Is Finland a Top 3 Hockey Nation

[Cawz]

That's why you didn't watch it, but you speak of it like you knew what happened. They tried, but they failed. Yeah, they folded at 3-0, that's acceptable in some way.

And by the way, I am on "this side of the pond", watched both Canada vs. USA and Canada vs. Finland with my Canadian friends and they very much shared my view that USA did nothing to threaten Canada while Finland at least scored and had a few chances on top of that.

And the "nobody cares about bronze medal game" argument is for absolute losers, who support a loser mentality where lack of pride representing your country and making excuses about not caring after the game is somehow acceptable. It is nothing but a sign of mental weakness and lack of pride, and nobody should see that as a positive thing. And even less they should try to void a legitimate ass kicking because "they just wanted to let their ***** get kicked".

It would be an absolutely Pejorative Slured attitude for USA anyway, since they have won no tournaments for a loooooong time, not even in the 2nd tier tournament. It's like people rate them way higher than they should be, because they talk tough before each games....I guess that matters more than actual results, at least to some people who are impressed by tough talk and no results. But hey....they don't care, so that makes them a top 3 hockey team over a country where every player cares when they put that jersey on, and have more than double the medals to show for since 1998, and have won more head to head games as well.

Finland threatened Canada as much as Norway did. Its in this thread I believe.

Nobody cares about the loser final. Its been said many time but you either dont understand or want to ignore it. Its lose-lose. You either lose the game or win a medal you dont want. At least thats the way its looked at for teams that strive for gold. But yeah, I did watch it. Its still hockey after all.

If you look at the last 20 years (your words), its close between the US and Finland, since the US has better but less medals and, unless I'm mistaken, are only one game behind in the small sample size of head to head.

If you look at the last couple Olympics, the US has better but less medals and, unless I'm mistaken, are even in the small sample size of head to head.

Am I incorrect?

 

[Lempo]

But let's be honnest, if an Olympic Tournament version 2.0 started tomorrow morning, I don't think Finland should be ranked above 5th.

They weren't in this one neither. All the best centers missing, now also Barkov. Wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[FiLe]

Nobody cares about the loser final. Its been said many time but you either dont understand or want to ignore it. Its lose-lose. You either lose the game or win a medal you dont want. At least thats the way its looked at for teams that strive for gold. But yeah, I did watch it. Its still hockey after all.

Being in the final is better than being in the bronze game. However, winning that game and being 3rd is also better than being 4th. That should be enough to make it a game with some meaning.

It's not the same as being in the final - EVERY player and fan won't argue this point, including the Finnish ones - but it takes special kind of spoiled brat to say it does not matter at all.

 

[Cawz]

Being in the final is better than being in the bronze game. However, winning that game and being 3rd is also better than being 4th. That should be enough to make it a game with some meaning.

It's not the same as being in the final - EVERY player and fan won't argue this point, including the Finnish ones - but it takes special kind of spoiled brat to say it does not matter at all.

But it is true, and I don’t mean to discredit the medal that Finland won, but when you are aiming for #1, the consolation prize isn’t a consolation. You either win gold, or you lose. I’d say the same thing if Canada won bronze. I wouldn’t be proud of them, I’d be disappointed because of the failure and hoping for better next time.

That only goes for hockey though. If we got bronze in, say, summer Olympic basketball, I’d be cheering and very proud, since I know we are not as good as others. If we actually just qualified for World Cup Soccer / Football, I’d be ecstatic. Its all about expectations.

 

[Lempo]

Is there other reason for Finland not making it to top 3 after Canada and Sweden than the immediate contestants USA and Russia being such a big countries that they have massive pool for individual talents to emerge in numbers?

Like, if we were to define "hockey nation" by a nation having hockey in them per capita, would it look any nicer then? Not many potential players here derived from their path to hockey greatness to go play hand pumpkin or baseket ball instead.

 

[Kharkov]

But it is true, and I don’t mean to discredit the medal that Finland won, but when you are aiming for #1, the consolation prize isn’t a consolation. You either win gold, or you lose. I’d say the same thing if Canada won bronze. I wouldn’t be proud of them, I’d be disappointed because of the failure and hoping for better next time.

All teams are trying to win gold. Still better to bring some medal than no medal at all.

