Most dominant era in international hockey history?

[Stats01]

When it comes to depth my rankings would be.

1.) Canada


2.) USA
3.) Sweden
4.) Russia
5.)Finland
6.) Czech's

The Czech Republic are in dire need of getting some kind of youth explosion of talent..

 

[Hogzilla]

10-0 in worlds, 7-0 in juniors and 6-0 in Olympics. Domination, this era is special for Canadian hockey.

 

[Tomas W]

Yeah one have to admit that Canada is dominant right now. Too dominant?

 

[Jablkon]

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.

WTF? You already named 30 players? What a nonsense.... You gonna play the game with 5 lines or what?

Btw. what is this duscussion about? TC admited that Prague was also quite a magnet for players to come....So it is not obviously just about who you missed but also about why you missed them. If somebody does not want to come because Minsk is not so attractive it is your problem so dont use it as excuse. Same with another teams which have to swallow family and non contract issues of many players every year....

 

[Jablkon]

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.

Well lets say that the way how canadian players behave and play gets a lot of positive reactions from other fans so they decided to cheer for them after their team was eliminated. What a contrast to some canadians here.

I met some russians yesterday before final. They just did not want to communicate in any way. I thought that was my worse experience with away fans. Still better than if I hypotetically met you telling you that I cheered for Canada in a final and your response would be: " i dont care if you cheered for Canada, you czech, cheer for your team".. What a ****ing ignorance.

And why should anyone care if Sweden missed someone? Well none except swedes should care. But because you still crying and crying all night long we all should probably start to take care who other teams missed.

Your comments ussually make sense on this forum. I guess you wrote it drunk.....

 

[JackSlater]

WTF? You already named 30 players? What a nonsense.... You gonna play the game with 5 lines or what?

Btw. what is this duscussion about? TC admited that Prague was also quite a magnet for players to come....So it is not obviously just about who you missed but also about why you missed them. If somebody does not want to come because Minsk is not so attractive it is your problem so dont use it as excuse. Same with another teams which have to swallow family and non contract issues of many players every year....

What? Those are all players who would have made the team had they been available or willing. Canada wasn't lucky to have a good team this year, not when it was without its best goaltenders, all of its best defencemen and probably 10 of its top forwards.

Yes, Prague seems like it may have proved an attractive location for the players. They didn't go last year, but I am thinking that's more because it was an Olympic year.

Well lets say that the way how canadian players behave and play gets a lot of positive reactions from other fans so they decided to cheer for them after their team was eliminated. What a contrast to some canadians here.

I met some russians yesterday before final. They just did not want to communicate in any way. I thought that was my worse experience with away fans. Still better than if I hypotetically met you telling you that I cheered for Canada in a final and your response would be: " i dont care if you cheered for Canada, you czech, cheer for your team".. What a ****ing ignorance.

I still don't see why anyone should care about fans from other countries cheering for their teams, particularly if they are deciding what team to support based on the fans of that team.

And why should anyone care if Sweden missed someone? Well none except swedes should care. But because you still crying and crying all night long we all should probably start to take care who other teams missed.

Your comments ussually make sense on this forum. I guess you wrote it drunk.....

No, you did not get the point. It's unfortunate that Sweden missed so many players. I would rather Sweden have all available players. I just don't agree that who one country misses is more important than who any other country misses because one country has less depth. Canada and Sweden both missed almost their whole optimal teams (Canada was a bit closer to its best), and were nearly on equal footing.

In any event, the results of the WC had some meaning in the past, at least for comparing European teams. Now the teams change so much every year because of NHL playoffs and how different countries view the tournament that the results don't really indicate much of anything.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

The Red Army was arguably the best hockey team of all time.
Team Canada during the days of Gretzky and Lemieux could also be argued as the best team of all time.

 

[SMJK]

The Red Army was arguably the best hockey team of all time.
Team Canada during the days of Gretzky and Lemieux could also be argued as the best team of all time.

Spot on bro'!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_O5fKlDuzY

 

[Back in Black]

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.

Red Army was a pro team playing amateurs. This is why Canada boycotted the IIHF & the Olympics in the 70's, 80's & 90's, finally going in 1998.

When Canada did send their best, they won "most" of those tournaments, such as the Summit Series and most of the Canada Cups (except 1981, Russia blasted Canada 8-1).

