Is Finland a Top 3 Hockey Nation

[EbencoyE]

How is this even a question? Finland is one of only two countries where hockey is the most popular sport, so it's clearly top 2. Maybe you could include Latvia in there too, but I would still say they are a bigger hockey nation than Latvia considering they have more registered players, a higher quality professional league (I don't include KHL because that's just a league with one Latvian team, not a Latvian league), and better international results obviously.

 

[Pominville Knows]

How is this even a question? Finland is one of only two countries where hockey is the most popular sport, so it's clearly top 2. Maybe you could include Latvia in there too, but I would still say they are a bigger hockey nation than Latvia considering they have more registered players, a higher quality professional league (I don't include KHL because that's just a league with one Latvian team, not a Latvian league), and better international results obviously.

I dont see where a sport positions on a nations most popular list is a tell-all story.

 

[Keeptdos]

I dont see where a sport positions on a nations most popular list is a tell-all story.

Well the question is about Finland being a top hockey nation rather than a team.

Finland is only behind in Canada if we measure by hockey nations.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Well the question is about Finland being a top hockey nation rather than a team.

Finland is only behind in Canada if we measure by hockey nations.

You have interpreted the OP wrong.

 

[FiLe]

You have interpreted the OP wrong.

Feels like everyone in this thread interprets the OP in a manner that supports ones personal view. So he's really doing nothing to stand out.

 

[EbencoyE]

You have interpreted the OP wrong.

Well, everyone has different definitions of what makes a hockey nation I suppose. If OP meant regarding one particular category he should have clarified such. There is no misinterpretation going on here, OP just didn't clarify by what measurements we should be looking at.

Hockey nations are nations where hockey is popular, IMO. And Finland is second only to Canada in that regard. If you have a problem with that assessment, it is your own personal opinion. It doesn't mean I misinterpreted anything.

 

[Cawz]

Well, everyone has different definitions of what makes a hockey nation I suppose. If OP meant regarding one particular category he should have clarified such. There is no misinterpretation going on here, OP just didn't clarify by what measurements we should be looking at.

Hockey nations are nations where hockey is popular, IMO. And Finland is second only to Canada in that regard. If you have a problem with that assessment, it is your own personal opinion. It doesn't mean I misinterpreted anything.

Yes it does.

No one else thinks this way in this thread. Its just you. You are entitled to your opinion, but maybe you should just state it and keep it to yourself instead of arguing with everyone else who actually understands.

Popular. Sheesh. We are talking about sports, not popularity. The best team in the NHL isnt the one thats considered the most popular either, in case you are still confused.

 

[Cawz]

Top 5 easily, top 3, very debatable.

Yup. Thats why I argued throughout this thread with the guy who said it was "clear". Nothing is clear. The sample size is too low, but a compelling argument can be made for 3-5. I just dont agree they are 3, but can see how others may think that.

 

[Canuck21t]

How is this even a question? Finland is one of only two countries where hockey is the most popular sport, so it's clearly top 2. Maybe you could include Latvia in there too, but I would still say they are a bigger hockey nation than Latvia considering they have more registered players, a higher quality professional league (I don't include KHL because that's just a league with one Latvian team, not a Latvian league), and better international results obviously.

We're talking about national team power, not popularity.

 

[Lempo]

We're talking about national team power, not popularity.

Are we now, because once we start to place the Olympic medals on the table, ching, ching, ching, there suddenly appears someone making a point of the pool for individual talent, or the lack of it.

 

[Jacques Trap*]

Canada

Sweden/usa
Russia/Finland
Czech
Slovakia
Switzerland

 

[EbencoyE]

Yes it does.

No one else thinks this way in this thread. Its just you. You are entitled to your opinion, but maybe you should just state it and keep it to yourself instead of arguing with everyone else who actually understands.

Popular. Sheesh. We are talking about sports, not popularity. The best team in the NHL isnt the one thats considered the most popular either, in case you are still confused.

Please tell me how "hockey nation" suggests anything other than a nation that loves hockey? There is nothing in the title or the OP that says ANYTHING about the ranking of their international results or analyzing how well they play. "Hockey nation" doesn't even reference any kind of team in any way. It's referencing NATIONS.

Make your post/title more clear next time if you want people to comment on one certain thing. I just commented on what I believe a "hockey nation" to be. So, sorry, I'm actually not confused and never was. Thanks for the concern though.

 

[Cawz]

Please tell me how "hockey nation" suggests anything other than a nation that loves hockey?

