Most dominant era in international hockey history?

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Not just because you lost, but because of the quality and attitude of the players. I dont know whether it is true or not but many people said about Canada in that times that Hockey Canada just relied upon (generally) huge amount of players where they simply have to find some super talents.

I agree you would be medal contender probably every time, but Sweden and USA would be far ahead of you considering their development programms.....

Even in the 90's Canada player for player the strongest rosters at the best on best tournaments, but as I said earlier that doesn't necessarily guarantee that they would win every tournament. The USA 96 roster was very strong too.

 

[Theokritos]

No both Brundage and Ahearn were crooks and did all they could to obstruct Canadian hockey internationally. Canada was a threat to their power when it cam to hockey.

How was Canada a threat to Brundage's power? With Ahearne I see the point of the argument, but Brundage?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

And you think that only bribing a referee will make him favour the other team?

The Canada Cup final [games] were all played in Canada, in front of (pro-)Canadian people. That can put a lot of pressure on an official - especially if he's Canadian and/or an NHL referee. I don't know what was exactly wrong with Mike Noeth in the CAN vs. USSR round robin game in 1987, but his officiating got even Dan Kelly eventually uttering something like, "I'm cheering for Canada, but that was ridiculous".

The complaints in 1976 and 1981 had more to do with things like traveling; i.e. Canada did not have to travel as much as e.g. the Soviets had to and they played against the easier opponents (Finland, USA...) first, whereas USSR faced the best non-Canadian opponents (Czechoslovakia, Sweden...) first. Might not seem that big a deal, but that kind of a 'pattern' still raised questions...

The pressure a referee feels from the fans of the home team is pretty much the same in every full arena. The NHL refs were plenty used to that and where they were from would have no bearing, just as it doesn't when they officiate league games. Home ice advantage doesn't exist in international play, only in league play where the home team gets certain rules advantages, such as last change, etc. If you look at the last ~30 years of IIHF WC results you will see that teams on average do better the year before and the year after they host than the year they host. In other words in international men's hockey home ice is actually a slight disadvantage. I will grant that familiarity with the ice size is an advantage, as is familiarity with the rules and style of officiating, but the biggest advantage a team can have is the amount of experience they have playing and practicing together. Just imagine if Canada put the same emphasis on their national team as the USSR. If they did I don't think any of those tournaments would even be that close.

 

[Jussi]

I find it interesting that the IIHF gets off scott free in this discussion. They were corrupt and to this day are still only concerned with lining their pockets. As we all know the IIHF ensured that Canada's best players were not able to play in international events until 1977. They were more concerned with money and protecting their brand, the so called World Championship than anything else.

Interestly enough it was a Canadian that did his utmost to ensure that better Canadian hockey players couldn't take part. It was a nice little European tournament run exactly the way they wanted to run it.

Source? Links?

 

[Jablkon]

Even in the 90's Canada player for player the strongest rosters at the best on best tournaments, but as I said earlier that doesn't necessarily guarantee that they would win every tournament. The USA 96 roster was very strong too.

To be honest I never knew what was so special on canadian 98 roster or for what reason it should be the best roster on paper but thats of course matter of opinion....on the other hand I never understood why we were consider as an underdog. If you call it most famous roster I would be ok with it but best one...?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

To be honest I never knew what was so special on canadian 98 roster or for what reason it should be the best roster on paper but thats of course matter of opinion....on the other hand I never understood why we were consider as an underdog. If you call it most famous roster I would be ok with it but best one...?

Now that we have the benefit of hindsight it is pretty easy to go through each roster player by player and see how strong they were at that time. After you get through the first 3 or 4 players it slants pretty heavily in Canada's favour.

 

[Jablkon]

Now that we have the benefit of hindsight it is pretty easy to go through each roster player by player and see how strong they were at that time. After you get through the first 3 or 4 players it slants pretty heavily in Canada's favour.

I dont know. I just prefered european style in that time so I respected guys like Sakic or Karia who was injured. Gretzky for sure. But that group of players around Brindamour,Linden etc. symbolized typical crashing the net hockey. Even before the tournament I could not find the reason why any canadian line should be better than any czech line. I agree that canadian defense looked good on paper....

 

[Lepardi]

In other words in international men's hockey home ice is actually a slight disadvantage.

Ever heard of a thing called "statistically significant sample size"? No team won the WC gold medal on their home ice between 1986 and 2013, but taking into consideration that the tournament is often held in countries like Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Slovakia or Norway, that's not nearly as significant a fact as some people with very little understanding of statistical deviation think it is.

