Is Czech Republic a top nation again?

[Lambo]

I think it's too early to judge. In any case, Czech ice hockey is on the rise again. I don't know how far it goes then. The dry spell has been too long for that. Wait!

 

[Svedu]

It’s hardly best on best. Best on best would have been Canada with Lemieux, Messier and Russia without half their players missing. Canada and Russia were by far the best hockey nations back then.

Regarding WJC, Olympics and WC these past years they have been rather irrelevant since they haven’t been best on best. Nations with a lot of good players (as in NHL players) have been left at a disadvantage while countries with a lot of rejects benefit.

Best on best Sweden is of course on another level than Finland. That’s not even up to debate.

Croatia is a small football nation, they can field a relatively strong team because you only need 11 decent players to go far in football. England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Brazil and Argentina are all significantly better football nations than Croatia.

Lmao! Netherlands better than Croatia? Did you miss the fact that Croatia won both silver and the bronze these two last WC's, and guess what? In football World Cups, every single one of the worlds best players participate. So again? You are nothing but wrong.
What have the Netherlands won these last eight years? Italy didn't even manage to qualify. When did England become better than Croatia? Last time I checked Croatia had 3 WC medals since 98? How many do England have?
Croatia have 4 million citizens and they are still one of the best in the world no matter what and there isn't anything you can create or lie about to change that fact, period.

 

[Elias40]

Oh, but you won't touch the fact that Sweden had a lot more NHL players participating in the WC's when Finland or others won the gold? Interesting...
Be my guest, go check Swedens roster in those tournaments and tell me that half of those WC-rosters didn't consist of some of your best NHL players against other countries without their best players, and guess what? You still lost.

Or 2013/2014, didn't you guys have Forsberg in the WJC's? But the Finnish team with Teräväinen were just a lot stronger I guess... Or why not 2016, oh right, Finland weren't the best then either?

Your arguments are nothing but irrelevant excuses and you insist on living in denial.


Not with you. It's this crazy attitude. Your fellow countryman believes that stat watching individuals are what decides which nation is the best and that's nothing but ridiculous and utterly, excuse me, stupid.
Then there is no point in playing any tournaments or compete at all. You should rather question him and his reasoning?

I will not get involved in things that are obvious at first glance. All I care about is a tournament where Finland and Sweden will have their best players, then it will give some real answer as to which country has slightly better players. When Sweden won their two gold medals in a row, I never thought that Sweden ruled the hockey world, not even for a moment. It's too small a sample, I'd feel the same if Finland won the Olympics. Yes, they have a gold medal, history will remember them as winners but there will always be that doubt...would they have won the gold if NHL players were involved?
I also find it ridiculous to argue a gold medal at the WJC. Fine, your country won it, but only five players from your team make it to the NHL, my team was defeated in the quarterfinals, but ten players from my team play in the NHL. So what's more?

 

[Svedu]

I will not get involved in things that are obvious at first glance. All I care about is a tournament where Finland and Sweden will have their best players, then it will give some real answer as to which country has slightly better players. When Sweden won their two gold medals in a row, I never thought that Sweden ruled the hockey world, not even for a moment. It's too small a sample, I'd feel the same if Finland won the Olympics. Yes, they have a gold medal, history will remember them as winners but there will always be that doubt...would they have won the gold if NHL players were involved?
I also find it ridiculous to argue a gold medal at the WJC. Fine, your country won it, but only five players from your team make it to the NHL, my team was defeated in the quarterfinals, but ten players from my team play in the NHL. So what's more?

Slighty better players?

My point is that Finland is the better nation for now and have been these last five years. No Dahlin nor Zibanejad can change that. It's only speculations to claim anything else. The facts are clear.
And what if there won't be any best-on-best in 15 years? Are we then supposed to measure individuals and their stats when it's a team sport?
Also, no one is claiming that Finland are ruling the world. I'm claiming that Finland has been the better hockey country compared to Sweden these last five years and that with quite the ease. It's already written in the history books, nothing Oskarius, you or myself can change or create.

