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.

 

[Gerulaitis]

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.

I believe the Canada Cups of the 1980s marked the pinnacle of international hockey

Never before or since have we seen such an extraordinary concentration of talent on the ice. there were hardly any weak teams, with the possible exceptions of Finland in 81 and W.Germany in 84

 

[Summer Rose]

I believe the Canada Cups of the 1980s marked the pinnacle of international hockey

Never before or since have we seen such an extraordinary concentration of talent on the ice. there were hardly any weak teams, with the possible exceptions of Finland in 81 and W.Germany in 84

Shame I didn’t get to see them. I wasn’t born until 1986 and didn’t start watching hockey until 2001.

 

[Gerulaitis]

Shame I didn’t get to see them. I wasn’t born until 1986 and didn’t start watching hockey until 2001.

I think there are many games available online. Best hockey ever in my humble opinion

 

[JackSlater]

I think there are many games available online. Best hockey ever in my humble opinion

A lot of the games are available online yes. Canada's games from Canada Cup 76, 84, and 87 were all released on DVD. I think that it can be a struggle for people to go back and watch those games though without the context of how hockey was played (and officiated) at the time. The in-game drama of the 1987 Canada Cup final best of three probably transcends eras though.

 

[Hanji]

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.

The hypothetical is that Canada would've won in 2006 with an altered roster.
Canada winning x amount of best vs best hockey tournaments is inconsequential. It's circumstantial evidence at best in court of law. You’d be laughed out of court if your case was predicated on that. It's reasoning for 5th graders.

 

[Silky Johnson]

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”.

They did it with Hasek.

 

[Zine]

I believe the Canada Cups of the 1980s marked the pinnacle of international hockey

Never before or since have we seen such an extraordinary concentration of talent on the ice. there were hardly any weak teams, with the possible exceptions of Finland in 81 and W.Germany in 84

To be fair, Czechoslovakia never had a true ‘A’ team at any of Canada Cups in the 1980’s. Same for Soviet Union in ‘76 and ‘91.

 

[Old Man Jags]

They did it with Hasek.

I always find it quite annoying when people reduce the Czech success of Nagano to just Hasek. Yes, Hasek was the best goalie around at that time, and I think he was pretty much responsible for the quarter final win against the US, I'll give you that. The Czechs won 4-1, but in the first period they played poorly and the US was far superior. Yet the US only scored once and led 1-0 after that period. Without Hasek the US would have put the game beyond the Czechs in the first 20 minutes.

But against Canada the Czechs were the better team. Hasek obviously contributed, but the team overall was better and Canada was extremely lucky to get to overtime. They scored a very flukey goal a minute and a bit before the end. The only game that was unbalanced in the whole tournament for the Czechs where the goalie really won it for them was against the US. The shots on goal reflected how good both America and Hasek were - 39-19 shots on goal for the Americans. Of course, the Czechs still had to score and they did it four times (no empty-netter), but Hasek was THE key. In the other games he performed brilliantly as well, but so did the whole team. Shots on goal in the semi final and final were completely balanced (the Czechs outshot Canada 31-30 and Russia 21-20, so basically even, and the stats reflected the balance of play between the teams). In round robin, they beat Finland 3-0 and outshot them 29-17, Kazakhstan 8-2 (45-23) and lost to Russia 1-2 (24-31). It was a fantastically put together team with Hasek being a key performer, but also very much part of a fantastic team set-up. The number of times Canadians have told me "your guys only beat us because of Hasek!". If an American said that to me, I can't disagree. But nobody from the countries of the other Czech opponents in Nagano.

 

[Silky Johnson]

I always find it quite annoying when people reduce the Czech success of Nagano to just Hasek. Yes, Hasek was the best goalie around at that time, and I think he was pretty much responsible for the quarter final win against the US, I'll give you that. The Czechs won 4-1, but in the first period they played poorly and the US was far superior. Yet the US only scored once and led 1-0 after that period. Without Hasek the US would have put the game beyond the Czechs in the first 20 minutes.

But against Canada the Czechs were the better team. Hasek obviously contributed, but the team overall was better and Canada was extremely lucky to get to overtime. They scored a very flukey goal a minute and a bit before the end. The only game that was unbalanced in the whole tournament for the Czechs where the goalie really won it for them was against the US. The shots on goal reflected how good both America and Hasek were - 39-19 shots on goal for the Americans. Of course, the Czechs still had to score and they did it four times (no empty-netter), but Hasek was THE key. In the other games he performed brilliantly as well, but so did the whole team. Shots on goal in the semi final and final were completely balanced (the Czechs outshot Canada 31-30 and Russia 21-20, so basically even, and the stats reflected the balance of play between the teams). In round robin, they beat Finland 3-0 and outshot them 29-17, Kazakhstan 8-2 (45-23) and lost to Russia 1-2 (24-31). It was a fantastically put together team with Hasek being a key performer, but also very much part of a fantastic team set-up. The number of times Canadians have told me "your guys only beat us because of Hasek!". If an American said that to me, I can't disagree. But nobody from the countries of the other Czech opponents in Nagano.

Sure, the Czechs played well that tournament. But do not discount what playing in front of the world best (all time in my opinion) can do for a team. Confidence to play knowing most mistakes will be covered.

Hasek was in the middle of an 8 year run that might only be rivaled by Gretsky. That team on paper had absolutely no business being as good as they were and having Hasek was a HUGE part of their overperformance.