Most dominant era in international hockey history?
- Thread starter Hogzilla
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Canada has been the best on the biggest stage (Olympics), but the WHC and WJHC are not exactly equal in dominance.
Honestly Canada could probably send 3 teams and compete for all 3 medals if they split the talent up strategically.
For example, a guy like Tavares was hardly utilized in the Olympics (despite his injury, he had limited role) and there are other players on 3rd and 4th line that could be 1st liners on a 3rd team. I think if you or someone with decent managerial skills were tasked with the challenge of making up 3 full teams to send to the Olympics (assuming everyone healthy) that it wouldn't be that unrealistic for Canada to win all 3 medals. This current era is the best we've seen from Canadian hockey and it's remarkable because other countries have improved too.
For example, a guy like Tavares was hardly utilized in the Olympics (despite his injury, he had limited role) and there are other players on 3rd and 4th line that could be 1st liners on a 3rd team. I think if you or someone with decent managerial skills were tasked with the challenge of making up 3 full teams to send to the Olympics (assuming everyone healthy) that it wouldn't be that unrealistic for Canada to win all 3 medals. This current era is the best we've seen from Canadian hockey and it's remarkable because other countries have improved too.
I agree with this. Canada has also won the last 4 out of 5 BEST ON BEST tournaments (2014 Olympics, 2010 Olympics, 2004 World Cup and 2002 Olympics). Outside of the poor performance in 2006 where Canada made a questionable roster selection that did not work on the Big Ice, Canada is the Number 1 Hockey Power in the world. 2018 will be another stacked Canadian roster.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,802
- 15,458
No. If you're just going to blindly look at tournament results, then the Soviets of the 80s and even the Czechs of the late 90s/early 2000s have a lot of tournament wins. If you want actual edge over the competition, then it's obviously the era when Canada used to dominate every other country with random amateur teams.
novisor
Registered User
I don't think people realize just how dominant the Czech Republic was in the late 90's and early 2000's. People only remember 1998 when they won the Olympic Gold, but they went on to win the 99, 00, and 01 World Championships (the last time a country has won 3 straight), as well as the 2000 and 2001 World Juniors. Even when they didn't win the 98 worlds, they still captured Bronze. From 1998 to 2001 the best team on the planet in every tournament were the Czechs. Even their former countrymen captured the 2002 World Championships (Slovakia).
Rob
Registered User
This is the best Canada has ever been and I am truly enjoying it.
However, the Soviets were even more dominant in international hockey back in the 80's.
However, the Soviets were even more dominant in international hockey back in the 80's.
Yeah, I believe Duchene and Smith were on that team too.
Smith was the 3rd string goalie though. Technically he would still be on the "B" team.
slovakiasnextone
Registered User
Not this again. Please don't make me feel sorry that I cheered for Canada yesterday.
If you want to go into that team A, B, C, Z discussion you might want to look at the teams the US and Sweden could have had in this tourney were their players willing to come to the tournament.
You guys were kinda spoiled this year when it comes to the players that were out of the NHL play-offs and who said yes. Good for you, since you were at the opposite end of this for most past years, but you might not be spoiled in the same way next year.
And I don't even mean to say that Canada isn't the best hockey nation in the world when looking at all the levels, but when you consider that there's no other country where a) the sport would have such a dominant position compared to other sports as in Canada and which would at the same time b) have 30+ million inhabitants and be a wealthy country anything else would be surprising.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,802
- 15,458
The truth is the truth. Canada was without Price, Holtby, Luongo, Fleury, Bernier, Weber, Keith, Seabrook, Doughty, Pietrangelo, Vlasic, Subban, Bouwmeester, Giordano, Brodie, Letang, Tavares, Toews, Benn, Bergeron, Nugent, Getzlaf, Perry, Schwartz, Nash, Stamkos, Carter, Johansen, Couture, Thornton, Marleau and so on. I would put the list of players Canada was missing above the list for any other nation (USA is close). Canada wasn't lucky, just less unfortunate than usual.
They were dominant because they were pros, playing against amateurs. They played together all year round - no wonder they dominated. Once every country started sending pros to these events, the playing field quickly levelled.
With that in mind, this version of Team Canada gave the most dominant performance seen at the Worlds - including that soviet era.
BobDobolina
Registered User
I dont know if its product of North american cold war propaganda and all this don cherry generation or sheer ignorance of history and what not but 1 world championship gold in decade for Canada and suddenly its the greatest team ever... sad sad sad.. you guys should understand the soviet red army Red Machine dominated the international hockey for decades this 1 year of Canada playing well is nothing.
The truth is the truth. He is right that guys like you make it harder to cheer for Canada as I did. But can we look at other perspectives than just assuming that Canada's missing players was equally important to other nation's missing players? Sweden had only 3 of the top 30 during the regular season in points on the team. That is, yes, 10%. Sweden had the B/C team on ice.
Good for Canada that there is depth, certainly more than other countries and I don't think anyone is debating that fact. Canada can probably field three different teams competing for medals. But that gives that it means so much more for a country as Sweden lacking the absolute majority of top players. Only OEL and Forsberg would make the Swedish team if the best had shown up.
So good players who are not on the team hurts less for Canada with its depth than it hurts countries who lack good players. It does not take away from Canada's victory now, but one should not state that Canada's player not on the team should be comparable with for example Sweden's missing players in terms of impact on the team actually put on the ice.