Also.. "would they have won the gold if NHL players were involved?".
Well, I do know that Finland with only one or two NHL'ers beat Sweden in the WC's where you had this roster? Elias Lindholm, Landeskog, William Nylander, EP40, Wennberg, Hörnqvist, Bratt, Adrian Kempe, Markström, Lundqvist, Ekman Larsson, Adam Larsson, Ekholm, John Klingberg, Pettersson etc.
Quite the NHL players but guess what? Finland won the gold and therefor they were better no matter what.

Sweden 2018-2019 - Roster, Stats & more

Sweden - WC - hockey team page with roster, stats, transactions at eliteprospects.com

www.eliteprospects.com

 

[Elias40]

Slighty better players?

My point is that Finland is the better nation for now and have been these last five years. No Dahlin nor Zibanejad can change that. It's only speculations to claim anything else. The facts are clear.
And what if there won't be any best-on-best in 15 years? Are we then supposed to measure individuals and their stats when it's a team sport?
Also, no one is claiming that Finland are ruling the world. I'm claiming that Finland has been the better hockey country compared to Sweden these last five years and that with quite the ease. It already written in the history books, nothing Oskarius, you or myself can change or create.

Also.. "would they have won the gold if NHL players were involved?". Well, I do know that Finland with only one or two NHL'ers beat Sweden in the WC's where you had this roster?

Sweden 2018-2019 - Roster, Stats & more

Sweden - WC - hockey team page with roster, stats, transactions at eliteprospects.com

www.eliteprospects.com

You are a more successful country than Sweden, that's for sure. But really better? So if for you the word more successful means the same as the word better. Yeah, now you have more tournament wins, your euro players are better than swedes. Your win in Slovakia with Europlayers was impressive, Sweden was put to shame there.

If there is no best on best tournament for the next 15 years, then I will only admit that you have a better group of Europlayers.

 

[Svedu]

You are a more successful country than Sweden, that's for sure. But really better? So if for you the word more successful means the same as the word better. Yeah, now you have more tournament wins, your euro players are better than swedes. Your win in Slovakia with Europlayers was impressive, Sweden was put to shame there.

If there is no best on best tournament for the next 15 years, then I will only admit that you have a better group of Europlayers.

Honestly, why even have a debate if team successes won't count? Then everything is just pointless?
And to answer your question? Yes, Finland are better for now. Until Sweden beats Finland three years in a row and win medals or beats Finland in a best-on-best.
That's exactly what Finland have earned by winning these medals and beating Sweden these last years. They've showed that with actual results just like Czech Republic showed that back in the days and other countries have before and after.

I mean are Uruguay best in football because they won 1930 and 1950? Are England the best because they have passionated fans and a massive crowd? No, because that's not how it works. That's why they're competing in the first place.

 

[Elias40]

Honestly, why even have a debate if team successes won't count? Then everything is just pointless?
And to answer your question? Yes, Finland are better for now. Until Sweden beats Finland three years in a row and win medals or beats Finland in a best-on-best.
That's exactly what Finland have earned by winning these medals and beating Sweden these last years. They've showed that with actual results just like Czech Republic showed that back in the days and other countries have before and after.

I mean are Uruguay best in football because they won 1930 and 1950? Are England the best because they have passionated fans and a massive crowd? No, because that's not how it works. That's why they're competing in the first place.

No matter sport or business, do you think companies like Kodak or Microsoft can claim that they are the best or biggest just because of older history? Bigger than let's say Google or Amazon?

You are more successful than Sweden recently, so you have more medals and it gives you the opportunity to say you are better than Sweden. I have no problem living with that... but it still seems to me that your win in 2019 is the same as the Olympics in 98 for the Czechs. I have never written badly about you Finns, I just have the impression that you will remember that win every year , as Antilla beat Landeskog or Nylander.

 

[OskarOskarius]

Oh, but you won't touch the fact that Sweden had a lot more NHL players participating in the WC's when Finland or others won the gold? Interesting...
Be my guest, go check Swedens roster in those tournaments and tell me that half of those WC-rosters didn't consist of some of your best NHL players against other countries without their best players, and guess what? You still lost.

Or 2013/2014, didn't you guys have Forsberg in the WJC's? But the Finnish team with Teräväinen were just a lot stronger I guess... Or why not 2016, oh right, Finland weren't the best then either?

