Olympics: Olympics 2018 rosters (without NHL players)

[Slimmy]

You are incredibly underrating the "other" canadians ouside the NHL, and overrating the other countries. NO nation would have NHL players. Sweden without NHL players isn't going to be much better than Canada, if at all. HockeyCanada could select the best from Europe - which would be a pretty good team in relation to competition imo, plus maybe a few best junior players (this year I would choose Patrick, Barzal, or Dubois and Chabot for example). I think such a team will be able to win the gold. We have never seen such a team, so it's hard to tell. But I wouldn't writte them off, absolutely not.

Absolutely. Canada would still be one of the favourites for gold icing players in Europe alone. No one can touch the depth of players Canada has.

 

[mrinsane]

Goaltenders: Zachary Fucale/Justin Pogge

D-Man: M-A Bergeron-Duvie Westcott
Jim Vandermeer-Colton Teubert
Chris Campoli-Kyle Cumiskey

for the forward I expect: Matthew Lombardi, Eric Chouinard and maybe some ECHL player.

 

[Zippy316]

Doubt those on NHL contracts will be allowed to go

Be interesting to see if some players eligible for contract slides would go.

I could see someone like McLeod getting a brief stint in the NHL, going back to juniors for a bit, joining the Canadian team, and then playing in the WJC and the Olympics. Tyson Jost could be another.

 

[hockeyguy0022]

Sean Collins (28YO) for Kunlun of the KHL had 40 pts this season... more then a number of players listed for a "team canada".

 

[Canuck21t]

If NHL players aren't in the Olympics is there any point in sending a team?

If you don't care, then fine, don't watch. Some others, me included, are still interested. I watched the Lillehammer hockey tournament and it was still very good and exciting hockey.

 

[Canuck21t]

The historical record will still get it right. I know there are Russian hockey historians out there, having Canada's best at home alters the record.

The sad thing is, the Soviet teams of the mid to late 70s and 80s had a chance to beat Canada for Gold in the Olympics (not saying they would have -- 4 of 5 Canada Cups and the 1972 Summit Series cemented our best being better than their best).

Maybe flag waving wins out? But I think KHL pros beating up on amateurs and players playing for Canada who clearly wouldn't make the top 10-15 teams Canada could send dilutes it.

Other countries would be affected as well. The Swedes and Americans would be severely weakened. Even the Russians would be missing Ovechkin (he says he'll go), Malkin, Kuznetsov, Panarin, Tarasenko, etc.

Seeing KHLers beat up on clearly lesser opponents has no value IMO.

The Russians care more about Olympic gold than about the competition. That's why they take the World Championships very seriously too.

 

[Canuck21t]

May I ask canadiens and american fans on here how the Olympics were regarded before 98 (before NHL-players came to play)?

Because from what I see a lot are dissapointed and would regard the 2018 olympics as useless and boring if the NHLers won´t come, but we need to remember that before 98 at least in Europe the excitement didn´t really change from 94 to 98. The Olympics were seen as a big deal even before the NHLers came to play.
In Sweden the 94 olympics are hyped (clearly somewhat because they won it for the first time) and you had neither the NHLers there nor the best Soviet or Czech players there as it had been before at least. Judging by that the 1994 olympic tournament was clearly the worst one in regard to good players, but russians, czechs, swedes and finns showed the same excitement for that tournament as any other olympics before or after.

Before 98, Canadians didn't take the Olympic tournament too seriously. Just slightly more important than the World Championships. The reasoning was that we Canadians thought it was unfair that the Soviets were considered amateurs even though that wasn't quite true and that gave the Soviets an unfair advantage. Given that situation, Canadians didn't bother too much with the Olympics.

Same reasoning that caused the IIHF to be hostile towards Canada. Not a good path to go down, any team can win.

We don't punish Scandinavian countries in Biathlon. Nor do we punish the USA in basketball.

Why can't Canada send our best? So what, other countries don't like that we do well in our sport. Doesn't make sense to punish us. It didn't work out previously, in fact Canada withdrew from the IIHF and international hockey competition.

Don't take our kindness for weakness. Not allowing us to use our best in our sport seems inherently wrong.

You talk as though it's the Europeans who are not allowing the best Canadians to participate. It's the NHL's fault and no one else.

The level of competition would only be relevant to NHL fans. You guys act like you represent the entire demographic of Canada.

Like I said, NHL fans and Olympic fans aren't the same people. Plus I'm certain plenty of NHL fans would watch with interest.

Canada is unique in this situation. Because a lot of Canadians are hockey fans who follow the NHL, those fans are a big chunk of the entire demographic of Canada. Their representation is much more so than in other countries. When it comes to hockey, the mentality of Canadians whether they are NHL fans or not is that the tournament is important if it's a best-on-best tournament. If it's not, it's not that important.

