Is Finland a Top 3 Hockey Nation

[TR99]

Statistically we cannot draw any conclusions based on the results of how teams have done in major international tournaments. The sample size is just way too small to do that.

What we can do is analyze how teams performed on ice and both Canada and Sweden wiped the floor with the Finns even though the scores were close thanks to the defensive game plan used by the Finns.

 

[psycho_dad*]

how do I figure? easy, they didn't win, and have NEVER won a best on best.

Neither has Russia or USA in this timeframe that we have been discussing. Canada has and Sweden has, so they have a legitimate claim to be above Finland. Czech has won too but that was so long ago (1998) and they have not kept up with any sort of success in the past 10 years so it's kinda hard to rank them in the top 5 even.

If you want to give USA's world cup win in 1996 some weight in "how things are today" go right ahead. I just find it amusing.

Nobody is arguing that Finland is ahead of these teams that have recently won something (Canada, Sweden), the argument is that the ones that have CLEARLY less success in the best on best since 1998 should not rank ahead of Finland. Finland wins against them clearly in every single category. Medals, head to head wins, points against top 7, points total....you name it.

 

[FofH]

how do I figure? easy, they didn't win, and have NEVER won a best on best. Wow, you lost a couple of close games. So did Latvia, does that mean they are better then the teams that lost by more???

Of course finland can go all the way, the same way like the usa 80's miracle on ice team did, but in finlands case, the miracle hasn't happened yet.

Bold words from someone whose country has won only 1 best on best almost 20 years ago. The truth is that if the hockeys "superpowers" underestimate finns, they'll get burnt. But I think that the actual players do not underestimate Finland anymore. Fans however do.

 

[psycho_dad*]

What we can do is analyze how teams performed on ice and both Canada and Sweden wiped the floor with the Finns even though the scores were close thanks to the defensive game plan used by the Finns.

No, you can't analyze because obviously you are either blind or didn't even watch.

Finland had more quality scoring chances than Sweden in the semifinal. Hell, Salo alone had an insane amount, Selanne had several clear scoring chances.

What Canada and Sweden both did more than Finland is they threw the puck at the goal more from everywhere. This results in shots.

Finland was in trouble with Canada, not so much with Sweden. But both were losses so no excuses.

What I find amusing is....

You're saying that 6 tournaments, and at least 5 head to head games between Finland-USA and Finland-Russia are not a good sample size....but 2 games where Finland is playing against someone else (Canada and Sweden) is somehow a better way to see who ranks 3rd, 4th and 5th?

Here's some statistics to clear something up for you....

 

[TR99]

Bold words from someone whose country has won only 1 best on best almost 20 years ago. The truth is that if the hockeys "superpowers" underestimate finns, they'll get burnt. But I think that the actual players do not underestimate Finland anymore. Fans however do.

I think the Canadians consider Finns as pesky little dogs that bite you hard in the ankle and won't let go easily but not really a class A opponent like Russia, USA or Sweden against whom the Canadians come better prepared.

 

[psycho_dad*]

I think the Canadians consider Finns as pesky little dogs that bite you hard in the ankle and won't let go easily but not really a class A opponent like Russia, USA or Sweden against whom the Canadians come better prepared.

You and thinking is not a very good mix.

I live in Canada, I have a pretty good idea how they view it. It's not that.

 

[FofH]

Statistically we cannot draw any conclusions based on the results of how teams have done in major international tournaments. The sample size is just way too small to do that.

What we can do is analyze how teams performed on ice and both Canada and Sweden wiped the floor with the Finns even though the scores were close thanks to the defensive game plan used by the Finns.

So let's throw statistics out of the window and let's just trust subjective view of the game. The statistics provided in this thread from '98-14 best on best tournaments with over 20 game sample is enough to make some conclusions.

 

[jekoh]

Neither has Russia or USA in this timeframe that we have been discussing. Canada has and Sweden has, so they have a legitimate claim to be above Finland. Czech has won too but that was so long ago (1998) and they have not kept up with any sort of success in the past 10 years so it's kinda hard to rank them in the top 5 even.