Obviously if Canada sent their best every year for the Worlds, it would be much more than 1 win in a decade. It's just not important tournament to North American players as it is for Europeans.

Most other Countries have improved over the decades and have made it interesting.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

My only problem with mentioning the Soviet days was Canada and Usa hockey powers. Had to send amateurs while the soviets sent professionals. So ye they dominated the amateur players. Happy?


Canada just dominated this tournament which I argue is a closer comparison to best on best.

We can even look at the Olympics since the NHL has allowed them to participate are best on best teams have won 3 / 5

 

[jekoh]

Red Army was a pro team playing amateurs. This is why Canada boycotted the IIHF & the Olympics in the 70's, 80's & 90's, finally going in 1998.

When Canada did send their best, they won "most" of those tournaments, such as the Summit Series and most of the Canada Cups (except 1981, Russia blasted Canada 8-1).

What a ridiculous post.

Canada didn't "boycott the IIHF & the Olympics in the 70's, 80's & 90's, finally going in 1998", where did you get this BS from?

Also, lol @ counting the Summit Series as a best on best tournament when only two countries even took part.

 

[jekoh]

And how many individual countries did those cccp players come from? They weren't all Russian. How about spreading that credit around?

Apart from Helmuts Balderis, all of them were from Russia.

 

[Lobstertainment]

The counterargument is that NHLers didn't participate in the WHC or Olympics back then, which meant that Canada was sending amateurs to compete against the USSR's best. In actual best-on-best tournaments (1972 Summit and the Canada Cups) Canada had a winning record against the USSR.

yeah Canada has a pretty impressive W/L record in best on best tournaments like the Summit series, Canada/World Cups and Olympics since NHL involvement.

lost 1 Canada Cup, 1 World Cup, 2 Olympics out of the bunch of them, every other time has been Gold.

1972 Summit series Win

1976 Canada Cup Win
1981 Canada Cup Loss
1984 Canada Cup Win
1987 Canada Cup Win
1991 Canada Cup Win

1996 World Cup Loss
2004 World Cup Win

1998 Olympics Loss
2002 Olympics Win
2006 Olympics Loss
2010 Olympics Win
2014 Olympics Win

Total: 9-4

Canada has more than double the 1st place finishes of all other countries combined.

 

[Lobstertainment]

What a ridiculous post.

Canada didn't "boycott the IIHF & the Olympics in the 70's, 80's & 90's, finally going in 1998", where did you get this BS from?

Also, lol @ counting the Summit Series as a best on best tournament when only two countries even took part.

It technically wasn't best on best I guess since Canada couldn't send WHA players in 72 but it was a series between the two best countries in the sport, The Soviets had their best team, and the Canadians had most of their best.

 

[jekoh]

It technically wasn't best on best I guess since Canada couldn't send WHA players in 72 but it was a series between the two best countries in the sport, The Soviets had their best team, and the Canadians had most of their best.

I'm sure both countries had their best players, but how on earth were they the two best countries in the sport when neither of them were even the reigning world champions?

The World Championships that year were closer to being a best-on-best tournament, since it had more than just two teams allowed to ice their best players.

I'm also curious as to why you included the 1991 Canada Cup in your list of best-on-best tournaments when you didn't include the 2005 World Championship.

 

[Lobstertainment]

I'm sure both countries had their best players, but how on earth were they the two best countries in the sport when neither of them were even the reigning world champions?

The World Championships that year were closer to being a best-on-best tournament, since it had more than just two teams allowed to ice their best players.

I'm also curious as to why you included the 1991 Canada Cup in your list of best-on-best tournaments when you didn't include the 2005 World Championship.

I didn't include the World Championship because the World's are not best on best, that year was the lockout year and the nations had a lot of NHL'ers but there were still a lot of players on those teams who only got to wear national jerseys for those tournaments.

The Canada Cup's were always best on best tournaments.

As for them not being reigning world champions, as others have said the Canadians could not send their best players to international tournaments, the 72 summit series was the first time Canada tried to assemble a team like that, Orr was injured and Hull had jumped to the WHA so they couldn't play but I have to issues calling that a best of the best Canada team for 72. The Soviets were fairly dominate when they played in tournaments so really if not Canada and the USSR who pray tell is the best two countries at Hockey circa 1972?

