Is Finland a Top 3 Hockey Nation

[Freaky Styley]

Of course they are. They are the only team to medal 4 out of 5 times since the Olympics included NHLers. They just get results and play a solid team game.

 

[Cawz]

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.

I'm not thumping my chest about it. Just explaining.

 

[ericWONT]

I guess the team didn't have chemistry to succeed then. I stand by my opinions that they're more talented, which is what I'm basing my argument on that they're better than Finland. Flawed or not, it's just my opinion.

 

[Cawz]

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.



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.




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.



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.



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.

Way too long to reply to it all (try to shorten things up in the future. You can skip the insults next time since they just makes you look desperate)

On the US - "Almost every contest resulted in Canada having its lowest possession output early in the first period as they gauged the opponents’ aggressiveness. But by mid-way through the first period, Canada would begin to wear their opponents down. And before long, any aggression transitioned into survival mode. Team USA was the only opponent who managed a better differential in the third period than the first, but they were still limited to a 41 percent possession rate."

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/breaking-down-canadas-sochi-performance/?shawct=1

This is what I'm trying to say. US put up more of a fight and looked like a better team against Canada.

As for the timelines, 10 years and 20 years are the same. No-one from team USA was on the team 3 Olympics ago or from the last World Cup, so if you are going to go back that far to a totally different team, might as well go back to when the US actually won a tournament with a totally different team. Or else, just use the last 2 Olympics, where they are pretty even between the two with many of the same players.

And I'm not giving credit for someone losing the bronze medal game. But do you not see how players bring a different game to the loser final as compared to the actual final, which the US did last time with many of the same players that were at the games that just ended?

So the US actually played for the gold last time with a similar team to this one. Thats why I give them the edge. Please note I said the "edge", not that they are "clearly" better (like you keep trumpeting the way). And I'm not the one moving the goalposts, like when you were looking at 20 year trends but disregarding things that happened 18 years ago...

 

[An Argument For]

As for the timelines, 10 years and 20 years are the same. No-one from team USA was on the team 3 Olympics ago or from the last World Cup, so if you are going to go back that far to a totally different team, might as well go back to when the US actually won a tournament with a totally different team. Or else, just use the last 2 Olympics, where they are pretty even between the two with many of the same players.

Don't you think that a discussion regarding the caliber of a hockey program should include multiple generations of a program? There's a difference between being a top 3 team at static tournament and being a top 3 hockey program in a dynamic environment.

If you're a top 3 country at producing athletes and teams maybe more than one production run should be looked at. If you only want to look at a single period of time then you could make the argument that Slovakia was a top 4 country in 2010 when they beat Russia, Sweden and put up tough fights against Canada and Finland. They may have had a top 4 team at that tournament but most would agree that hadn't reached a level of being a top 4 hockey country in the big picture.

 

[Omni Owl]

Finland is Winland in mah book <insert fierce owl picture>

 

[Cawz]

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.

I'm not defending US. Just offering up an opposing viewpoint to people who are absolutely sure that Finland are the clear cut, without a doubt #3. With what I saw, US played better when the goal was still attainable.

Of course the US cared. Do you not understand how it may be difficult for a team like the US to bring their A game after such a letdown the day before? Being a little country, playing for the bronze is an honor for Finland. Playing for the bronze is an insult for the US. Can you imagine if Russia had to play another game to set their place in the standings? Theres no way they would care about that game.

Hey, if you dont understand, you wont understand. I'm not saying its a characteristic to be admired. I'm just saying.

 

[An Argument For]

Being a little country, playing for the bronze is an honor for Finland. Playing for the bronze is an insult for the US. Can you imagine if Russia had to play another game to set their place in the standings? Theres no way they would care about that game.

Hey, if you dont understand, you wont understand. I'm not saying its a characteristic to be admired. I'm just saying.

But who was evidence?

 

[Cawz]

Don't you think that a discussion regarding the caliber of a hockey program should include multiple generations of a program? There's a difference between being a top 3 team at static tournament and being a top 3 hockey program in a dynamic environment.

If you're a top 3 country at producing athletes and teams maybe more than one production run should be looked at. If you only want to look at a single period of time then you could make the argument that Slovakia was a top 4 country in 2010 when they beat Russia, Sweden and put up tough fights against Canada and Finland. They may have had a top 4 team at that tournament but most would agree that hadn't reached a level of being a top 4 hockey country in the big picture.

Sure, either way is fine. The thing is that poster said Finland is the clear favourite for #3 over the last 20 years. I said the US actually won a tournament 18 years ago and finished 2nd twice, which is more success than what Finland has had. He stated 18 years is too long ago since the players arent on the team anymore so we should only look at 10 years.