Your arguments are nothing but irrelevant excuses and you insist on living in denial.

If you think Sweden wouldn’t beat the crap out of Finland in bes

Slighty better players?

My point is that Finland is the better nation for now and have been these last five years. No Dahlin nor Zibanejad can change that. It's only speculations to claim anything else. The facts are clear.
And what if there won't be any best-on-best in 15 years? Are we then supposed to measure individuals and their stats when it's a team sport?
Also, no one is claiming that Finland are ruling the world. I'm claiming that Finland has been the better hockey country compared to Sweden these last five years and that with quite the ease. It's already written in the history books, nothing Oskarius, you or myself can change or create.

Also.. "would they have won the gold if NHL players were involved?".
Well, I do know that Finland with only one or two NHL'ers beat Sweden in the WC's where you had this roster? Elias Lindholm, Landeskog, William Nylander, EP40, Wennberg, Hörnqvist, Bratt, Adrian Kempe, Markström, Lundqvist, Ekman Larsson, Adam Larsson, Ekholm, John Klingberg, Pettersson etc.
Quite the NHL players but guess what? Finland won the gold and therefor they were better no matter what.

Sweden 2018-2019 - Roster, Stats & more

Sweden - WC - hockey team page with roster, stats, transactions at eliteprospects.com

www.eliteprospects.com

Silly logic. If there is no best on best that’s just the way it is. Logically you can deduce that Canada is a stronger hockey nation than Slovakia, you don’t need a best on best to settle the debate. Likewise Sweden is better than Finland, just compare player by player.

 

[alko]

Bronze in last years Worlds.
Semifinal in this years WJC while being the best team in the tournament.
Full of very good NHLers and more coming up.

Is it safe to say that the Czechs is back with the big boys (Can, Usa, Fin, Russia).

Fans from Sweden are very sad. Dont open letters to your address.

 

[SaltNPeca]

I think they’re in the process of rebounding. Still nowhere near their golden age from 1998-2006, when they were arguably #1.

lol, big reach to 2006

What is your argument for 2002-2006 Czech being the #1 hockey nation over Sweden or Canada?
> best U20 finish 3rd, their only medal in this 5 years (3x didn't make semis)
> IIHF WC 1 gold 1 silver, 2x did not make semis
> 2 Olympics - 1 bronze, 1 7th place

...meanwhile 2002-2006 another country had 1 Olympic gold, 2 IIHF gold (1 Silver), and 2 IIHF U20 gold (3 silver) 2002-2006

IIHF rankings since 2003:

 

[Svedu]

If you think Sweden wouldn’t beat the crap out of Finland in bes

Silly logic. If there is no best on best that’s just the way it is. Logically you can deduce that Canada is a stronger hockey nation than Slovakia, you don’t need a best on best to settle the debate. Likewise Sweden is better than Finland, just compare player by player.

Logic? Please don't use that word. Doesn't suit you.

 

[Czechboy]

lol, big reach to 2006

What is your argument for 2002-2006 Czech being the #1 hockey nation over Sweden or Canada?
> best U20 finish 3rd, their only medal in this 5 years (3x didn't make semis)
> IIHF WC 1 gold 1 silver, 2x did not make semis
> 2 Olympics - 1 bronze, 1 7th place

...meanwhile 2002-2006 another country had 1 Olympic gold, 2 IIHF gold (1 Silver), and 2 IIHF U20 gold (3 silver) 2002-2006

IIHF rankings since 2003:

I don think there is a 2002.to 2006 argument for the czechs. 2005 is when it all fell apart.

1998 to 2001 is the argument. Anything after 2002 and we are big 6. Anything after 2005 and we are completely out of the running.

But 1998 to 2001 I cannot see one argument that we weren't the best... We had all the gold... And probably Hart and art Ross and Vezina trophies plus a 1OV (who would bust) I think.

In this 3 years we had the best on beat.. 3 Skoda and 2 juniors. All gold. It was a nice time.lol

 

[kp61c]

I think the Czechs could’ve beaten Russia if they were in the WJC they are a great team this year.

nah, Russia would easily win gold this year. They are the best team this year ainec.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Hope the Czechs win gold. Finland didn't have a very good team this year. Other countries need to step up with the absent of Russia. Hopefully they'll be brought back soon. Hockey needs more teams that are competitive, not less.