Czechia won a best-on-best in 2005.

 

[FofH]

I think the Canadians consider Finns as pesky little dogs that bite you hard in the ankle and won't let go easily but not really a class A opponent like Russia, USA or Sweden against whom the Canadians come better prepared.

As I said. Fans do underestimate and your post just shows that. That's why fans are in shock that facts and actual results speak otherwise. And are upset that their team suddenly lost to inferior team. This and other threads in this olympic forum just proves that point.

 

[cryssarn]

I think the Canadians consider Finns as pesky little dogs that bite you hard in the ankle and won't let go easily but not really a class A opponent like Russia, USA or Sweden against whom the Canadians come better prepared.

HAHAHA you've been my entertainment all afternoon. YOU think?!

 

[TR99]

You and thinking is not a very good mix.

So once again you have to resort to personal attacks instead of having civilized debate.

So let's throw statistics out of the window and let's just trust subjective view of the game. The statistics provided in this thread from '98-14 best on best tournaments with over 20 game sample is enough to make some conclusions.

20 game sample is nothing we would have to play hundreds of tournaments in order to get some statistically significant sample of how the teams fare against each other. But that of course is not possible.

So we are forced to look at the team rosters and in that department Finland has inferior material compared to other top countries.

 

[psycho_dad*]

So once again you have to resort to personal attacks instead of having civilized debate.

There is no way of having a civilized debate with someone who bases things on their own fantasy rather than reality. It's really quite pointless.

20 game sample is nothing we would have to play hundreds of tournaments in order to get some statistically significant sample of how the teams fare against each other. But that of course is not possible.

So we are forced to look at the team rosters and in that department Finland has inferior material compared to other top countries.

This is just beyond ridiculous.

Because the results from a 10, 15, 20 years of international hockey tournaments and head to head games do not support your preconceived notion at all, you ignore that evidence completely and try to read answers from tea leafs instead.

You have now suggested that we would ignore statistical data between Finland-USA-Russia and should look at two games where Finland played Sweden and Canada. and that would be a better sample size (and somehow relevant to Finlands stance against USA and Russia) to draw conclusions from than the vast amount of data we have from all the tournaments in the NHL olympics era.

And you have suggested that because this data does not support your fantasy, we should look at the names on their back, come up with a made up value to those names, and rank national teams based on something completely subjective, rather than the results.

Just how far are you willing to sink?

 

[FiLe]

Sorry, the whole hockey world outside of finland gave them no chance of winning.

Uh-nuh, kiddo. Now you just shot wide past the argument. I didn't say a single frakkin' word about winning. Most people gave Finland no chance to medal, and that includes YOU.

And there's no reason to mix winning into this thread anyway, since it's about Finland being (approximately) 3rd, not about them being the best. The third best team in a single tournament is the one that comes third, grabs the bronze. The third best team in a string of tournaments is the one that most steadily gets close to that seeding. One does need some gold to be the best, but one does NOT necessarily need gold to be 3rd best - all they have to do is to be 3rd, or close.

Pre-tournament, it was all paper rankings and dismissal of the fact that things on ice rarely go exactly as they are. Now, there are tons of people with eggs on their faces. And in order to save some face, trying to explain Finland's relative success as yet another best-of-one fluke is suddenly a hugely popular stance. "Yes, my calculations were off... but it's totally not my fault!" is a catch phrase usually associated to weathervane politicians, but looks like they're not the only kind to make good use of it.

 

[FofH]

So once again you have to resort to personal attacks instead of having civilized debate.



20 game sample is nothing we would have to play hundreds of tournaments in order to get some statistically significant sample of how the teams fare against each other. But that of course is not possible.

So we are forced to look at the team rosters and in that department Finland has inferior material compared to other top countries.

You can neglect relevant statistics if you want. You don't need hundreds of games to see how teams have played in history. The facts and statistics are already there. And over 20 game sample is more than enough to draw some conclusion about history. If you wanna predict future, no statistical data is enough to predict that for you. Eventhough you do not like it, the statistics say the current situtation what has happened after '98. You do not need to believe it and as I said, you can neglect it if you want. It does not matter to me.