 

[jekoh]

I didn't include the World Championship because the World's are not best on best, that year was the lockout year and the nations had a lot of NHL'ers but there were still a lot of players on those teams who only got to wear national jerseys for those tournaments.

The Canada Cup's were always best on best tournaments.

The 1991 edition of the Canada Cup had a lot of players missing, particularly in the Russian team.

Nice double standards here.

The Soviets were fairly dominate when they played in tournaments so really if not Canada and the USSR who pray tell is the best two countries at Hockey circa 1972?

Do you really have no idea which team won the World Championships that year?

 

[geofff]

Summit Series
GPW L T GF GA
-8 4 3 1 31 32 - 1972 – Won (NHL Players)
-8 1 4 3 27 32 - 1974 – Lost (WHA Players)

Canada Cup
GPW L T GF GA
-7 6 1 0 33 10 - 1976 – Champions
-7 5 1 1 37 22 - 1981 – Runners-up
-8 5 2 1 37 27 - 1984 – Champions
-9 6 1 2 41 32 - 1987 – Champions
-8 6 0 2 33 14 - 1991 – Champions

World Cup of Hockey
GPW L T GF GA
-8 5 3 0 26 26 - 1996 – Runners-up
-6 6 0 0 22 8 - 2004 – Champions

Olympics
GPW L T GF GA
-6 4 2 0 19 8 - 1998 Nagano 4th
-6 4 1 1 22 14 - 2002 Salt Lake City Gold
-6 3 3 0 15 11 - 2006 Turin 7th
-7 6 1 - 32 14 - 2010 Vancouver Gold
-6 6 0 - 17 3 - 2014 Sochi Gold

These are the results of the best-on-best tournaments. Though as someone mentioned before, the summit series' weren't really best-on-best, one was against the NHL and one was against the WHA. Certainly though, Canada wasn't dominant in that era, but I don't think you could argue that the Soviets were better.

The only time Canada lost two best-on-best tournaments in a row was in 96 and 98. Finishing 2nd and 4th. Though I don't think you could argue that any team was better in that era. USA won in 96, but finished 6th 98. The Czechs won in 98, but finished basically last of the 8 teams in 96. Russia got 2nd in 98, T-3 in 96. Finland got 3rd in 98, T-5 in 96.

It seems that the most dominant Canada has ever been is in 2014. They were also pretty dominant in 2010, but had a bit of trouble with USA. I would say that this era is the most dominant any team has ever been in best-on-best international tournaments.

 

[Noisespektrum]

When its best on best , Canada has never not been the best decade in decade out as far back as I can remember.

Props

 

[LaGu]

Am I missing the point here? The title says most dominant era in international hockey history.

Whether Canada and/or USA sent their best players or not may matter as explanation of why they were not as good as expected, but it does not change international hockey history, which also includes the 70s, 80s and 90s.

For me it's still Soviet. Mid seventies to mid eighties, that was a scary team. Only bump in the road was the miracle on ice, but there is a reason it was called that.

It could have been Canada based on the Olympics alone though, but the last 5 year's WHC and WJC performances have not been enough imo.


That being said, I think it is very possible that in 5-6 years the answer to this thread will be a definite yes.

 

[Jablkon]

What? Those are all players who would have made the team had they been available or willing. Canada wasn't lucky to have a good team this year, not when it was without its best goaltenders, all of its best defencemen and probably 10 of its top forwards.

How can 30 players make the team?? You just put there whoever you imagine... What is Tavares doing there? - Canada did not have a spot for him, problem solved - interim problem of TC, Benn was injured - problem solved. Do you know why Vrbata did not come this year? Because he admitted not beeing able to transmit to big ice in such a short time. I belive that players like Thorton are well tested in this particular issue when you decide to put him on your list. How can you even excuse missing players by will? Will is again interim problem of canadian players or TC. I dont really know what you talking about. There are 30 pages in CZ- FIN thread about bad reff., no single post about who Finland missed....


Yes, Prague seems like it may have proved an attractive location for the players. They didn't go last year, but I am thinking that's more because it was an Olympic year.



I still don't see why anyone should care about fans from other countries cheering for their teams, particularly if they are deciding what team to support based on the fans of that team.