I can also list names as with the post I quoted above with Canadian players above, leaving out those who participated at the WC (Forsberg and OEL most importantly) and get this:
I am positive that this team would have clear potential to make it to the final. The post above suggested that only USA:s WC team would come close to Canada's list of missing players. Sure might be so in the case of the USA, but I would say that Sweden's list of players would on paper (what else) beat any of the teams fielded on the ice except Canada who got better forwards but worse goaltending and D. Any other nation than Canada or Sweden cannot get equally good missing teams.
To end on a positive note. It is awesome that Canada actually can get good player's for the WC. It means a lot for the tournament, but more importantly it is good for the sport. I would say that it is paramount that Canada cares for the WC if the sport is supposed to grow. With Canadian players taking the lead players from other nations players will be more willing to join their national squads in the future. As it is now I get the impression that many Swedish players are mimicking the ways of the cool guys at school (the Canadian players old attitude in this case) and taking up the attitude of not caring for the WC. With Crosby et consortes turning up at WC this might change in the future. Good for Canada and good for hockey.
It's the performance by this team that we're discussing. And I thought russians didn't call them the Red Army team?
The performance by Team Canada was as good or better than any from the soviet era. The only difference being the playing field is now level - and clearly Canada is the dominant hockey country. Now, if this version of Team Canada played against amateurs exclusively - then the comparison to the soviet teams of the past could be made.
Yes but let's also understand Canada boycotted this tournament for decades, they sent teams that were nowhere near the best they could bring. Granted the Soviets were that good. I'm not sure if this has been answered but does Russia take credit for the Soviets wins? Soviets have 22 Championshis, Russia with only 5, Canada has 25 which would put them in 1st if Russia doesn't claim championships that involved players that were from Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazahkstan.
Canada-25
Soviets-22
Sweden-9
Czechoslovakia-6
Czech's-6
Russia-5
Finland-2
USA-2
Slovakia-1
Great Britain-1
Last edited:
slovakiasnextone
Registered User
And in before somebody brings up the 2010 and 2014 Olympics, yes Canada has won both, but really are you going to claim that winning a gold medal in an OT against the US coupled with 1 goal wins in important games against teams like Slovakia or Latvia (SF10' & QF14') is dominating?
No one can deny that there were the best in these two tourneys (just as no one can deny that they have the best depth as LiveEvil already said), but the only thing that they really dominated recently was this years' Worlds.
We fired almost 60 shots at Maselskis, if he doesn't play the best game in his life it could've easily been 10-0. We dominated
slovakiasnextone
Registered User
Oh come on, the chance that losing those players would have a significant influence on the number of Russian titles is non-existent. And if I'm quite honest the same is most likely true for Czechoslovakia minus Slovak players because while some of them were stars on that team, their numbers were very minor compared to the Czechs.
Both the Russians and Czechs results wouldn't likely differ too much from those of USSR and Czechoslovakia, if for no other reason then because there was no big competition back in those days.
Marshall
As a unicorn if timing matters
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,802
- 15,458
Why should anyone care if you cheer for Canada? If you're Swedish, then don't cheer for Canada. If we want to classify teams, this was still decidedly a B team for Canada, which is better than the case most years. That's life. It's true for most teams this year. Also, why should anyone care if Sweden's missing players hurt them more? Sweden doesn't get a reward for having less depth. Canada, Sweden, USA and presumably others were all missing most of their best players, as usual. That's the reason this tournament has little value.
Yes, Sweden was missing some great players. I don't see why Sweden should get extra consideration for having worse depth, but that's a discussion pretty far from the point of the thread.
That would be nice. The trend in Sweden definitely seems to be for more players to refuse to go. If Canada can get most of the players who miss the playoffs to participate, plus a few from the first round of playoff eliminations, then that's a positive and a team like what we saw this year would be the norm. Hopefully the same from Sweden and others. It would give the tournament far more value.
Canada only boycotted for 7 years or so. Of course, prior to that the IIHF did what it could to prevent Canada from sending anything remotely close to its best players. Now of course their scheduling prevents any country from sending their best, even when they are desperate like Russia.
I didn't say that you or anyone should care about it, or that there are any extra rewards to consider. Re-read your other post which I quoted and you'll see were I come from in with my post. Cheering for Sweden was nice, until the team were eliminated. Then I went with Canada. Surely it can't be that alien even for a Canadian to know that elimination is a reality for some teams
Come on don't be like that, I didn't write that Sweden should have an extra consideration. In fact I was clear that it was not the case when I stated that this don't take anything away from Canada's win. But as you was the one who happened to list a great many players which Canada missed I thought it could be
1) in order to list some for Sweden as you had such a great idea there (horrendous I know)
2) fact stands that the players I listed matters so much more for Sweden compared with the players you listed for Canada (the depth argument). In fact my post is mostly a result of frustration, that Sweden didn't get a competitive team when their are so many great players. Here I might lead this on-topic again and discuss potential dominance, but.. nah
In agreement here. Even if one can have things to say about the WC it is a great way to promote the sport and it is in dire need of promotion.
Latest posts
-
-
Prospect Info: Prospect Thread (Overseas, College, Junior, etc)
- Latest: Bye Bye Blueston
