List some reasons why Canada will/will not dominate in Sochi?

[DoubleDouble*]

I don't think ice size will play as big a role as many think. This is the best skating team Canada has seen in my lifetime and a lot of the players have some experience on international ice.

For me, Canada will need chemistry, they will need to be physical and intimidate their opponents, and they will need to get scoring from all of the superfluous offensive talent they are bringing.

 

[hitmen19]

I haven't encountered any evidence that goes against the very simple fact that North American teams are at a disadvantage when playing on international ice, which is confirmed by every single statistic available.

every stat that you bring up, namely 2 tournaments, would indicate no European team besides Sweden or Czech can win, since they have also never before.

Canada has at least won on 200 by 95 which the iifh considers international ice, and sorry, you don't get to decide what ice is what. IIHF calls it international ice, and that's the classification that we will use.

Again I doubt I will hear from you what stats would indicate Russia or finland can win

 

[WarriorofTime]

every stat that you bring up, namely 2 tournaments, would indicate no European team besides Sweden or Czech can win, since they have also never before.

Canada has at least won on 200 by 95 which the iifh considers international ice, and sorry, you don't get to decide what ice is what. IIHF calls it international ice, and that's the classification that we will use.

Again I doubt I will hear from you what stats would indicate Russia or finland can win

This is a thread about Canada vs. the Field, that has kept going because you and some others expect Canada to walk right through the competition. Quit trying to make it Canada vs. Russia.

 

[jgoud*]

I haven't encountered any evidence that goes against the very simple fact that North American teams are at a disadvantage when playing on international ice, which is confirmed by every single statistic available.

But you haven't provided any valuable evidence that supports it, either. The only argument you have other than past (which is irrelevant) is that the Euro Teams will have players that are less talented, but have experience on the big ice. And it was never decided that experience on olympic ice outweighs a far better and more talented NHL player.

 

[hitmen19]

This is a thread about Canada vs. the Field, that has kept going because you and some others expect Canada to walk right through the competition. Quit trying to make it Canada vs. Russia.

The Canada bashers keep bringing up that Canada didn't win the gold in nagano or torino as their justification for Canada not winning. Well if that's your evidence, I can use the same justification for all the European teams besides Sweden and Czech republic not winning also. Bringing up Russia shows how absurd it is to use all past results to predict the present. If you want to say Canada can't win because they haven't won in two tournaments, please be consistent and say Russia and finland can't win either as the evidence is the same

Can you point to one post where I said Canada is going to walk right through the competition?

But you haven't provided any valuable evidence that supports it, either. The only argument you have other than past (which is irrelevant) is that the Euro Teams will have players that are less talented, but have experience on the big ice. And it was never decided that experience on olympic ice outweighs a far better and more talented NHL player.

my evidence they can win isn't the past, my evidence is that the current roster they have is the most talented and deepest out of all that is a view point held by 99 percent of the people. Your the one saying they can't win because of what happened in 2 tournaments 16 and 8 years ago as your evidence, like that will have absolutely any relevance to what will happen in a month.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The Canada bashers keep bringing up that Canada didn't win the gold in nagano or torino as their justification for Canada not winning. Well if that's your evidence, I can use the same justification for all the European teams besides Sweden and Czech republic not winning also. Bringing up Russia shows how absurd it is to use all past results to predict the present. If you want to say Canada can't win because they haven't won in two tournaments, please be consistent and say Russia and finland can't win either as the evidence is the same

I don't think many people are saying Canada 'can't win'. The threat addresses reasons why they may or may not dominate. I think the big ice is a fair point as I would say Canada and the US are both more likely to do better on the small rinks they grew up with.

I don't think Canada will "dominate" for that reason...

oh and if it makes you feel better.. I don't expect Russia to win Gold either.

 

[jgoud*]

The Canada bashers keep bringing up that Canada didn't win the gold in nagano or torino as their justification for Canada not winning. Well if that's your evidence, I can use the same justification for all the European teams besides Sweden and Czech republic not winning also. Bringing up Russia shows how absurd it is to use all past results to predict the present. If you want to say Canada can't win because they haven't won in two tournaments, please be consistent and say Russia and finland can't win either as the evidence is the same

Can you point to one post where I said Canada is going to walk right through the competition?



my evidence they can win isn't the past, my evidence is that the current roster they have is the most talented and deepest out of all that is a view point held by 99 percent of the people. Your the one saying they can't win because of what happened in 2 tournaments 16 and 8 years ago as your evidence, like that will have absolutely any relevance to what will happen in a month.

You clearly read that wrong, because i'm arguing against the idea that the NA teams are at a disadvantage with big ice, and I'm saying the past is irrelevant.

