the rough equivalent of a $500K KHL salary after taxes (net earnings).