 

[TR99]

There is no way of having a civilized debate with someone who bases things on their own fantasy rather than reality.

You keep calling me names and then complain how hard it is to have a civilized debate with me. Kind of ironic. I'm staying polite with you even though your repeated attacks.

You have now suggested that we would ignore statistical data between Finland-USA-Russia and should look at two games where Finland played Sweden and Canada.

And now you are putting words into my mouth. I never claimed something like this.

And you have suggested that because this data does not support your fantasy, we should look at the names on their back, come up with a made up value to those names, and rank national teams based on something completely subjective, rather than the results.

If you understood anything about statistics you wouldn't be drawing any conclusions based on the result of the best on best tournaments since the NHLers have joined. The sample size for that is too small.

 

[FiLe]

If you understood anything about statistics you wouldn't be drawing any conclusions based on the result of the best on best tournaments since the NHLers have joined. The sample size for that is too small.

For what it's worth, this is right. There simply is no way to achieve a statistical certainty. The sample size of recent games IS too small to call it convincingly reliable, and of course results from further away are too outdated to weigh in.

However, that does not mean one can't try and draw some kind of picture based on what's at hand. It's not conclusive, but ought to be good enough to create a guideline. Which does, of course, leave open a crack for those who want to argue against it... no matter how silly it appears in reality.

 

[Sabane]

If you understood anything about statistics you wouldn't be drawing any conclusions based on the result of the best on best tournaments since the NHLers have joined. The sample size for that is too small.

IMHO the sample size is too small (you could toss a coin for 10 times and it could be heads all the time). BUT that's the only data we have and we can't get more (Same goes, why Sweden is 2nd, USA got better players than they also). But compairing players isn't easy one eighter. For example most of us would say Kane is better than Komarov. Maybe, but they have a very different kind of roles at the NT. Finns roster was made roles first, USAs and Russians were made kinda "best players we have". Finns could have taken for example Ville Leino over Antti Pihlström but he just doesn't fit for the role of PK/small minutes of the 4th line.

Finns have always tried to role the team right. And that has worked pretty good for us. It allows our best players to play minutes they need and the third and the fourth line have played against the first lines of the opponents. Isn't that wise choice at our coaching?

 

[psycho_dad*]

And now you are putting words into my mouth. I never claimed something like this.

Oh yes you did.

Statistically we cannot draw any conclusions based on the results of how teams have done in major international tournaments. The sample size is just way too small to do that.

What we can do is analyze how teams performed on ice and both Canada and Sweden wiped the floor with the Finns even though the scores were close thanks to the defensive game plan used by the Finns.

See? You're saying that the sample size of 6 tournaments over 15+ years of time, at least 5 head to head games (FIN-RUS, FIN-USA) and around 20+ games in total for each team against a top 7 nation, is not good enough to draw conclusion.

But you suggest that we SHOULD draw conclusions from 2 games (FIN-CAN and FIN-SWE) when it comes to how we should rank Finland, USA and Russia. That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. And I read Clive Barker and watch David Lynch movies...


Sorry if I can't take you seriously, this sort of insanity and absurdity just kills the conversation. It's equal to ignoring all empirical data and suggesting we would get more accurate results from reading the horoscope.

 

[hitmen19]

Nice to see losers excuses. It doesn't matter why they lost, they lost. Lack of skill, lack of will, which ever....losers lose and winners win. Not that I buy lack of will at all as an excuse, I actually watched the game. Sulander stood on his head and Canada had 39 shots. Canadian goalie allowed some bad goals.

Do you remember (lol, you weren't even born yet I bet) that in Nagano the group stage was actually not "best on best", NHL teams still had a game on the day the hockey started in Nagano. In medal rounds everyone had their top dogs for sure.

