Is 4 Nations a “Best on Best”?

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Nope. NHL needs to stop doing these roody poo candy ass half measures and just let the players play in the f***ing Olympics.

 

[RooBicks]

No.

4 teams. No Russia. No dark horses like Czechia or the Swiss or Slovakia. There has to be a bare minimum to be considered Best On Best and this doesn't get close.

This is a warm up (between 4 strong nations) for the Olympics.

The absence of some strong nations doesn't mean it's not best on best - the tournament will involve the best teams that each of the four nations involved could put together, with full availability from all relevant leagues.

Saying it's not best on best is like saying the 72 summit series wasn't best on best because Sweden wasn't invited. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Fatass]

The absence of some strong nations doesn't mean it's not best on best - the tournament will involve the best teams that each of the four nations involved could put together, with full availability from all relevant leagues.

Saying it's not best on best is like saying the 72 summit series wasn't best on best because Sweden wasn't invited. It doesn't make sense.

Didn’t guys in the WHA not get to play in ‘72? I don’t think that was actually Canada’s best. It was the best of the eligible Canadians.
This tournament is actually more the best on best for the four countries.

 

[BusQuets]

Can’t have a best on best without Russia who would likely beat Finland and Sweden and challenge Canada and the US for the top spot

Russia has been non factor in best-on-best tournament for ages. not sure why it would change now. Finland and Sweden are by far better.
Russia and USA are battling for 4th place here. Names mean nothing if you can't deliver like those two nations.

 

[ORRFForever]

The absence of some strong nations doesn't mean it's not best on best - the tournament will involve the best teams that each of the four nations involved could put together, with full availability from all relevant leagues.

Saying it's not best on best is like saying the 72 summit series wasn't best on best because Sweden wasn't invited. It doesn't make sense.

There is a big difference between now and 1972.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The absence of some strong nations doesn't mean it's not best on best - the tournament will involve the best teams that each of the four nations involved could put together, with full availability from all relevant leagues.

Saying it's not best on best is like saying the 72 summit series wasn't best on best because Sweden wasn't invited. It doesn't make sense.

1972 wasn't best on best and was never considered best on best.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Russia has been non factor in best-on-best tournament for ages. not sure why it would change now. Finland and Sweden are by far better.
Russia and USA are battling for 4th place here. Names mean nothing if you can't deliver like those two nations.

I love guys like this that act like there's been best on best competition in the current generation of players. Did the world just freeze a decade ago? In sports terms, that's an eternity.

 

[Voight]

Finland really dont have their best team... defense especially would have ~3 guys from Europe on it over the guys at the bottom of the roster if this were an Olympics. They would probably also take ~2 Euro based forwards too.

The World Cup of soccer would not be a "best on best" if you were only allowed to pick players from the English, Spanish, German and Italian leagues... despite those 4 leagues having 80% of the worlds best players.

Yea this is the vibe I got when injuries started piling up. Once they had to pick a guy like Matinpalo who's played less than half the games this year, I figured there'd be some guys in Europe that management would've rather picked but couldn't because of the rules.

Russia has been non factor in best-on-best tournament for ages. not sure why it would change now. Finland and Sweden are by far better.
Russia and USA are battling for 4th place here. Names mean nothing if you can't deliver like those two nations.

Last time Russia played in a major tournament (2014 or 2016, take your pick) they didn't have Kucherov (top 5 player), Vasi (top goalie), Kaprizov (top player) etc. I actually think Russia would've done well in this tournament.

 

[Ducati Boy]

Finland really dont have their best team... defense especially would have ~3 guys from Europe on it over the guys at the bottom of the roster if this were an Olympics. They would probably also take ~2 Euro based forwards too.

The World Cup of soccer would not be a "best on best" if you were only allowed to pick players from the English, Spanish, German and Italian leagues... despite those 4 leagues having 80% of the worlds best players.

But it’s really a stretch to say that, because Finland has a few Euro-based players who might be marginally better than the 4th liners or bottom pairing DF on the current team, the entire tournament is not a best-on-best.

 

[frontsfan67]

Last time Russia played in a major tournament (2014 or 2016, take your pick) they didn't have Kucherov (top 5 player), Vasi (top goalie), Kaprizov (top player) etc. I actually think Russia would've done well in this tournament.

100% and would’ve been carried by stellar goaltending in Vasi, Shesterkin, Sorokin who are all worlds better than the 3 goalies selected to represent Canada who most have winning it.

Personally I have the US because they have great forward and d groups and the best goalie there- Hellebuyck

I think it goes

1st USA
2nd CAN/SWE
3rd CAN/SWE
4th FIN

If Russia was in the tournament I absolutely put them above Finland, and maybe above Canada with their goaltending.

I am Canadian by the way but I like to tell it how it is. I hope Canada gets first overall but it’ll be a real tough task with the worst goaltending by far in the tournament