Why? You obviously either wont or dont want to understand. Read through the thread if you want to see how everyone else who is involved in the discussion gets it.

 

[Canuck21t]

Are we now, because once we start to place the Olympic medals on the table, ching, ching, ching, there suddenly appears someone making a point of the pool for individual talent, or the lack of it.

It's about national team power and individual talent. The point is, we're not talking about popularity.

When people judge a nation's capability, it's inevitable that they look at individual talent. That's where you get the "on paper" ranking. If tomorrow we have another best-on-best tournament, we'd have to go over the names again and judge based on that, Finland is not top 3. That's just how it is, you can't expect people to not look at the names.

 

[An Argument For]

It's about national team power and individual talent. The point is, we're not talking about popularity.

When people judge a nation's capability, it's inevitable that they look at individual talent. That's where you get the "on paper" ranking. If tomorrow we have another best-on-best tournament, we'd have to go over the names again and judge based on that, Finland is not top 3. That's just how it is, you can't expect people to not look at the names.

I kind of agree and disagree. First a part of the problem we have here is that we're just trying to balance between total production of talent and national team success and there is no right or wrong metric to do this, it's completely subjective.

So when we go into a tournament like the Olympics we usually set out expectations based on the individual talent because we have no other gauge at that point. The time in between tournaments is so long and we don't have an idea of how good a team really can perform. If tomorrow, we had another best on best tournament and teams could make adjustments based on the previous tournament, I would have a hard job not putting Finland in the top 4 at least. Because I have seen the team play just one month ago. I've seen what they could do against the teams who were better "on paper" and I think they have what it takes to win.

 

[Lempo]

If tomorrow we have another best-on-best tournament, we'd have to go over the names again and judge based on that, Finland is not top 3. That's just how it is, you can't expect people to not look at the names.

That is of course a starting point, but should there be some sort of corrective factor to it based on the fact that Finland has I think never (?) been considered to be a favorite for top 3 before either.

Isn't it always like this:

"Well Canada of course, and Russia, Sweden is always strong and USA has good team this year. Unless blah Finland does some black horse stunt. Oh but the Czechs!" Comparing the results to the predictions, the formula seems to be missing something. Coaching approach? Team culture? Insanely overvaluing bronze? The thirst of fans for excuses for drinking? Their own confidence versus the external (international) expectations and the other guy already kind of looking for the next game?

Oh, and, we do have some names, usually standing in the semicircle just in front of the goal... and another one sitting on the bench holding the hatch, and the third one don't even get to dress up.

 

[BLNY]

Great question and topic. In terms of effort I think you could easily say they're top three. No one tries harder, or has more pride. Period. When you consider the population of the whole country is less than 6 million, and how popular the Nordic sports are, I think it's continually remarkable how many good hockey players they produce. That said, I don't think they produce enough to be top three on a year to year basis. Moreover, if you assemble a Finnish all-star team of current players I think you find that they fall short of a few countries.

 

[Canuck21t]

I kind of agree and disagree. First a part of the problem we have here is that we're just trying to balance between total production of talent and national team success and there is no right or wrong metric to do this, it's completely subjective.

So when we go into a tournament like the Olympics we usually set out expectations based on the individual talent because we have no other gauge at that point. The time in between tournaments is so long and we don't have an idea of how good a team really can perform. If tomorrow, we had another best on best tournament and teams could make adjustments based on the previous tournament, I would have a hard job not putting Finland in the top 4 at least. Because I have seen the team play just one month ago. I've seen what they could do against the teams who were better "on paper" and I think they have what it takes to win.

You're absolutely right, I didn't think about the elapsed time factor.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I kind of agree and disagree. First a part of the problem we have here is that we're just trying to balance between total production of talent and national team success and there is no right or wrong metric to do this, it's completely subjective.

So when we go into a tournament like the Olympics we usually set out expectations based on the individual talent because we have no other gauge at that point. The time in between tournaments is so long and we don't have an idea of how good a team really can perform. If tomorrow, we had another best on best tournament and teams could make adjustments based on the previous tournament, I would have a hard job not putting Finland in the top 4 at least. Because I have seen the team play just one month ago. I've seen what they could do against the teams who were better "on paper" and I think they have what it takes to win.

I think you can get a good idea of how hard a team is going to be to face when rosters are examined, and the returning "cores" from more recent tournaments (WC, etc) are compared, but the tournaments are still typically won/lost on the sticks of the guys being discussed at the top of the "on paper talent analysis" when it comes down to it, and many (most, in cases like Canada/US?) of them aren't available when the WCs come around.