The NHL refs were plenty used to that and where they were from would have no bearing, just as it doesn't when they officiate league games. Home ice advantage doesn't exist in international play, only in league play where the home team gets certain rules advantages, such as last change, etc.

If you think that home teams don't get more favorable decisions from the referees when the refs are professional, you have failed to understand one crucial fact about professional referees: they're human too. Them being human means that they're not immune to the pressure created by the home crowd. This can be seen in the statistics of any major league with professional referees, whether it's the NHL or the Premier League or the NBA. There's far more to home-ice advantage than last change.

 

[VMBM]

The pressure a referee feels from the fans of the home team is pretty much the same in every full arena. The NHL refs were plenty used to that and where they were from would have no bearing, just as it doesn't when they officiate league games. Home ice advantage doesn't exist in international play, only in league play where the home team gets certain rules advantages, such as last change, etc. If you look at the last ~30 years of IIHF WC results you will see that teams on average do better the year before and the year after they host than the year they host. In other words in international men's hockey home ice is actually a slight disadvantage. I will grant that familiarity with the ice size is an advantage, as is familiarity with the rules and style of officiating, but the biggest advantage a team can have is the amount of experience they have playing and practicing together. Just imagine if Canada put the same emphasis on their national team as the USSR. If they did I don't think any of those tournaments would even be that close.

If you really believe that... well, then you believe that.

BTW, when the World Championships were held in Moscow in 1973, 1979 and 1986, USSR's W-L-T record was 28-0-0 (10-0-0, 8-0-0, 10-0-0, respectively) and the goal differential was 201-45 (100-18, 51-12 and 50-15, respectively). So yeah, they were even much more dominant on their home-ice than anywhere else.

 

[Jussi]

If you really believe that... well, then you believe that.

BTW, when the World Championships were held in Moscow in 1973, 1979 and 1986, USSR's W-L-T record was 28-0-0 (10-0-0, 8-0-0, 10-0-0, respectively) and the goal differential was 201-45 (100-18, 51-12 and 50-15, respectively). So yeah, they were even much more dominant on their home-ice than anywhere else.

REfs had nothing to do with though. It was a combination of them being good those years and others countries not. It needs to be said that they basically had only two real challengers, Czechoslovakia and Sweden.

 

[VMBM]

REfs had nothing to do with though. It was a combination of them being good those years and others countries not. It needs to be said that they basically had only two real challengers, Czechoslovakia and Sweden.

Usually they at least tied one game - even in the early 1980s, when they were arguably at their best. But they were totally dominant in 1973, 1979 and 1986; certainly the home-ice had something to do with it.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Ever heard of a thing called "statistically significant sample size"? No team won the WC gold medal on their home ice between 1986 and 2013, but taking into consideration that the tournament is often held in countries like Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Slovakia or Norway, that's not nearly as significant a fact as some people with very little understanding of statistical deviation think it is.

Yes I do, which is why I presented the broadest piece of evidence that I thought was relevant. If you have something you feel is better evidence that refutes this then please share it with us.

If you think that home teams don't get more favorable decisions from the referees when the refs are professional, you have failed to understand one crucial fact about professional referees: they're human too. Them being human means that they're not immune to the pressure created by the home crowd. This can be seen in the statistics of any major league with professional referees, whether it's the NHL or the Premier League or the NBA. There's far more to home-ice advantage than last change.

The rules advantage is undeniable and the only measure that is not speculative. Players are human too and international men's hockey results seem to suggest that the pressure of playing at home may often have a negative impact on their performance.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

If you really believe that... well, then you believe that.

BTW, when the World Championships were held in Moscow in 1973, 1979 and 1986, USSR's W-L-T record was 28-0-0 (10-0-0, 8-0-0, 10-0-0, respectively) and the goal differential was 201-45 (100-18, 51-12 and 50-15, respectively). So yeah, they were even much more dominant on their home-ice than anywhere else.

Now we're talking an extremely small sample size (and I won't wait for Lepardi to comment on that since your post fits his narrative). To be honest I don't usually include communist period (pre ~1991) stats when talking contemporary hockey since I see it to be a completely different international era in the sport.

 

[VMBM]

Now we're talking an extremely small sample size (and I won't wait for Lepardi to comment on that since your post fits his narrative). To be honest I don't usually include communist period (pre ~1991) stats when talking contemporary hockey since I see it to be a completely different international era in the sport.