Despite what the Canucks might say, I actually preferred the Olympics before the NHL got involved. No one really knew the players, and they only played once, so you didn't know what was going to happen. With the NHL, its the same old players every time, everyone knows the pecking order, and the favorite pretty much always wins. I don't really think the NHL players every really put their hearts into it. They just went through the motions in a businesslike way, and then came back to the NHL to proceed with business. Nothing to look at here!

Of course you would say that, the Soviets won it almost all the time. There's a reason when the one time the US won, it was called a MIRACLE. From our perspective it was always the same team that won. What's the fun in that? As much as Canada has been rather dominant, the competition is still much stronger than during the non-NHL era.

 

[Eye of Ra]

Mozyakin - Datsyuk - Zaripov
Gusev - Tkachyov - Kaprizov
Kovalchuk - Grigorenko - Nichushkin
Plotnikov - Andronov - Telegin

Voinov - Belov
Kiselevich - Nesterov
Tryamkin - Chudinov

Shestyorkin
Sorokin

 

[Nino33]

Before 98, Canadians didn't take the Olympic tournament too seriously. Just slightly more important than the World Championships. The reasoning was that we Canadians thought it was unfair that the Soviets were considered amateurs even though that wasn't quite true and that gave the Soviets an unfair advantage. Given that situation, Canadians didn't bother too much with the Olympics.

I disagree with the idea that for Canadians the Olympics were above the Worlds in the 20 years previous to 1998 - the Olympics were essentially meaningless to most Canadians because of the lack of NHLers (which the Worlds had); there was certainly more TV coverage of the Worlds than there was for the Olympic hockey

the mentality of Canadians whether they are NHL fans or not is that the tournament is important if it's a best-on-best tournament. If it's not, it's not that important.

Totally true!

I think it's because North Americans have respect for "the best" at something, but not for sports competitions completely overrun by nationalism/politics/etc (in Canada hockey success proves nothing beyond success in hockey, it doesn't prove Canada's ways are better or connect to politics, and we know this and thus only care about best-on-best.....if hockey and it's highest quality are the priority, not politics/nationalism/propaganda/etc, I don't see how could one could care about anything other than best-on-best)

 

[Hanji]

I disagree with the idea that for Canadians the Olympics were above the Worlds in the 20 years previous to 1998 - the Olympics were essentially meaningless to most Canadians because of the lack of NHLers (which the Worlds had); there was certainly more TV coverage of the Worlds than there was for the Olympic hockey




Totally true!

I think it's because North Americans have respect for "the best" at something, but not for sports competitions completely overrun by nationalism/politics/etc (in Canada hockey success proves nothing beyond success in hockey, it doesn't prove Canada's ways are better or connect to politics, and we know this and thus only care about best-on-best.....if hockey and it's highest quality are the priority, not politics/nationalism/propaganda/etc, I don't see how could one could care about anything other than best-on-best)

You sure about that?

Canada's greatest sporting moment (1972 Summit Series) was politically charged beyond belief. Even in modern documentaries the East v West political angle is greatly emphasized.
Ironically, from everything I've read through the years, (unlike the Canadian players) the Soviet players cared nothing for the politics of the series. For them it was truly about best v best hockey.

 

[Nino33]

You sure about that?

Canada's greatest sporting moment (1972 Summit Series) was politically charged beyond belief. Even in modern documentaries the East v West political angle is greatly emphasized.
Ironically, from everything I've read through the years, (unlike the Canadian players) the Soviet players cared nothing for the politics of the series. For them it was truly about best v best hockey.

Yes I'm sure...everything I've come across over the years doesn't support anything even remotely like the IOC & the ridiculous nationalism/xenophobia that some nations bring to Olympic competition

Things like losing in the Worlds for years or losing 8-1 in 1981 caused Canadiens to question our hockey, nothing else (same with modern times...losing in 1998 or 2006 at the Olympics didn't mean anything other than losing at hockey, it's not "political" and didn't prove anything beyond the hockey...sports results are not that relevant/important to Canadian's quality of life really and don't prove anything politically)

Not sure what you're referring to, but I don't recall the Canadian players being "political" at all in any way (the cold war culture was different back then too, but that doesn't make the hockey players "political" - in actuality, Canada was out of shape and overconfident and it wasn't political at all, it was to be an exhibition series...and what changed was the results on the ice, and how good Russia was, and Canadian players wanting to win the hockey games...that's not "political")

 

[MaxV]

Mozyakin - Datsyuk - Zaripov
Gusev - Tkachyov - Kaprizov
Kovalchuk - Grigorenko - Nichushkin
Plotnikov - Andronov - Telegin

Voinov - Belov
Kiselevich - Nesterov
Tryamkin - Chudinov

Shestyorkin
Sorokin

The roster for Russia will depend on what SKA and CSKA do with all the surplus on their rosters. Who gets playing time? Who doesn't? I wouldn't be surprised if everyone on the roster but the 3rd string goalie comes from those 2 teams.