 

[hitmen19]

If Finland is #3, why did everyone freak out on Canada when they took us to OT? 1 vs 3 should be a HUGE match up, yet, it seemed as though other countries thought it should've been a cakewalk for us.

because I think the difference between 1st and 2nd is bigger then the difference between 2nd and 5th. The difference between Sweden and Russia is a lot smaller then Canada and sweden

 

[hudson bay rules]

There are two debates going on here. One regarding which was the better team in these olympics, Finland or USA (and when you look at the stats and results, Finland wins hands down) and which is more prominent as a hockey country.

For the latter, deciding the order is a bit tougher, but a good starting point could be the actual results from the past two decades or so...

20 years ago? You're not a Rangers fan fan by any chance are you? LOL. Turin is as far back as I will go and Canada has had some real stinkers in that time. If the Americans and Fins played each other a round earlier I'd say there is a very good chance to have different results yet that wouldn't change my opinion to where both teams place as far as talent right NOW or even going forward. The Yanks played like disinterested Basketball players that couldn't wait to get out of there and pick up their new Bentley's. No disrespect to Finland.

 

[FiLe]

That only goes for hockey though. If we got bronze in, say, summer Olympic basketball, I’d be cheering and very proud, since I know we are not as good as others. If we actually just qualified for World Cup Soccer / Football, I’d be ecstatic. Its all about expectations.

In other words, you're admitting that you Canadians are somewhat spoiled in regards of hockey.

Which begs a question: Is that really something you should be thumping your chests about? Again, there is no medal like the gold medal, but your stance is still a little insulting - and not towards me or others here, but the players who still have a game to play and decide to put up a show for the fans who are still tuning in.

Finally, I challenge you to go ask Zach Parise and Alex Ovechkin whether they would have preferred a bronze medal to no medal.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Finland threatened Canada as much as Norway did. Its in this thread I believe.

Then USA threatened Canada even less than Norway. Finland did bring the game to overtime and actually scored a goal. Do you understand that it's more of a threat than a regulation loss? You know this much about hockey I hope?

Had USA scored against Canada, the game would have been tied and Canada would have had a chance to still win it. Had Finland scored in overtime, the game would have ended in Finland's win. Price had one real game saver in the OT, USA never came close to winning it.

Nobody cares about the loser final.

No, you don't but you're not an olympic athlete representing your country. Don't generalize and assume your view is shared with others. I live in Canada, my social circles are canadians, they still care about it and I watched the bronze medal game with some of them at 8 am in the morning. Just because YOU don't care about something doesn't mean the rest of the world adapts your views.

Its been said many time but you either dont understand or want to ignore it. Its lose-lose. You either lose the game or win a medal you dont want. At least thats the way its looked at for teams that strive for gold. But yeah, I did watch it. Its still hockey after all.

You have to be either mathematically challenged or the level of Pejorative Slur that you don't understand which is a better finish....3rd or 4th in sports competition. It is not a lose-lose, it's a win-lose for two teams that did not reach their goal but have a chance to at least end on a win. All of the top teams go in to win the gold, all of them are disappointed if they don't get to play for it.

How on earth can you give more credit to those who **** their diapers and start crying about not having their way, when they still have one game left to prove that they can play? Why would anyone respect that attitude over "I will fight to the last second when wearing my country's jersey" attitude? First of all, you are wrong, USA did care, they did try and they failed. Which looks MUCH better on them than your idea of "they just don't care". If they had not cared, nobody should respect them for lack of mental strength and bad attitude. It's not a teenagers/kids tournament....men fight until there's nothing left to fight for.

If you look at the last 20 years (your words), its close between the US and Finland, since the US has better but less medals and, unless I'm mistaken, are only one game behind in the small sample size of head to head.

Even if you go 20 years back, Finland still fairs better...just adds another olympic medal to them and a world cup win for americans. But in all fairness, I would not count that far back since we are talking about today, and none of those players still play. Last 10 years is a pretty decent sample of todays situation.

If you look at the last couple Olympics, the US has better but less medals and, unless I'm mistaken, are even in the small sample size of head to head.

Am I incorrect?

Just the last two olympics? Yes, US would have a silver, Finland with two bronzes. Games even. Last 3 olympics....would add a Silver to Finland, and would add another win to Finland in a head to head game.

Last 10 years.....

Finland with 0-1-2 from olympics and a 2nd place in World cup

USA with 0-1-0 from olympics and played in the semis in World cup

Finland ahead in head to head games.

Really, you can't argue this from statistics point of view. Stick to the "I just feel like it so it must be so" argument.


By the way, I find it HILARIOUS that you are soooo trying to advocate this "Gold or bust" attitude and give absolutely no value to the other medals, but then you talk about USA having "better medals". Try to decide and pick if you care about any other medal than gold or not.