The excuses are pathetic.

lol, im Canadian, and we have won 3 of the last 4 gold medals, what excuses are we making. We only measure ourselves with Gold. Do you think if Canada would have gotten bronze in nagano, one Canadian would be happ with that? The losers are you who are making excuses as in we only lost in ot, so we are better because other teams lost by more bs.

guess what about nagano. Not one Canadian remembers the finland game. Everyone remembers losing to the Czech's, and when that loss happened, the tournament was over for us. But congrats on winning one game and losing the other 3 and somehow being in the bronze medal game. im sure it was really rewarding. Im not making excuses for losing the bronze medal game, im saying you won fair and square. Winning bronze for Canada would of been still considered as a failure as nagano still is. With that team it was gold or bust. And silver to 10th are all the same

Fact is Finland has never won gold. Finand acts like they won Gold by winning Bronze, and that is the point.

 

[FiLe]

Finand acts like they won Gold by winning Bronze, and that is the point.

Nope. Finland acts like they won bronze. They have no problem admitting that there were two better teams in the tournament (and overall), while at the same time being of the mind that any kind of medal is better than no medal.

You may think only gold matters, but it is no justification for demeaning the joy of others for attaining at least a meager achievement. It is the behavior of someone who's been spoiled beyond redemption.

 

[TR99]

But you suggest that we SHOULD draw conclusions from 2 games (FIN-CAN and FIN-SWE) when it comes to how we should rank Finland, USA and Russia.

You are just making stuff up here. I never claimed anything like this. You seem to like making personal attacks and coming up with straw men. Good argumentation skills mate!

 

[Sabane]

What we can do is analyze how teams performed on ice and both Canada and Sweden wiped the floor with the Finns even though the scores were close thanks to the defensive game plan used by the Finns.

Here you were analyzing only two games and both times we lost after a tough battle. How if we would rather analyze games against these three "candidates" USA-Rus 3-2ot, Fin-Rus 3-1 and Fin-USA 5-0?

Small sample, i get it. But a way better analyze these. IMO Finland was the best of its both games and USA-Rus could have gone eighter way.

 

[cryssarn]

lol, im Canadian, and we have won 3 of the last 4 gold medals, what excuses are we making. We only measure ourselves with Gold. Do you think if Canada would have gotten bronze in nagano, one Canadian would be happ with that? The losers are you who are making excuses as in we only lost in ot, so we are better because other teams lost by more bs.

guess what about nagano. Not one Canadian remembers the finland game. Everyone remembers losing to the Czech's, and when that loss happened, the tournament was over for us. But congrats on winning one game and losing the other 3 and somehow being in the bronze medal game. im sure it was really rewarding. Im not making excuses for losing the bronze medal game, im saying you won fair and square. Winning bronze for Canada would of been still considered as a failure as nagano still is. With that team it was gold or bust. And silver to 10th are all the same

Fact is Finland has never won gold. Finand acts like they won Gold by winning Bronze, and that is the point.

lol, no they did not act like they won Gold.
When did we say that Finland is better because it was in OT? IF anyone said it, ofc it's not true. But you can't honestly say that you prefer 4th/5th/6th place before bronze....EVEN though it's a failiure for not winning the gold. Like 2006....you can't have gold. You have to choose between bronze and they way it ended now....what would you choose?
The question after all was about the 3rd spot

 

[Halibut]

Right now, sure they are but it's always changing. They got the bronze they earned it that's how sports work you have to constantly prove it to hold on to any title. There is no such thing as a ranking that isnt proven in any way and absolutely no meaning to ranking a team based on what there team looks like on paper.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

You claim that your personal opinion, your criteria and your interpretation of the poll results are more important than those results of actual hockey games and tournaments.

Completely false. I claim that there are many valid reasons to NOT rank Finland in the top 3. YOU are the one claiming that your opinion is the only one that is "right" and that the rest are invalid, and I'll I've ever done - in either of these threads - is explain my opinion (which obviously differs from yours) in great length, why I (and a great many others) think that way, and laugh at the level of insult that you (and your other countrymen that are teaming up, again predictably) consider all of this to be.