 

[ManWithNoName]

It doesn't really matter which players the Canadians send, they are always a big threath. Canada is, always has been and always will be the greatest hockey country in the world. With that being said, I wouldn't call them favorites, but atleast top 3. Without the NHL players that is.

Russia would most likely be favorites, on paper. Mentally they are the weakest team and it doesn't take much for them to completely break. Especially with Kovalchuk in the lineup.

Sweden usually plays well no matter what, but I don't see them reaching the finals.

Finlands lineup is quite weak as well, but they will have the best goalie in Koskinen.

My guess would be
1. Russia
2. Finland
3. Canada

 

[Nino33]

The roster for Russia will depend on what SKA and CSKA do with all the surplus on their rosters. Who gets playing time? Who doesn't? I wouldn't be surprised if everyone on the roster but the 3rd string goalie comes from those 2 teams.

That's how it was in the Soviet days too, with a couple teams stacked with talent compared to the rest

 

[Sipak4]

Mozyakin - Datsyuk - Zaripov
Gusev - Tkachyov - Kaprizov
Kovalchuk - Grigorenko - Nichushkin
Plotnikov - Andronov - Telegin

Voinov - Belov
Kiselevich - Nesterov
Tryamkin - Chudinov

Shestyorkin
Sorokin

add Ovechkin ;-)

 

[mattihp]

Finlands lineup is quite weak as well, but they will have the best goalie in Koskinen.

Finland's roster is strong. Only Russia would have a better roster without NHL players. Many more creative players in the KHL versus what Sweden has in SHL and KHL.

 

[Nino33]

add Ovechkin ;-)

Are you sure? Ever since Russia said he'd have to retire and play in the KHL to play in the Olympics, I haven't heard a word about Ovechkin playing in the Olympics.....

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

Finland's roster is strong. Only Russia would have a better roster without NHL players. Many more creative players in the KHL versus what Sweden has in SHL and KHL.

True that.

 

[Bumpus]

Meh ... I'm fine with NHLers sitting out.

Getting pissed off at Sid was surreal.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Finland's roster is strong. Only Russia would have a better roster without NHL players. Many more creative players in the KHL versus what Sweden has in SHL and KHL.

What? Which players are you talking about? JM Aaltonen, Teemu Hartikainen and Petri Kontiola?
Osala and Miro Aaltonen are the only ones worth mentioning.

The defence would be ok, a lot of oldies, but they've played together for so many years now.

Either way I cannot image them winning the gold medal with Marjamäki. He is the worst thing that has ever happened to Finnish hockey. JJ had some flaws, but he is probably the best coach Finland has ever had.

 

[Hanji]

Finland's roster is strong. Only Russia would have a better roster without NHL players. Many more creative players in the KHL versus what Sweden has in SHL and KHL.

Huh? Who does Finland have? Lepisto, Heitanen, Kontiola, Kemppainen, Hartikainen, Koskiranta, Haapala, Savinainen? Solid, but hardly 'strong' as you put it.

 

[JJTT]

Finland will be anything but strong. Goalscoring will be huge problem since we mostly have grinders left playing in Europe. Since it's very unlikely that the defense will have some younger players, there is zero offensive talent on the backend either.

Hartikainen-Kontiola-JM.Aaltonen(who else do we really have?)
Savinainen-Lajunen-Palola
Pyörälä-Kemppainen-Jormakka
Osala-Koskiranta-Pihlström

+Joensuu, T.Sallinen

Lepistö-Hietanen
Jaakola-Lajunen
Kivistö-Ohtamaa
Kukkonen-Järvinen/Lehtonen?

Koskinen
Ortio

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Finland will win its first olympic gold.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Finland will win its first olympic gold.

Only if you pay the officials

Semifinals:
Sweden < Finland
Canada < Russia
Finals:
Finland < Russia

I'd rather see Finland winning it, but I don't think it's going to happen.

 

[Eye of Ra]

Finland's roster is strong. Only Russia would have a better roster without NHL players. Many more creative players in the KHL versus what Sweden has in SHL and KHL.

what?

sweden have omark, petersson, klasen, pettersson, möller, lindström, nilsson, ryno etc.