 

[Czechboy]

nah, Russia would easily win gold this year. They are the best team this year ainec.

How many Russian golds since 2000?

I do agree would've been very good and a gold contender though. Michkov vs Bedard would've been amazing and Russia probably has another Vezina goalie on the roster.

 

[AintLifeGrand]

Canada
Us
Russia
Finland
Sweden
Czechia.

Just a list, but I always had them as part of the top 6.

switzerland above or below slovakia for best of rest ?

 

[waitin425]

lol, big reach to 2006

What is your argument for 2002-2006 Czech being the #1 hockey nation over Sweden or Canada?
> best U20 finish 3rd, their only medal in this 5 years (3x didn't make semis)
> IIHF WC 1 gold 1 silver, 2x did not make semis
> 2 Olympics - 1 bronze, 1 7th place

...meanwhile 2002-2006 another country had 1 Olympic gold, 2 IIHF gold (1 Silver), and 2 IIHF U20 gold (3 silver) 2002-2006

IIHF rankings since 2003:

Neat little graphic and interesting to see the progression of teams. US is never higher than 4th which is a little confusing.

FWIW, IMO the IIHF ranking system means jack shit if there is no best on best tournament. Subsequently, not having the best players compete in the WJHC is also an issue in terms of finish and ranking. There are many years that Canada doesn't send its best U20 players, as they are already playing in the NHL. Take Slovakia this year missing Juraj as another example.

The World Championships is also a bad example to base rankings on as the best players are all playing in the NHL playoffs at that time.

Circling back....a best on best tournament is the most important barometer and we rarely get it. Similar to Golf's OWGR, strength of field is vitally important in determining rankings.

As for the OP..... the Czech's are producing some really nice prospects and returning to relevance. The same can be said for the Slovak's. Nice to see so many competitive hockey nations.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

It’s hardly best on best. Best on best would have been Canada with Lemieux, Messier and Russia without half their players missing. Canada and Russia were by far the best hockey nations back then.

This is probably the first time ever I’ve heard Messier as one of the glaring omissions from the 1998 Olympics, and there have probably been a hundred threads on that topic since Canadians love to pick apart that roster and that loss for all eternity. Zamuner was there over a bunch of great scorers due to being propped up as a superb grinder (despite the season in particular not being a great one for him) and having put in time with Team Canada in the world championships, Bourque was picked for the shootout, Gretzky didn’t make the shootout, Canadians were unfamiliar and unprepared for a shootout, Lindros was made captain over Gretzky, they had too many good centers so a few played out of position, Sakic and Kariya were out with injuries, Crawford was a crap coach, Clarke was a crap GM, etc, etc, think I’ve heard every explanation for Canada’s disappointing 1998 tournament, but no Messier I believe was a first.

Lemieux having retired disqualifies the Czech win as a best-on-best accomplishment?

Has any team ever won a true best-on-best by your logic, doesn’t the Canadians for instance always leave a few players who’d make any other national team at home, due to being stacked at center?

When was there ever a true best-on-best win in your opinion? The 1972 Summit Series lacked Orr and Firsov, Lemieux was out for the 1991 Canada Cup, Forsberg was out for the 2002 Olympics, and Patrick Roy declined participation because he wasn’t guaranteed to start, Nylander was snubbed and Näslund injured in 2006, but Finland on the other hand saw Kiprusoff who was the best goaltender in the world at the time withdrawing due to injury. At any rate, can you take 2006 seriously when Team Canada was so incompetently constructed and snubbed Crosby who was already playing like a top 5 forward?

2014, Sweden snubbed Hedman, brought on Tallinder, and had none of their top three centers playing the finals. For my money, there’s never been a best-on-best played, and every notion of a top team ever is pure speculation.

I don’t know if you deserved me putting this many words in responding to your dense post, as I’m pretty sure you’re just trying really hard to be a dick.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

nah, Russia would easily win gold this year. They are the best team this year ainec.

And they sent even LESS than half their roster this year...

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

I hope so. They've been struggling for too long. Maybe very bad luck/generation.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

Canada
Us
Russia
Finland
Sweden
Czechia.