Thats when I noted that he's moving the goalposts to suit his argument. 10 years ago they didnt have anyone on the current team USA either, so either use current players, in which you look at the last 2 Olympics, or look at multiple generations, in which you include when the US won. He's looking at somewhere in the middle of the two, since it suits his arguement. Its pretty transparent cherry-picking.

 

[Cawz]

But who was evidence?

Huh?

Maybe insult is a bit of a strong word, but you get my drift. Or maybe you dont. Like I said, if you dont understand why a proud hockey nation like the US cant get up for a loser final, you wont understand.

Edit: And I'm not trying to say Finland only won becasue the US didnt try. They beat em fair and square. I just put less weight on an after-the-fact match in the tournament. Thats all.

 

[NoRaise4Brackett]

I'd like to see them compete on an NA-sized rink. It changes the game just enough, and I believe the players that grew up playing on the big ice, tend to have an advantage in a short tourney.

As far as passion about hockey, it's Finland by a mile. It seems as though the U.S. cares more about Football, Basketball, Baseball - even college football.

 

[Rentsi]

I think that Usa lost intentionally to Canada so that they get to keep Justin Bieber. They only pretended to be playing. And after that they considered themselves to be the real winners and lost focus on the last remaining game. Only possible explanation to all of this.

 

[habsfanatics*]

If we vote based on results, which is the only thing that really matters, Finland is top 3 without a doubt imo. If you base it in gut feelings, paper and "what ifs" you'll likely vote in another direction.

The Finnish posters here are receiving way too much flack for voting for something that is basically a statistical certainty. Sure if everything was different it wouldn't be the same, but it's not and I prefer to vote based on what has actually taken place and not what I think should have happened. For a while now Finland has been top 3 imho, this recent performance just adds to that.

 

[Mombius]

I'm not defending US. Just offering up an opposing viewpoint to people who are absolutely sure that Finland are the clear cut, without a doubt #3. With what I saw, US played better when the goal was still attainable.

Of course the US cared. Do you not understand how it may be difficult for a team like the US to bring their A game after such a letdown the day before? Being a little country, playing for the bronze is an honor for Finland. Playing for the bronze is an insult for the US. Can you imagine if Russia had to play another game to set their place in the standings? Theres no way they would care about that game.

Hey, if you dont understand, you wont understand. I'm not saying its a characteristic to be admired. I'm just saying.

So I believe what you are saying is that USA can't stop crying in time before the bronze game but Finland can? Here is why your theory is wrong: USA is USA yes, but the only same thing from Olympics to Olympics is the shirt. Players change, and they can't be sure if they are playing in the next Olympics. So if you got the chance to play in the Olympics, why the heck would you cry about losing in the semi final when you still can get maybe your first and last medal? Selänne has plenty of Olympic bronze medals, World Cup silver, Olympic silver and a Stanley Cup. Yet, he wasn't crying one day later about losing in the semi final, even if a gold would've been a perfect thing to end his career, but instead went for his 4th Olympic medal with honor. You believe that players of Team USA are so much better so they don't have to care about anything else than gold, but Selänne does?

Furthermore, last time I checked USA players were professionals. How could a lost game affect the next one? Then there wouldn't be a need for 7 game series in the NHL playoffs.

 

[CptPicard]

Finn saying no, I'd say around #4/#5. 2 Skoda Cup championships is all golden hardware we have got in like 100 years.

This poll is just a matter of timing, had you made this poll in 2010 Vancouver after the devastating USA semifinal and the tough bronze game vs Slovakia..

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

This poll is just a matter of timing, had you made this poll in 2010 Vancouver after the devastating USA semifinal and the tough bronze game vs Slovakia..

Would you like to see just how much history is repeating itself here?

"Is Finland top-4?" (January 2010)

 

[RorschachWJK]

Would you like to see just how much history is repeating itself here?

"Is Finland top-4?" (January 2010)

You're the one repeating yourself. Interesting personal crusade...makes one wonder what is behind. Then again, probably better not to know

 

[psycho_dad*]

Sure, either way is fine. The thing is that poster said Finland is the clear favourite for #3 over the last 20 years. I said the US actually won a tournament 18 years ago and finished 2nd twice, which is more success than what Finland has had. He stated 18 years is too long ago since the players arent on the team anymore so we should only look at 10 years.

Thats when I noted that he's moving the goalposts to suit his argument. 10 years ago they didnt have anyone on the current team USA either, so either use current players, in which you look at the last 2 Olympics, or look at multiple generations, in which you include when the US won. He's looking at somewhere in the middle of the two, since it suits his arguement. Its pretty transparent cherry-picking.

I did not move the goalpost at all, I told you we can look at either time period and Finland will still be on top.

Unless you put so much value on an 18 year old world cup win that it trumps the domination since.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Would you like to see just how much history is repeating itself here?

"Is Finland top-4?" (January 2010)

Finland has cemented their claim to the 3rd place with 2 bronze medals since that thread. Thanks for further proving the point. It's amazing how little results matter to you...Finland has proven you wrong twice since then and you still hold on to your opinion based view. You'd make a great religious person....well you might be one.