I know I do, I value silver over bronze and gold over both of them. Because I understand what they stand for. 1st, 2nd and 3rd. But if you want to effectively argue your "nothing but winning matters" then you should not give any credence to silver or bronze, like the rest of us do.

 

[Mombius]

Finland threatened Canada as much as Norway did. Its in this thread I believe.

Nobody cares about the loser final. Its been said many time but you either dont understand or want to ignore it. Its lose-lose. You either lose the game or win a medal you dont want. At least thats the way its looked at for teams that strive for gold. But yeah, I did watch it. Its still hockey after all.

If you look at the last 20 years (your words), its close between the US and Finland, since the US has better but less medals and, unless I'm mistaken, are only one game behind in the small sample size of head to head.

If you look at the last couple Olympics, the US has better but less medals and, unless I'm mistaken, are even in the small sample size of head to head.

Am I incorrect?

And Canada had least scoring chances against Finland. And Finland took the game to OT. And blah blah blah.

USA wanted to win the bronze. If you missed half of the game (seems like it), go and take a look at the game. Six USA players in front of the goal and one of them (Kessel?) being a goalkeeper and saving the puck with his face. Why would they be doing such things if they didn't care? Why are you defending USA so much since you are from Canada? You don't want to admit that a small European country is better than your North American fellow?

I really want an answer to the underlined question. Can be hard for a biased hockey fan to answer that question without ifs and buts.

 

[FiLe]

20 years ago? You're not a Rangers fan fan by any chance are you? LOL. Turin is as far back as I will go and Canada has had some real stinkers in that time. If the Americans and Fins played each other a round earlier I'd say there is a very good chance to have different results yet that wouldn't change my opinion to where both teams place as far as talent right NOW or even going forward. The Yanks played like disinterested Basketball players that couldn't wait to get out of there and pick up their new Bentley's. No disrespect to Finland.

Actually, I was trying to be gentle towards the Americans, since they have a best-on-best title from 1996.

Turin's frame works fine for me, since Finland has some pretty neat results from that time. After all, I don't care if Finland is exactly 3rd, but it'd be nice for once to be counted among the key challengers rather than someone who just "shocks", over and over and over again...

 

[madmike77]

I don't think you can really make a top 3.

The top 5 are somewhat interchangeable, depending on the particular year. After that there's a pretty big dropoff.

 

[Mombius]

because I think the difference between 1st and 2nd is bigger then the difference between 2nd and 5th. The difference between Sweden and Russia is a lot smaller then Canada and sweden

According to what? One game? Everyone here crying that the bronze game is too small for a sample. Lol.

 

[hudson bay rules]

Actually, I was trying to be gentle towards the Americans, since they have a best-on-best title from 1996.

Turin's frame works fine for me, since Finland has some pretty neat results from that time. After all, I don't care if Finland is exactly 3rd, but it'd be nice for once to be counted among the key challengers rather than someone who just "shocks", over and over and over again...

Top 3 in recent results. Top 2 in cohesiveness and tops in goaltending. Still, If I were to make an NHL team solely out of players from only one country I'd pick Finland 5th.

 

[Porvari]

After all, I don't care if Finland is exactly 3rd, but it'd be nice for once to be counted among the key challengers rather than someone who just "shocks", over and over and over again...

Must have something to do with the fact that all NA hockey writers are contractually obliged to use the words "pesky," "feisty" and "gutsy" in conjunction with the Finns.

Edit: oops, forgot "plucky."

 

[Borlag]

For all the nonsense about how nobody in north america cares about winning the bronze, or the bronze game itself. They sure seem to care about being included as the 3rd in rankings...

Said it before and will say it again; put up or shut up. If you want to be included in the top 3, play like it and not just when you feel like it. And while I'm not even trying to dispute Canada's #1 spot, they should take heed of that very same thing. Mailing it in at whc's is nothing to be proud of. In fact it makes it seem as if you're not the hockey crazy country you claim to be, but an imposter who only cares when it suits them.

 

[Gh24]

It's like one of those annoying EA NHL matches where you dominate your opponent, but simply can't score due to EA momentum. The opponent then clears the puck and your goalie vaccuums it in and you end up losing 0-1.

Except that we consistently keep pulling that off year after year.
Great system, great dedication, great teamwork, that's what it takes and that's what we are superior in.