Just a list, but I always had them as part of the top 6.

Yeah this is kind of how it has been historically but in recent years there has been a big drop off between the top 5 and the rest. I guess you could make the argument that the Czechs have always maintained the top 6 spot but it has been really close with Slovakia, Switzerland, etc.

 

[Mickey Marner]

lol, big reach to 2006

What is your argument for 2002-2006 Czech being the #1 hockey nation over Sweden or Canada?
> best U20 finish 3rd, their only medal in this 5 years (3x didn't make semis)
> IIHF WC 1 gold 1 silver, 2x did not make semis
> 2 Olympics - 1 bronze, 1 7th place

...meanwhile 2002-2006 another country had 1 Olympic gold, 2 IIHF gold (1 Silver), and 2 IIHF U20 gold (3 silver) 2002-2006

IIHF rankings since 2003:

Time period was approximate and I wanted a large sample size, not just one that benefited the Czechs specifically. I think Canada was the best team from the 2002-2006 period.

Czechia did win the 2005 World Championship during the lockout, which could arguably be considered 'best on best' since the best players were all available. Then they won Olympic bronze with Hasek injured. With a healthy Hasek it’s not unfathomable to think that they could’ve won gold. So even in that 2002-2006 period they were in the conversation for being the best, though I would put Canada and Sweden ahead.

 

[Czechboy]

This is probably the first time ever I’ve heard Messier as one of the glaring omissions from the 1998 Olympics, and there have probably been a hundred threads on that topic since Canadians love to pick apart that roster and that loss for all eternity. Zamuner was there over a bunch of great scorers due to being propped up as a superb grinder (despite the season in particular not being a great one for him) and having put in time with Team Canada in the world championships, Bourque was picked for the shootout, Gretzky didn’t make the shootout, Canadians were unfamiliar and unprepared for a shootout, Lindros was made captain over Gretzky, they had too many good centers so a few played out of position, Sakic and Kariya were out with injuries, Crawford was a crap coach, Clarke was a crap GM, etc, etc, think I’ve heard every explanation for Canada’s disappointing 1998 tournament, but no Messier I believe was a first.

Lemieux having retired disqualifies the Czech win as a best-on-best accomplishment?

Has any team ever won a true best-on-best by your logic, doesn’t the Canadians for instance always leave a few players who’d make any other national team at home, due to being stacked at center?

When was there ever a true best-on-best win in your opinion? The 1972 Summit Series lacked Orr and Firsov, Lemieux was out for the 1991 Canada Cup, Forsberg was out for the 2002 Olympics, and Patrick Roy declined participation because he wasn’t guaranteed to start, Nylander was snubbed and Näslund injured in 2006, but Finland on the other hand saw Kiprusoff who was the best goaltender in the world at the time withdrawing due to injury. At any rate, can you take 2006 seriously when Team Canada was so incompetently constructed and snubbed Crosby who was already playing like a top 5 forward?

2014, Sweden snubbed Hedman, brought on Tallinder, and had none of their top three centers playing the finals. For my money, there’s never been a best-on-best played, and every notion of a top team ever is pure speculation.

I don’t know if you deserved me putting this many words in responding to your dense post, as I’m pretty sure you’re just trying really hard to be a dick.

This post made my day. Thanks

 

[Czechboy]

Time period was approximate and I wanted a large sample size, not just one that benefited the Czechs specifically. I think Canada was the best team from the 2002-2006 period.

Czechia did win the 2005 World Championship during the lockout, which could arguably be considered 'best on best' since the best players were all available. Then they won Olympic bronze with Hasek injured. With a healthy Hasek it’s not in fathomable to think that they could’ve won gold. So even in that 2002-2006 period they were in the conversation for being the best, though I would put Canada and Sweden ahead.

Same... The field caught us but we were still good. 2005 was absolutely a best on beat. Not talked about because Czechs won.. when a Canadian talks about 2005 they talk about the world Juniors. The world's were the same story

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

switzerland above or below slovakia for best of rest ?

Switzerland currently has better NHLers, so for now I'd say them ahead of Slovakia, but Slovakia has a nice crop of young players right now that will help even, or tip the tide towards Slovakia.