Is 4 Nations a “Best on Best”?

[Peiskos]

I


I'm not a Russian but anyway - that Czech boy seems to forget that Czechia might be not even a top 6 nation anymore because Switzerland and Germany can possess a serious threat to them now.

The top 6 has now become top 5 as Czechia is a tier below Canada, US, Sweden, Russia and Finland.

I got the Czechs as high as 3/4 in the world. The reality is even the IIHF World Rankings put them there. The results have to mean something, I mean look at how often the Czechs have won internationally at the mens level compared to countries like the US. I think it should have been 6 nations and Czechs + Swiss added.

1999, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2024 WC

At the Olympics they won a gold in 1998.

What have countries like the US done at the mens level since 1996?

The Czechs results are vastly superior at the mens level in this century to certain other programs. Don't know why this isn't acknowledged more widely when it comes to talks of ranking nations.

 

[Gerulaitis]

I got the Czechs as high as 3/4 in the world. The reality is even the IIHF World Rankings put them there. The results have to mean something, I mean look at how often the Czechs have won internationally at the mens level compared to countries like the US. I think it should have been 6 nations and Czechs + Swiss added.

1999, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2024 WC

At the Olympics they won a gold in 1998.

What have countries like the US done at the mens level since 1996?

The Czechs results are vastly superior at the mens level in this century to certain other programs.

I'm talking about NOW. Recent years. Not 25 years ago.

And the IIHF rankings are good for their second-rate world championships and the lame Olympics. They mean nothing for the best on best competitions

 

[Hanji]

My point is that it doesn't matter if we didn't get to see Crosby vs Oveckhin, the result would have been the same.

2006 is widely regarded as one of the worst bone headed roster constructions in Canadian history, Crosby for whatever reason wasn't even selected for the team, that's why Russia was able to eliminate Canada at the 2006 Olympics.

Whenever we win = we're the best!
Whenever we lose = the opponent won only because we picked a bad roster.

I can hear Jerry Lee Lewis singing Whole Lotta Copium Going On

 

[Peiskos]

Whenever we win = we're the best!
Whenever we lose = the opponent won only because we picked a bad roster.

I can hear Jerry Lee Lewis singing Whole Lotta Copium Going On

Don't frame it as an excuse, it was objectively a bad roster for the size of that ice. Canada did lose due to poor team composition, that's just sports, I'm just stating the facts.

When Canada loses it's usually because they beat themselves.. you probably think this is brash and cocky, but that's just the reality when your trophy case looks like Canada's, its backed up by the numbers and results.

 

[Hanji]

Don't frame it as an excuse, it was objectively a bad roster for the size of that ice. Canada did lose due to poor team composition, that's just sports, I'm just stating the facts.

When Canada loses it's usually because they beat themselves.. you probably think this is brash and cocky, but that's just the reality when your trophy case looks like Canada's, its backed up by the numbers and results.

I'm not framing it as an excuse! (Proceeds to justify excuse).


You sound like a certain someone with funny hair and an orange tint. Same playbook.

 

[Peiskos]

I'm not framing it as an excuse! (Proceeds to justify excuse).


You sound like a certain someone with funny hair and an orange tint. Same playbook.

Ya sure except his playbook is just to spout pure proven lies, whereas I can provide actual stats and numbers to prove myself. Kind of a bit different there bud but nice try I guess?

 

[Gerulaitis]

Don't frame it as an excuse, it was objectively a bad roster for the size of that ice. Canada did lose due to poor team composition, that's just sports, I'm just stating the facts.

When Canada loses it's usually because they beat themselves.. you probably think this is brash and cocky, but that's just the reality when your trophy case looks like Canada's, its backed up by the numbers and results.

Or they have lost because they couldn't score a goal. But Ovechkin could.

 

[Hanji]

Ya sure except his playbook is just to spout pure proven lies, whereas I can provide actual stats and numbers to prove myself. Kind of a bit different there bud but nice try I guess?

They're lies and excuses. Your stats only lead to a hypothetical outcome. Every country can claim they would have won using such an excuse.

 

[NyQuil]

With an asterisk, sure.

 

[Voight]

My point is that it doesn't matter if we didn't get to see Crosby vs Oveckhin, the result would have been the same.

2006 is widely regarded as one of the worst bone headed roster constructions in Canadian history, Crosby for whatever reason wasn't even selected for the team, that's why Russia was able to eliminate Canada at the 2006 Olympics.