What leaves us outside top3 is the lack of player production. It hasn't been consistent enough (for skaters). If we can keep producing players like Maatta, Vatanen and Granlund, to name a few, consistently, then we can talk about that #3 spot.

 

[ericWONT]

Better team wins the game, so you definitely did not have a better team. Better roster is completely subjective, if you count in NHL points then absolutely you did. But that doesn't make a team, or even make a player better.

That is 100% not true at all. The better team does not always win the game. The Florida Panthers, the 3rd worst team in the entire NHL, beat the Pittsburgh Penguins 6-3 back in October, and they beat the Anaheim Ducks in November. You mean to tell me that the Panthers are a better team then the Penguins and Ducks, simply based on the fact that they won games, when the Penguins and Ducks obviously have better rosters?

Give me a break. My simple argument is that the US has a better team, you're making an argument for who played better that game. Finland obviously played better. That however, has nothing to do with how much firepower a team has.

 

[Kharkov]

Luckily for us you have Bylsma as a coach.

 

[Hand of Gaudreau]

Not a chance. I judge the countries based on their NHL player production. Outside of producing top-notch goalies, Finland doesn't compare to Canada, US, Russia, or Sweden.

Since when are goalies not apart of the team. Finland as a team wins because their goalies are superior to other countries goalies. Games are often won and lost based on the performance of the goalie, therefore consistently producing world class goalies does affect how they should be ranked. They consistently do well in world tournaments, and have the most medals in the Olympics out of any country since NHL players have been allowed to play. How is it even a question that they are not top 3, if not top 2.

 

[An Argument For]

It depends on what criteria you use to determine a "top" nation.

In terms of player development I'd place Finland 5th - 6th. They have the smallest population which is definitely a large factor in how many top players they can produce but they haven't produced a lot of high quality players in the past 5-10 years with exception of goalies where they are becoming maybe the best goalie producing country on the planet. Overall though as far as individual talents I'd put them well behind Canada, US, Sweden, Russia and more in line with the Czech Republic.

If you define a top nation as producing quality national teams then yeah, they definitely have a case for being in the top 3.

Even though they just won the Juniors they are usually quite a ways behind the Russia, Canada, Sweden and the U.S here and again that has a lot to do with only have a few years worth of players to choose from and a small population to work with.

At the World Championships it's basically a 5 horse race where every country has won or been to the finals multiple times in the past ten years. For whatever reason the US is non-existent here most of the time and you can almost rank Canada, Sweden, Russia, Finland, and the Czech Republic has 1A to 1E.

At the Olympics and the World cup since NHL players have been included that have won 2 silvers and 3 bronzes in 6 tournaments. Finland has demonstrated that in a best on best tournament they are more likely to medal than not. There's no way to say they're not in the top 3 in the best on best tournaments. I think they get discredited because their teams don't have as much value if you strip it down to the individuals but they have consistently proven that they are more than the sum of their parts. They are always underrated because the players aren't as individually successful in pro leagues but it's a team tournament and we've seen all-star squads from Canada, Russia, Sweden, and the US collapse on multiple occasions in ways we've never seen from the Fins. I think when it matters the most they're easily top 3.

With all things considered I think I'd rank them in the top four without question.

 

[Mombius]

Finland obviously played better. That however, has nothing to do with how much firepower a team has.

That's like saying you are a better driver just because you have a faster car

 

[Hand of Gaudreau]

That's like saying you are a better driver just because you have a faster car

I like that. Better players does not mean better team, see Penguins last 3 years and Avalanche with Selanne Kariya Forsberg Sakic Tanguay Hejduk and Roy.

 

[An Argument For]

That is 100% not true at all. The better team does not always win the game. The Florida Panthers, the 3rd worst team in the entire NHL, beat the Pittsburgh Penguins 6-3 back in October, and they beat the Anaheim Ducks in November. You mean to tell me that the Panthers are a better team then the Penguins and Ducks, simply based on the fact that they won games, when the Penguins and Ducks obviously have better rosters?

Give me a break. My simple argument is that the US has a better team, you're making an argument for who played better that game. Finland obviously played better. That however, has nothing to do with how much firepower a team has.

Your mistake is that your argument is based on Individual talents = better team.

Roster names or "fire power" don't necessarily constitute better teams. We've seen it in all professional sports where a team will load up on talent, spend big dollars to have the best roster with the most "firepower" and lose. And not just some cherry picked games like in your example but over the course of the season and playoffs. If better rosters equaled better teams the Penguins should never struggle in the playoffs.