Is 4 Nations a “Best on Best”?

[Peiskos]

100% it was a best on best, yawn to people trying to discredit best on best tournaments every time Canada wins them, apart from Canada winning the majority of these best vs bests, downplaying or questioning it as such after the fact is the most predictable thing in international hockey.

 

[NyQuil]

Why then is it that Canada's victory is always credited to unmatched team defense, yet the Czechs aren't afforded that same luxury? For them it's always "If not for Hasek....."

It's like you haven't even been reading this thread.

The Czechs were a machine at that time.

What was more infamous than their goalie was their ability to play as a five man unit.

Collectively they were always stronger than the sum of their parts.

They never panicked, they played solid two way hockey shift after shift. They were comfortable and even relished playing in tight games.

Hasek is the greatest of all time but that’s not the singular reason why they won.

Through the first three periods of the game, Canada was outshot by the Czechs, 25-22.

Canada was the better team in OT and then we all know what happened in the shootout.

You’re underestimating how good the Czechs were at team defence.

You might have a case if the Czechs were roundly outplayed or outshot in the tournament.

They weren’t.

The only thing worse than bad narratives are ignorant ones.

 

[ORRFForever]

people trying to discredit best on best tournaments every time Canada wins

That is so true.

 

[Lartsaman]

100% it was a best on best, yawn to people trying to discredit best on best tournaments every time Canada wins them, apart from Canada winning the majority of these best vs bests, downplaying or questioning it as such after the fact is the most predictable thing in international hockey.

Canadians discredit every tournament which is won by some other country than Canada. If Finland had won this, you would say this was not a best on best.

 

[Czechboy]

Canadians dicredit every tournament which is won by some other country than Canada. If Finland had won this, you would say this was not a best on best.

I asked this question before the tournament. Most agreed it was an exhibition. Many even thought it's suck and be all star game intensity.

Now it's a best on best.lol. I cannot think of a single best on best where you start in the final 4.lol. 1972 had more games haha. 4 games and 3 opponents.

I did love it though. Happy for Canada to win it. Bring on the Olympics

 

[Silky Johnson]

I don’t disagree - the impact on the players’ confidence of having Hasek backing them up would no doubt have been immense. I would not dispute for a minute that he was an absolutely key player, probably THE key player.

But I have had these Nagano conversations with Canadians so many times, and the way many present it basically makes it sound like the Czech team was essentially outplayed by the big dogs but flukily won because they had a hot goalie who stood on its head. It’s not how it went down at all. Except in the first period against the Americans, where it went down exactly like that.

In no way am I saying its flukey. Last time I checked Hasek is indeed Czech and the team gets full marks for his impact.

My point is that between the confidence the team gets from playing in front of him and his remarkable play - that was very likely the difference.

A great goalie in a short tournament can easily be the difference.

This is no insult to that team that played very well. The teams they were facing, like Canada could ice multiple 5 man units of HHOF'ers.

 

[MeHateHe]

Now it's a best on best.lol. I cannot think of a single best on best where you start in the final 4.

It would be a best-on-best if all of those four teams had access to all of their players. Sweden and Finland always have non-NHL players in the lineup for best-on-best Olympics, so it's reasonable to assume they would have had other players in their lineup if non-NHLers were allowed in this thing.

But even if all four teams had their best available, this thing is further down the prestige list than the Olympics or even a real World Cup, because a 4-team tournament is just hard to take seriously. Two things can be true: the hockey can be good and entertaining and it's not a good tournament.

 

[PAZ]

I asked this question before the tournament. Most agreed it was an exhibition. Many even thought it's suck and be all star game intensity.

Now it's a best on best.lol. I cannot think of a single best on best where you start in the final 4.lol. 1972 had more games haha. 4 games and 3 opponents.

I did love it though. Happy for Canada to win it. Bring on the Olympics

The players treated it like a best on best, which was the main question mark heading into the tournament. The actual tournament was meaningless, but the players treated it as meaningful.

IMO the intensity was higher than quarter/semi playoff hockey but lower than conference finals and SCF.