Czechoslovakia won the world championship for the first time in ages in 1972 in Prague, coincidence? They won the world championship (for the first time since 1977) in 1985 in Prague, coincidence too?

Also, at the 1978 WHC in Prague, Czechoslovakia lost the world championship to USSR by one goal. In the following year in Moscow, they were beaten by the Soviets by scores of 11-1 and 6-1. Neither had nothing to do with home-ice advantage?

Oh right, these were meaningless "stats" to you, sorry

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Czechoslovakia won the world championship for the first time in ages in 1972 in Prague, coincidence? They won the world championship (for the first time since 1977) in 1985 in Prague, coincidence too?

Also, at the 1978 WHC in Prague, Czechoslovakia lost the world championship to USSR by one goal. In the following year in Moscow, they were beaten by the Soviets by scores of 11-1 and 6-1. Neither had nothing to do with home-ice advantage?

Oh right, these were meaningless "stats" to you, sorry

Do you have any examples from the last 25 years? Could it be that back then the host countries spent more time than usual preparing for the tournament? Nowadays you can't really do that.

 

[Yakushev72]

The pressure a referee feels from the fans of the home team is pretty much the same in every full arena. The NHL refs were plenty used to that and where they were from would have no bearing, just as it doesn't when they officiate league games. Home ice advantage doesn't exist in international play, only in league play where the home team gets certain rules advantages, such as last change, etc. If you look at the last ~30 years of IIHF WC results you will see that teams on average do better the year before and the year after they host than the year they host. In other words in international men's hockey home ice is actually a slight disadvantage. I will grant that familiarity with the ice size is an advantage, as is familiarity with the rules and style of officiating, but the biggest advantage a team can have is the amount of experience they have playing and practicing together. Just imagine if Canada put the same emphasis on their national team as the USSR. If they did I don't think any of those tournaments would even be that close.

Let's use a specific sample from a tournament relevant to the World Cup. In the Canada Cup, which had 5 tournaments from 1976-91, the home team won 80% of the time. In the last 3 tournaments, only NA referees were allowed to work the games. When playing in Canada with Canadian refs working the games, the home team was victorious in 100% of Canada Cup championship games. Home ice doesn't mean as much to Austria in hosting the WHC's, because they are never good enough to win. By contrast, Canada is always the favorite when playing in Canada with Canadian referees in front of Canadian fans. And yes, the Canadian referees were very much influenced by the Canadian fans during the Canada Cup. European fans don't match the charged and emotional atmosphere that Canadian fans supply. So yes, home ice advantage is huge in international play. Statistics are meaningless unless the home team is a good bet to win the tournament before it starts.

 

[Rob]

Sorry but I have to agree with the Russians on this one. The Soviet Union had the most dominant run in international hockey from the late 70's through most of the 80's. They beat Team Canada in the 81 Canada Cup 8-1! On a North American ice surface no less. As for all those World Championships? Yeah, they weren't best vs best but they still counted.

 

[lawrence]

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.

well... I don't want to be rude...

the era when Soviets dominated, was the Era, was countries like Canada and United were unable to send their best players to represent them because at the time, NHL players were not able to compete in the olympics, so the Soviets most of the time ran away with it, thus the miracle on ice in 1980.

So lets not be crazy about this.... Soviets continued to dominate the world stage because Canada can only send their best Canadian players outside the NHL and you can even imagine right now, Canada or USA, now think of assembling a hockey team of Canadians but not in the NHL, Vs Team Russia with Malkin and Ovechkin. russians will slaughter them.

 

[lawrence]

Sorry but I have to agree with the Russians on this one. The Soviet Union had the most dominant run in international hockey from the late 70's through most of the 80's. They beat Team Canada in the 81 Canada Cup 8-1! On a North American ice surface no less. As for all those World Championships? Yeah, they weren't best vs best but they still counted.

Well, just to let you know, too... The Soviets were beating up on Team Canada, that didn't consist of Canadian NHL players.. it consisted of our Junior players.



for your example, it's like Team Russia today vs, Canada's Junior hockey team..... who recently can't even beat other under 20 teams..... let alone Russia with Ovechkin Kovalchuk and the best KHLers......

ohhhh and look what happens, when other nations are able to send THEIR best players??? since 98, Russia only has 2 medals. 2 Bronze Medals, and nothing to show for. Why??? cause they are not beating up on Junior players, cause other countries are on a equal level playing field.

 

[Rob]

'81 Canada Cup consisted of NHL players.