Hockey Canada usually doesn't pick rookies for major international tournaments, even ones as good as Crosby. They are big on guys paying their dues somewhat.

I also think because of their success at the 2004 World Cup they wanted to bring back as many guys as they could thinking the formula would work again. Guys like Draper, Doan and Regehr

 

[Czechboy]

Defi

I


I'm not a Russian but anyway - that Czech boy seems to forget that Czechia might be not even a top 6 nation anymore because Switzerland and Germany can possess a serious threat to them now.

The top 6 has now become top 5 as Czechia is a tier below Canada, US, Sweden, Russia and Finland.

Czech boy knows we are 6th. You will not find one post where I say we are in a Big 6 or a Big 5. I always put it in tiers and we are not in the Gold tier. We are firmly in the pain in the ass tier. Good luck finding quotes from me saying otherwise.

Fully agree that anyone from Denmark, Latvia, Slovakia, Germany and Switzerland could beat us in the Olympics next year. No argument. However, not sure why you think they can't upset anyone from Canada to Finland either?

Not sure how we can be a tier below a nation that isn't in the tournaments? It would be a big 5 if they returned. I currently consider it a big 4 with some solid pains in the ass mixed in. That's us!

 

[Czechboy]

Defi

You're missing the larger picture. Although Russia is unlikely to win first place, Russia's inclusion can greatly influence the outcome of a tournament, who plays Canada for gold, silver and bronze medals.

You alluded to it earlier, Russia's heavy lifting in 2006 eventually enabled the Czech Republic to win bronze.


Any tournament without the top 6 is an incomplete tournament.

Your first point is valid for sure. More strong nations.. outcomes change.

Even playing a weaker nation can derail your tourney... star player gets hurt in a random game. Out for tourney. Happens all the time. It's why I don't consider this a best on best. to win one you gotta play a lot more nations and play a lot more games. Round robin, quarter, semi and medal.

I won't even hesitate calling 2026 Winter Olympics a best on best. I'll wait and see how they structure the 2028 World Cup before I call it one. I don't trust the NHL at all to organize one. Hope I'm wrong and will remain optimistic till the tweets start rolling in.

 

[Peiskos]

They're lies and excuses. Your stats only lead to a hypothetical outcome. Every country can claim they would have won using such an excuse.

No they can't because there is no precedent for it at the best vs best level for them to claim such a thing.

My stats are that Canada has now won 11 of the 15 best vs best hockey tournaments to ever be played dating back to the 1970's, no other country has ever won more than 1. The country has utterly dominated best vs best play for over half a century, these aren't "hypothetical outcomes."

These stats and facts give Canada the right to make such claims.

 

[Summer Rose]

This is the Russian thing.. brag about round robin wins but lose the big ones.

Doing this is not unique to the Russians. I would know - I'm American.

 

[WarriorofTime]

That's literally the definition. Guys were not allowed to compete.

76 Canada Cup was advertised as the first best on best tournament since 72 SS was recognized as not one.

Like this is all very basic history.

The Soviets mostly brought a B team to the 76 Canada Cup.

"Best on Best" is a marketing term first and foremost but its meaning and significance will mean different things to different people.

I think full participation Olympics is the gold standard as far as Hockey goes for everyone, which happened in the 5 Olympics between 1998-2014. The rest of the stuff really just comes to perspective and who decides to care about certain things.

 

[Summer Rose]

The Soviets mostly brought a B team to the 76 Canada Cup.

"Best on Best" is a marketing term first and foremost but its meaning and significance will mean different things to different people.

I think full participation Olympics is the gold standard as far as Hockey goes for everyone, which happened in the 5 Olympics between 1998-2014. The rest of the stuff really just comes to perspective and who decides to care about certain things.

The 5 Olympics between 1998-2014 are the pinnacle of international play in my opinion, because not only did every team have access to their best players at the tournament proper, every IIHF member with a national team had the right to enter a qualifying tournament to participate (unless I'm missing any members that might have been suspended from international play at the time like Russia and Belarus are currently) if they didn't automatically qualify. I'm wary (but only slightly) of putting the Canada/World Cups in the same tier since they were invitational tournaments, but to my knowledge, at least the 8 teams invited to the 2004 tournament were based on the IIHF world rankings at the time.

And, well, if the Soviets brought a mostly B team to the 1976 Canada Cup, that's on them. That's not the fault of the tournament organizers.