You obviously missed the fact, that WC is only one proper melting pot for fans of int. hockey. When you drink with hundreds of latvians, seeing germans shouting with swedish fans, you soonly dont really care that Germany or Latvia are weaker teams because its also about social aspect of this event.... I saw canadians supporting Germany with german fans against Sweden. Do you think they would support them if german fans spilled the beer on them and told them same you said here?Why are russians fans not that popular? Because they simply live in their box and dont really care whats going on around. Its normal you cheer for another team when you go another game etc. But once fans of this team behave as an *******s, you get this first experience and you reall miss any symphaty for them.... What is so ununderstandable of it???


No, you did not get the point. It's unfortunate that Sweden missed so many players. I would rather Sweden have all available players. I just don't agree that who one country misses is more important than who any other country misses because one country has less depth. Canada and Sweden both missed almost their whole optimal teams (Canada was a bit closer to its best), and were nearly on equal footing.

For me personally -I dont really care. Why should I think about somebody who was injured, did not want to come or whatever??? So why you still posting that comments??? I dont doubt canadian dominant performance I just pointing out that reading this comments again and again is rudiculous....

In any event, the results of the WC had some meaning in the past, at least for comparing European teams. Now the teams change so much every year because of NHL playoffs and how different countries view the tournament that the results don't really indicate much of anything.

You should go over it. I am pretty much happy that I dont see same 20 players every year. I am always looking for new ones. I was pretty much impressed with czech four line which played well. You never see me saying "if there was Frolik, Nestrasil in that line it would be much better......." I need to learn how to type this posts

 

[Lobstertainment]

The 1991 edition of the Canada Cup had a lot of players missing, particularly in the Russian team.

Nice double standards here.



Do you really have no idea which team won the World Championships that year?

Yes the Czechoslovakia, do you literally honestly believe that them beating the Soviets in the gold medal game that year makes them top 2 hockey nation in the 70's when the Soviets consistently won tournaments?

the 91 Cup the Russians weren't at their best? I guess that means everyone else also sent their B teams right? You're grasping at straws man. either take out the 91 cup or add the 05 WC if you want it doesn't change the fact that Canada has won twice as many tournaments that are best on best than Russia, Sweeden, Finland, Chezchs, Slovaks, etc. have combined.

 

[jekoh]

Yes the Czechoslovakia, do you literally honestly believe that them beating the Soviets in the gold medal game that year makes them top 2 hockey nation in the 70's when the Soviets consistently won tournaments?

There was no gold medal game, and winning the 1972 Worlds made them the better team in 1972, yes (tournaments from other seasons are irrelevant). On the other hand there's nothing that made Canada or the USSR better teams than Czechoslovakia at that point.

No one serious counts the 1972 Series as a best-on-best tournament.

the 91 Cup the Russians weren't at their best? I guess that means everyone else also sent their B teams right?

I have no idea how Russia not being at their best means other teams also sent B teams, but as a matter of fact other teams did miss quite a few players as well. It's common knowledge that the 1991 Canada Cup wasn't really a best-on-best.

 

[NyQuil]

I'm sure both countries had their best players, but how on earth were they the two best countries in the sport when neither of them were even the reigning world champions?

Not with Bobby Orr and Bobby Hull missing.

Canada did pretty well with those glaring holes in the line-up.

It probably still qualifies as a "best-on-best" series but clearly wasn't a tournament.

As for "reigning world champions", LOL, nice try. Canada didn't even attend the World Championships that year, amateurs or not. So how on earth weren't they?

Kind of ridiculous to hold that title against them when they didn't even participate.

 

[jekoh]

Not with Bobby Orr and Bobby Hull missing.

Canada did pretty well with those glaring holes in the line-up.

It probably still qualifies as a "best-on-best" series but clearly wasn't a tournament.

As for "reigning world champions", LOL, nice try. Canada didn't even attend the World Championships that year, amateurs or not. So how on earth weren't they?

Kind of ridiculous to hold that title against them when they didn't even participate.

Where in the world did you get that I hold that against them?

Canada and the USSR were not the top two teams at that point. It's a fact.

Your only argument is that Canada did not participate at the Worlds, but Canada not participating at the World Championship does not make the USSR better than Czechoslovakia.

In turn, Canada beating the USSR does not make them better than Czechoslovakia either.