 

[Yakushev72]

Well, just to let you know, too... The Soviets were beating up on Team Canada, that didn't consist of Canadian NHL players.. it consisted of our Junior players.



for your example, it's like Team Russia today vs, Canada's Junior hockey team..... who recently can't even beat other under 20 teams..... let alone Russia with Ovechkin Kovalchuk and the best KHLers......

ohhhh and look what happens, when other nations are able to send THEIR best players??? since 98, Russia only has 2 medals. 2 Bronze Medals, and nothing to show for. Why??? cause they are not beating up on Junior players, cause other countries are on a equal level playing field.

Since 1977, Canada has been represented by almost 100% NHL players in the WHC. I can't think of a single junior player who played in the WHC, but if one actually played, it would likely have been Gretzky, Lemieux or Eric Lindros. Many of those rosters were closely approximate to what Canada would send to the Canada Cup during that era, and the Soviets proved themselves to be the equals of Canada's best during the Canada Cup.

Its too much information to discuss the differences between the Soviet era and the current status of Russian hockey, but the best Canadian NHL players were playing against the Soviets probably 30 years before you were born. The first major series between NHL'ers and the Soviets took place in 1972, an 8-game series, home and home. Russian hockey had gone into a deep state of decline by 1998, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the Russians haven't done well in recent Olympic competition.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Let's use a specific sample from a tournament relevant to the World Cup. In the Canada Cup, which had 5 tournaments from 1976-91, the home team won 80% of the time. In the last 3 tournaments, only NA referees were allowed to work the games. When playing in Canada with Canadian refs working the games, the home team was victorious in 100% of Canada Cup championship games. Home ice doesn't mean as much to Austria in hosting the WHC's, because they are never good enough to win. By contrast, Canada is always the favorite when playing in Canada with Canadian referees in front of Canadian fans. And yes, the Canadian referees were very much influenced by the Canadian fans during the Canada Cup. European fans don't match the charged and emotional atmosphere that Canadian fans supply. So yes, home ice advantage is huge in international play. Statistics are meaningless unless the home team is a good bet to win the tournament before it starts.

The fact that the best team wins, be it home or away is not really relevant in this discussion. The statistics I put forward are obviously much more broad ranging and scientifically sound and the only reason you are claiming them to be meaningless is that they disprove the false narrative you are so often trying to sell.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Many of those rosters were closely approximate to what Canada would send to the Canada Cup during that era, and the Soviets proved themselves to be the equals of Canada's best during the Canada Cup.

This is new to me. Please name the WC teams you are referring to. Are you saying that winning one C Cup makes the USSR equal?

 

[Canuckistani]

The best ineternational runs of success were...

1) Soviet Union, 1978-1984. During this period the Soviets lost only 4 tounaments - 1980 Olympics, 1981 WJC, 1982 WJC and 1984 Canada Cup, winning 5/7 WJC, 5/5 WHC, 1984 Olympics, and crushed the NHL's best 6-0 in 1979 and Canada 8-1 at the in 1981 Canada Cup. Only this team and Canada (2002-2005) have ever held Olympic gold, WHC, WJC and Canada Cup titles at the same time.

2) Czech Republic, 1998-2001. Winning in Nagano 98, followed by a three-peat at the WHC (1999-2001) and back-to-back WJC in 2000-2001.

3) Canada, 2002-2010, during this period Canada appeared in 18 of 21 gold medal games, winning Olympic gold in 2002, 2010, as well 5 in a row at the WJC, three WHCs, and the 2004 World Cup.

4) Canada 2014-2015. A brief strech of success compared to the other entries above, but it's noteworthy for its shere dominance. Only three goals allowed in Sochi, never trailed for a second at the 2015 WJC, and then a complete destruction of the field at the WHC.

 

[Canuckistani]

Many of those rosters were closely approximate to what Canada would send to the Canada Cup during that era

Not even close. The best rosters Canada sent to the WHC at that time was probably 1982 (4 players from the 81 CC inc Gretzky), 1983 (4 from 81 CC and 2 from 84 CC), 1985 (with Lemieux and Yzerman, the only year Canada beat the Soviets at the WHC during this era), and 1989 (8 players from 87/91 CC along with Bellows and Yzerman, losing two close games to USSR).

Basically each team was maybe 25% of our A squad, in a good year. Small wonder Canada's record since 1977 vs the Soviets at the WHC was 1 win, 19 losses and 4 draws. Horrible.

But yes, the Soviets showed they could beat Canada's best as well, especially in 1979 and 1981 (and were, IMO, the best team that the 1984 Canada Cup as well even though they lost).