 

[hitmen19]

I don't think many people are saying Canada 'can't win'. The threat addresses reasons why they may or may not dominate. I think the big ice is a fair point as I would say Canada and the US are both more likely to do better on the small rinks they grew up with.

I don't think Canada will "dominate" for that reason...

oh and if it makes you feel better.. I don't expect Russia to win Gold either.

I got nothing against Russia. I would love to play them in the gold medal game.
Datsyuk is one of my favorite players in the league.

I bring Russia up only as evidence against posters that say Canada didn't win in 06 or 98, so they cant win on international ice outside NA because they haven't done so. Like a sample size of 2 is in anyway a statement about anything. I can't say the same about Sweden, or Czech rep. because they won in that limited sample size, and no one really thinks finland is going to. if Russia had won torino, and Sweden hadn't, it would be Sweden as the team. Just pointing out the ignorance of saying so and so hasn't won here or there, or in a very long time, so that means there odds of winning are a lot lower. The only thing that matters is the players, coaching, draw, luck, chemistry, etc and absolutely nothing of what has happened 4 tournaments ago.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

If you look at it logically, everything is lined up for Canada to make a deep run - just based on the schedule. As I have said before, Canada will likely go 3-0 and have a huge goal differential. There is a very good chance we end up first in the round robin and coast to the semis. If that is the case, we only need two tough wins for Gold. Certainly doable.

 

[Diatomic]

If we don't win it will be due to our goaltending. We have top notch offense, elite defense and good goaltending. Luongo/Price doesn't stack up well to Rask/Niemi, Miller/Quick or even Lundqvist.

 

[source]

If we don't win it will be due to our goaltending. We have top notch offense, elite defense and good goaltending. Luongo/Price doesn't stack up well to Rask/Niemi, Miller/Quick or even Lundqvist.

Our forwards should be able to spot our goalies 4 goals/game at least. I wouldn't single out any goaltenders if they had anything less than a 2.75/GAA. Maybe you are condering whether Price would utterly collapse. I don't like the Habs, but Price isn't likely to let us down in a big game.

 

[Diatomic]

Our forwards should be able to spot our goalies 4 goals/game at least. I wouldn't single out any goaltenders if they had anything less than a 2.75/GAA. Maybe you are condering whether Price would utterly collapse. I don't like the Habs, but Price isn't likely to let us down in a big game.

I hope not, Price's playoff record is a underwhelming to say the least. 9-17-3 in a span of 5 season :/

 

[WarriorofTime]

If you look at it logically, everything is lined up for Canada to make a deep run - just based on the schedule. As I have said before, Canada will likely go 3-0 and have a huge goal differential. There is a very good chance we end up first in the round robin and coast to the semis. If that is the case, we only need two tough wins for Gold. Certainly doable.

Just looking at the World Juniors recently, I don't think coasting through the group stage is necessarily an advantage in such a short tournament where finding a rhythm at the right time is so important. I'd probably rather the US get a layup extra match versus someone like Norway than a Bye. I think it may have helped Canada last time.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

If we don't win it will be due to our goaltending. We have top notch offense, elite defense and good goaltending. Luongo/Price doesn't stack up well to Rask/Niemi, Miller/Quick or even Lundqvist.

I would have agreed a couple of months ago. Right now...I think our two look as good as any of the others. If they can just stay on a roll for another month or so...

Just looking at the World Juniors recently, I don't think coasting through the group stage is necessarily an advantage in such a short tournament where finding a rhythm at the right time is so important. I'd probably rather the US get a layup extra match versus someone like Norway than a Bye. I think it may have helped Canada last time.

Pros will respond differently than juniors, though.

 

[Easton Modano Curve]

Tough question to answer imo.

In a one-and-done tournament you can dominate a game (and the whole tournament for that matter) and still get knocked out because of a hot goaltender, a couple bounces, etc.

For example, I'd be surprised if Canada lost in a 7 game series to any other country. But I wouldn't bat an eye if Finland knocked out Canada in the knock-out round of the Olymipcs.

I expect for Canada to be the most dominant team overall. But with all the top teams stocked with nice talent, I think this is anyones tournament.

 

[Big Phil]

If Canada doesn't win it will simply be because they weren't pulling their weight. On paper, despite some questionable selections, we are still the best by far. There are no weaknesses.

I guess Price or Luongo could have one of those "1981 Mike Liut" games out of the blue at a critical time. Then we'd lose. Or stuff like Kunitz looking out of place there or Benn looking lost (still can't imagine why Staal wasn't chosen over him). Even a player or two playing awful can be the difference with another team finding a hole in our game.

