Well - if you trapped again, the outcome would be the same. If you tried going end to end with us - well - wouldn't that have been interesting.
6-2 Canada
Is Finland a Top 3 Hockey Nation
- Thread starter Cawz
- Start date
Well - if you trapped again, the outcome would be the same. If you tried going end to end with us - well - wouldn't that have been interesting.
6-2 Canada
I assume the poster was talking about the '96 World Cup, not the '80 Olympics.
If we're talking about recent best on best games it's funny to me how many people have forgotten the Vancouver semifinal game between the US and Finland. A similar US team scored 6 goals against a full strength Finnish squad in the first period of the game. From some of the talk around here you'd think the US were incapable of beating the Finns when that's really not the case.
For the record, I'd say the Finns have clearly been the most consistent team of the recent era of best on best hockey and it's a remarkable achievement considering what they have to work with. Depending on your criteria I could certainly see arguments for them being a top 3 hockey country in the world.
Personally I think this whole argument just highlights the fallacy of the definitive numerical rankings so many seem to press for around here.
Cawz
Registered User
As mentioned above, I was talking about the World Cup. US have managed 1st and 2nd place a couple times in best on best tournaments.
Well then, we have to be happy the tournaments aren't played by your books.
Well yeah, Finland got bronze and deserved it. My opinion and others dont have any bearing on where you placed in this tournament, so who cares. Its just for discussion.
And its a good balanced discussion, tied 75-75.
So all the knockout round games against these teams where Finland has won......they were just not motivated? Wow....
So I'd say Finland is still 3rd because of motivation, right?
Or should we just hand the stanley cup to the least motivated participant who gets knocked out in the playoffs?
TheFeistyFinn
Registered User
- Dec 31, 2011
- 862
- 33
hehe trust me, nobody in Finland hasn't forgotten Vancouver, the asswhooping by Usa. it's one of the most painful losses for me. that's why this 5-0 win in Bronze match with lesser squad feels so great, like a payback
yeah as i said earlier, this has gotten pretty stupid. many fans got different different point of view on criterias.
imo, if criterias are:
only recent International achivements matter = Finland is top3
only NHL talent matters = Finland is 5-6th
combination of both = Finland is 4th.
Hyperglide
Registered User
I believe they are Top 3 team. Maybe not Top 3 in talent but they play so well as a team and are so cohesive that they are greater then the sum of their parts. That's what makes them special. Great coaching and a mix of youth and veterans with elite goaltending.
Canadiens Ghost
Mr. Objectivity
In overall talent, I would say they are 5th behind Canada, USA, Russia and Sweden. In terms of overall team play and efficiency, I would have them 3rd.
Opinions are like *******s, everyone has one. People can rank these things based on personal feelings, not that it has anything to do with any sort of reality.
Based on results, actual facts, head to head games....Finland is clearly 3rd.
Based on personal feelings Finland can be placed first, way ahead of anyone, or dead last in the world behind every african nation etc. This is the funny thing about opinions. This is why opinions really don't matter worth **** either.
It's like religion vs. reality. One of these can be proven, the other one is based on wishes.
Based on results, actual facts, head to head games....Finland is clearly 3rd.
Based on personal feelings Finland can be placed first, way ahead of anyone, or dead last in the world behind every african nation etc. This is the funny thing about opinions. This is why opinions really don't matter worth **** either.
It's like religion vs. reality. One of these can be proven, the other one is based on wishes.
Cawz
Registered User
Not really. the US has won a tournament and got 2nd twice. Quality finishes trump quantity.
Yes, really.
The US has not won any tournaments since the best on best olympics started. Neither has Finland. Neither has Russia. Finland has easily outdone both of them in medals and head to head games. Finland has the same amount of 2nd place finishes as USA in the best on best tournaments as USA in this time period, and way more 3rd place finishes and has won most of the head to head battles.
If you want to go down memory lane and quote history then yes, Soviet Union is the #1 in the world right now even if they don't exist. Finland is probably 6th all time. But I really thought this was not an all time vote.
Are we not discussing TODAY? Relevant results that have anything to do with today's situation?
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
If they had won medals in 5 or the last 6 medals as well as the reigning Junior champs, on top of a gold at the worlds in the last 3 years, yes.
Cawz
Registered User
I thought US had two 2nd place finishes, to Finland's one?
US won best on best in 96.
HEAVY DUTY
"Nobody ever suspects the butterfly."
RED ARMY EAST
Registered User
Sweden had the easiest schedule, i really think US is top 3, but it's hard to justify getting smoked that bad in the bronze medal game. If the US plays Sweden earlier in the tournament, I pick the Americans to win.
Ranking countries solely on olympic record is weird because you can actually win olympics by winning 3 games. In Torino Sweden played quarterfinals against switzerland (6-2), semis agains Czechs(7-3) and then won finals against Finland(3-2). Finland played against USA(4-3) in quarters and Russia (4-0) in semis.
Agreed. Probably top 3 in terms of team, but 5th in terms of talent.
In terms of talent a couple of other countries enter the fray (Slovakia, Czech Republic) but aren't up to Finland's level.
Cawz
Registered User
Ah, so two seconds and three(?) thirds vs two seconds and one first. Doesnt sound so "clear" cut.
And having the best team on paper in tournament doesn't mean a ****. Canada had a team in last years world champions that had most of the tournaments biggest stars and all of their players came from NHL except their 3rd goalie. You had Stamkos, Staal, Hall, Duchene, Giroux etc. and you ranked 5th. Switzerland had 4 NHL'ers and they became 2nd.. So you need a lot more than just nhl stars to win a tournament.
Having chemistry is one of the most important thing. And the team that is able to build it in a short tournament will most likely go far. That's one of the biggest reasons why "Red army" team was so dominant back in the days. They played together so long that they had an amazing chemistry.
Having chemistry is one of the most important thing. And the team that is able to build it in a short tournament will most likely go far. That's one of the biggest reasons why "Red army" team was so dominant back in the days. They played together so long that they had an amazing chemistry.
Well, if you want to go that far (of course you would go 18 years back just to have some sort of an argument for your case) then yeah it becomes somewhat less clear.
But I don't know how winning a tournament two decades ago really plays into todays ranking.
Do you count all the previous olympics and world cups or just the tournaments where some of the current players have played? I mean does the Great Britains gold medal still count even though none of those players play anymore?
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
No, they're pretty good and close to the top 3 but right now the top hockey nations are Canada, Sweden, USA and Russia.
Latest posts
-
Prospect Info: Caps Prospects General Discussion Thread - 2024-25- Latest: wickedwitch
-
-
