Is 4 Nations a “Best on Best”?

[Voight]

I get what you are saying but I think they chose whom they thought was the best goalie at the time. No crystal balls unfortunately.

And now you are making me put on my scrub Globe and Mail reporter hat. Where ARE the Québec players? Québec has a fourth of the Canadian population. They should have around five/six players. I guess everybody is playing soccer and Canadian football there now. Shrug.

Thompson at the time the roster was announced had a .911Sv% and 2.56GAA compared to Montembaults .897 and 3.12.... he was the better goalie at the time.... between DeBoer/Cassidy apparently not liking him and the team thinking they needed a QC player, they chose Montembault which is just dumb cause Thompsons gotten even better in the last two months.

 

[GuyCANCZE]

Thompson at the time the roster was announced had a .911Sv% and 2.56GAA compared to Montembaults .897 and 3.12.... he was the better goalie at the time.... between DeBoer/Cassidy apparently not liking him and the team thinking they needed a QC player, they chose Montembault which is just dumb cause Thompsons gotten even better in the last two months.

Ah, thanks for finding the numbers for me. I stand corrected.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Best on Best is if they were playing together in a league building chemistry over the span of a few months. This is a whole roster assembled and playing a tournament over the span of a couple weeks lol

There’s going to be a lot of errors, sloppy play, scoring chances and head scratching moments, makes for good entertainment tho.

 

[Staniowski]

Yes, of course this tournament is a best-on-best. These are (potentially) the best versions of these four countries. Last night was Canada's best vs Sweden's best.

Every best-on-best has its own unique character. There are always missing players. Even the quasi-best-on-best tournaments/series -'72 Summit Series, '79 Challenge Cup, '87 Rendez Vous - are essentially best-on-best.

The important things about best-on-best play is that we get to see (most of) the best hockey players in the world compete head to head, and we therefore get a unique opportunity to assess players playing against excellent opposition. It's exciting and enlightening.
--------------------------
However, Russia and Czechia (at least) should be in this tournament. There's no good reason why Russia shouldn't be playing.

 

[madmike77]

I just look at it as a gimmick. Better than the All Star game for sure but still not especially engaging.

 

[Neil Racki]

Yes

 

[MuckOG]

It's not "best on best" without Russia playing, IMO.

 

[Divine]

Russia should have replaced Finland and then you might be able to argue it

 

[RED ARMY EAST]

Thompson at the time the roster was announced had a .911Sv% and 2.56GAA compared to Montembaults .897 and 3.12.... he was the better goalie at the time.... between DeBoer/Cassidy apparently not liking him and the team thinking they needed a QC player, they chose Montembault which is just dumb cause Thompsons gotten even better in the last two months.

IMO, TC had better options in Thompson and Kuemper.

 

[Mirka the Turka]

The competition doesn't miss Russia, look at the ratings

Plus Russia should be banned for at least 5 years after the Ukraine war.

 

[Fatass]

The competition doesn't miss Russia, look at the ratings

Plus Russia should be banned for at least 5 years after the Ukraine war.

The thread is soley about if the tournament is best on best though. Setting policies aside, is this the best four nations? IMO best on best would include Russia. It has to, or nots not a true best on best. As it is right now this is a modified best on best.

 

[Mirka the Turka]

The thread is soley about if the tournament is best on best though. Setting policies aside, is this the best four nations? IMO best on best would include Russia. It has to, or nots not a true best on best. As it is right now this is a modified best on best.

Russia hasn't had the most international success at the world stage on the senior level. On the Junior level yes I would concede but also countries like Finland do exceptionally well on the Junior level.

Is it best on best in technical terms? No. But its removing a country that I believe only has a 10% chance of winning. Their only success on the senior level has been when NHL'ers dont attend.

Reality is in future Olympic years the tournament will be great with teams like Canada, USA, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Germany. Any of those 8 countries could put up a fight against one another.

 

[swiftwin]

Yes. f*** Russia.

 

[Czechboy]

I will say I was surprised by the result last night. America winning isn't the shock. The third period was.lol

Finn's were playing great up to 40 minutes. I was really impressed and just wish they could've buried a few chances.

Then the 3rd period started, I sneezed and the game was over.lol

Nice work from the USA and they looked every bit the paper champs in that third period. Curious what round 2 of games looks like!?

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Finland can't even bring their best team.

It is not a best on best when only the US and Canada have a full selection pool available.

Olympics is the only best on best.

This is not a best-on-best, although it is a LOT better than all-star breaks in general.

 

[Fatass]

I will say I was surprised by the result last night. America winning isn't the shock. The third period was.lol

Finn's were playing great up to 40 minutes. I was really impressed and just wish they could've buried a few chances.

Then the 3rd period started, I sneezed and the game was over.lol

Nice work from the USA and they looked every bit the paper champs in that third period. Curious what round 2 of games looks like!?

Finns only have a few top guys. They were (are) bound to get tired because of all the hard minutes they have to play against clubs that have a lot of top guys.
Finn’s will have a good chance vs Sweden.