I'd like to think Yzerman knows what he's doing.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

There is no guarantee when it comes to single game elminations, but this is the best team we have ever assembled, in my opinion. As good or even better than our '87 Canada Cup team. Not a single weak spot. Even the questionable picks are still top players who could have been replaced by other top players.

With our two top goalies playing well right now, this team is poised to win.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

You clearly read that wrong, because i'm arguing against the idea that the NA teams are at a disadvantage with big ice, and I'm saying the past is irrelevant.

The past is not a guarantee of future performance but to say it is irrelevant is one of the silliest things I have read on here in a while.

 

[YNWA14]

Canada will dominate because Crosby is going to go full ham. I think he'll lead team Canada by 5 points.

 

[damicius]

9. Henrik Tallinder, a 35-year-old group sex participant (http://www.thelocal.se/20050214/965) making 3.5 million from the Buffalo Sabres, is on Team Sweden.

Tallinder obviously knows how to play as team member.

 

[Namejs]

every stat that you bring up, namely 2 tournaments, would indicate no European team besides Sweden or Czech can win, since they have also never before.

Canada has at least won on 200 by 95 which the iifh considers international ice, and sorry, you don't get to decide what ice is what. IIHF calls it international ice, and that's the classification that we will use.

Again I doubt I will hear from you what stats would indicate Russia or finland can win

In no way have I said or implied that Canada or USA won't win. I'm talking about probabilities, the likelihood of them winning and how that likelihood is reduced by a number of factors, which this thread is about. If you don't understand the concept of 'probability', please ignore my posts.

Here's the implied probability of each team winning gold in Sochi, according to bookmakers (as of Jan 21):

When I'm saying that Canada most likely won't win gold, I'm not saying that they're worse than Czech Republic or Finland. They're still one of the favorites, if not the favorites to win the entire tournament.

 

[Namejs]

I don't think ice size will play as big a role as many think. This is the best skating team Canada has seen in my lifetime and a lot of the players have some experience on international ice.

The fact that they changed their selection process in order to have a better chance on big ice ITSELF proves that the big ice is most definitely a factor.

If you look at it logically, everything is lined up for Canada to make a deep run - just based on the schedule. As I have said before, Canada will likely go 3-0 and have a huge goal differential. There is a very good chance we end up first in the round robin and coast to the semis. If that is the case, we only need two tough wins for Gold. Certainly doable.

Certainly doable, sure. You can also lose to Finland in the preliminary round. Or end up playing against Sweden or Russia in the QFs.

Short tournaments are unpredictable and it's nearly impossible to 'dominate' even if you have the most stacked lineup.

If Canada doesn't win it will simply be because they weren't pulling their weight. On paper, despite some questionable selections, we are still the best by far. There are no weaknesses.

I guess Price or Luongo could have one of those "1981 Mike Liut" games out of the blue at a critical time. Then we'd lose. Or stuff like Kunitz looking out of place there or Benn looking lost (still can't imagine why Staal wasn't chosen over him). Even a player or two playing awful can be the difference with another team finding a hole in our game.

I'd like to think Yzerman knows what he's doing.

Another guy who has no idea how team sports work.

The better team often loses. When losing a single match means you're out of the tournament, you have to be deluded to believe that not winning gold is going to be an upset. The odds are not in your favour.

 

[daver]

Another guy who has no idea how team sports work.

The better team often loses. When losing a single match means you're out of the tournament, you have to be deluded to believe that not winning gold is going to be an upset. The odds are not in your favour.

So Canada won't win because they are the better team? Good thing they left off some of their best players which would have stacked the odds even more against us.

I think the poster and everyone else knows that a short, one and your done, tourney opens up the possibility of losing despite having a better team. Chemistry and nothing less than an "A" effort are huge factors.

 

[Yamaguchi*]

A better team is a team that scores more goals than their opponent in the crucial game whether it's a game 7 or an Olympic gold medal contest.


Big names on paper do not necessarily mean the team will cruise to the title by easily outplaying the opposition. Remember 2006? Paul DiPietro outscored a whole bunch of Canadian superstars. He made Switzerland a better team.

 

[Namejs]

So Canada won't win because they are the better team? Good thing they left off some of their best players which would have stacked the odds even more against us.

So it's not just your math skills that you should improve, your reading skills are also substandard. No one has said anything similar to that.

I think the poster and everyone else knows that a short, one and your done, tourney opens up the possibility of losing despite having a better team. Chemistry and nothing less than an "A" effort are huge factors.

So why do you keep arguing with me and saying that Canada will dominate the tournament, blow everyone away and win gold?

Most likely they won't win gold. It is absolutely obvious.