From that thread:

Yeah I am amused with that every year when a tournament starts. And I would not even call it "surprising". When it is as constant as it is with Finland, it is far from a surprise. A surprise would be if they are NOT in a medal game.

And since there has been 2 olympics and Finland has been in a medal game.....

but hey....surprise!

 

[psycho_dad*]

Like I said, if you dont understand why a proud hockey nation like the US cant get up for a loser final, you wont understand.

I certainly do not understand. If you have pride, you play the game until it's all done.

If they are not a proud hockey nation, mentally cave in before the games are done, then that's a different thing. Nobody who quits before the final whistle is blown can be considered a proud hockey nation. You put that jersey on, you have expectations to do your best.

There is simply nothing admirable and excusable in going into an olympic bronze medal game without effort to win.

 

[hudson bay rules]

The thing is different countries almost always supplant Finland for both first and second place with Canada being the one constant. Sometimes the other team is the States, sometimes Sweden , Russia (2002) Czechs even Belarus so 3rd is the highest they belong but do they belong that high?

IF Sweden is second now but 4 years ago they crapped the bed even worse than the Yanks did this year should we call them second or maybe put them them down a bit? I would knock them down. A second and a terrible showing doesn't equate to second but lower than Finland? Nope. Should the Americans replace Sweden? They were second 4 years ago and now they are 4th after one uninspired game. A second and a poor 4th beats a 2nd and the crapping the bed Sweden did. It also beats 2-3rd place finishes in my book so they are placed above both Sweden and Finland. The Russians have brilliant players but they need coaching and an attitude adjustment so maybe ya gotta wonder about their place too. Above Finland? Nope, not until they get there act together but when they do look out.

Finland is 4th not 3rd. No big deal There is lot's of movement in a washing machine. As a Canadian I like it this way, lot's of fighting and jostling except on the top. If I were Finnish or American etc I think I would hate Canada. I don't like it when one team wins regularly. I enjoy watching Man U or the Yankees struggle.

 

[seancolorado]

For sure:

1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. Finland

 

[10coach*]

I really fail to see the logic behind ranking the U.S. 2nd.

Just curious but why? the US is elite just a notch below Canada.

 

[psycho_dad*]

The thing is different countries almost always supplant Finland for both first and second place with Canada being the one constant. Sometimes the other team is the States, sometimes Sweden , Russia (2002) Czechs even Belarus so 3rd is the highest they belong but do they belong that high?

Huh? I think you need to check your facts again.

USA was 2nd in 2002 and 2010. Every other olympics and the 2004 world cup, Finland has placed higher (so basically Finland equals the 2nd place finishes and has 3 bronzes more than USA). Equal in 2nd place finishes, better finish in 3 tournaments (3 more medals) and leading in head to head games. How is it even debatable which one ranks ahead of the other when the results so clearly favor one?

Russia has 1 silver and 1 bronze against Finland's 1 silver, 2nd place finish in world cup and 3 bronze medals. This is not even close.

Belarus does not have olympic medals. Czech has a gold from 1998 and then a bronze from 2006. That would actually more than equal both Russia and USA, but since their gold is from so long time ago and they have not performed well since, it's hard to put them ahead of USA and Russia at the moment.

Finland is constantly bested by Canada (even though Finland has more medals, this just goes to show how consistent they are) and then a bit less constantly by Sweden but Sweden has a recent tournament win and probably leads in head to head so it's easy to see them being ahead of Finland.

USA and Russia are both continuously bested by all 3 mentioned above, with very few exceptions. This is why it's impossible to rank them ahead of those three countries who have had way more success.

Finland trumps both USA and Russia in success and head to head. So no, your facts are just wrong. Please check them again. Yes, there are a few exceptions where USA or Russia have placed higher than Finland, but most of the time Finland finishes ahead of them, and most of the time Finland beats them in head to head games. This is why Finland is clearly #3.

I actually understand well why a lot of Canadians still hold this misconception that USA and Russia are top 3 teams. They are both your bitter rivals, and winning against them has special meaning. Canada has an obvious geographical rivalry with USA and a legendary rivalry with Russia (well, Soviet Union) and you always want to think there's something special in beating them. But the truth is, Sweden and Finland are the ones who have done way better than those rivals of yours. I understand it's more of a feelings based ranking when it comes to USA and Russia, and as such you guys have every right to think more highly of their ability than you should based on actual results and facts.

 

[chauron]

Of course they are. They are the only team to medal 4 out of 5 times since the Olympics included NHLers. They just get results and play a solid team game.

This x10000.

We only lost to sweden and canada. Rest of the teams we played against we won, lastly USA 5-0. Results speak for themselves, end of discussion. No more whatiffery.