Rank all the NHL-era olympic teams in a hypothetical round robin tournament.

[Reindl87]

An argument often brought up against the olympics is the single elimination game format. After all, luck does play an important factor in such a format, and not always do the best teams get out on top.
So let's assume there'd be a tournament in which all NHL era olympic teams played against each others, what would the rankings looked like?
64 teams have competed since the 98 olymoics, meaning that every team would have to play 63 games. So it's basically a season of international play and a big enough sample determine the best teams.
So what would your rankings look like, and why?

Here's my ranking.

1. 2006 Finnland
While they didn't win the gold medal, to me they are really the best team. They dominated the whole tournament untill the finals like no other team has done in the NHL era. In a 63 game season, they'd easily come out on top, imo. They 're the most consistend team.

2. 1998 Russia
This was the most difficult choice, but i had to go with that Russian team. They were 5-1 with a goal ratio of 27:12. By far the best Russian team of the NHl era. Yes they did lose to the Czechs in the finals after beating them in the first round. Overall, i think they were the slightly better team and over the long strech of a 63 game season they'd be just a little bit better.

3. 1998 Czech Repuplique
A great team that wasn't only carried by Hasek. They had great team chemestry and a sound overall game. Of course Hasek was the icing on the cake, of course. Pretty much on the same level as 1998 Russia. Could have gone either way, really.

4. 2002 Canada
Had a very rough start into the tournament and didn't look all too impressive in the first round.
However, the more games they played together the better they looked. On paper this might be the best roster of all the NHl era teams. However, they don't match the consistency of the top 3, hence they finish in 4th place.

5. 2002 USA
The last hurrah of the USA's Golden Generation. Maybe they really the better team compared to Canda. However, one can not neglect that they lost the finals on home ice, although the game was much closer than a 5-2 would suggest.

6. 2002. Sweden
Easily the best Swedish team of the NHl era in my opinion. They looked sharp and doninant in the first round and most people thought they'd be a lock to make the finals. However, a black out in the quaterfinals cost them everything. One of the biggest upsets in sports history, no doubt. However, over the course of a long season there true class would show and they'd finish in a very good 6th position.

7. 2006 Sweden
Pretty much the same story as with 2002 Canada. They didn't really look impressive in the first rounds, but when it mattered most they were running on full cyclinders and delivered. Not quiet good enogh to crack the top 5 but certainly not far away.

8. 2010 USA
The best team of the 2010 tournamnet. They lost the finals to Canada on Canadian ice, but overall they were the better team and a long season would prove it.

9. 1998 Finnland
The most underrated team of the NHl era. Yes they only finished 3-3 in the tournamnet, but their 3 loses came against the against our number 2 and 3 finishers. Beisdes those two teams as well as 2006 Finnland, i don't see too many teams that were clearly better. A sure 10 ten finsiher in our leauge.

10. 2014 Canada
Yes they were the first team to go undefeated and they had brilliant defense. Nevertheless, one can't deny they struggled on offense and benifited of a weak competition. I simply don't see them finish higher then 10th place. To be honest, personally i'd even rank them a bit lower but going undefeated has to give them the Top ten spot.

11. 2002 Russia
12. 2002 Czech Republique
13. 1998 Canada
14. 1998 Sweden
15. 2010 Canada
16. 2014 Sweden
17. 2002 Finnland
18. 2010 Finnland
19. 2006 Czech Republique
20. 2014 Finnland
21. 2006 Slovakia
22. 2010 Sweden
23. 2010 Russia
24. 2014 Sowakia
25. 2006 Russia

Ranking behind 25th place doesn't really make any sense any more nor is it of great interest.

Outside the Big 7 i think 2006/2010 Switzerland were the best teams.

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

Well this will be interesting. I definitely do not see the logic of looking at the "consistency" of a team from a seven game sample, and then assuming the same thing will happen over a 9 times as many games. Issues like chemistry are far less relevant if every team has to play 63 games. Talent is what decides it, unless there is a glaring issue.

 

[An Argument For]

Honestly.. your rankings are brutal. I would burn them and start from scratch..

Seriously how is the 2014 Slovakia team even close to the top 25? It's not even close to the best Slovakian team ever.. 2006 and 2010 were far, far better rosters.

2010 American team was the clear best team in the tourney? They were a young team that went a different direction. A lot of people didn't expect a whole lot from them and Ryan Miller was an absolute god.

And if you want to talk about these teams playing out over 60+ games seasons..

Maybe we could just add up just how well guys on these rosters did in a league with an extended period of play.. cough. cough.

 

[Lempo]

Maybe we could just add up just how well guys on these rosters did in a league with an extended period of play.. cough. cough.

Like we always do prior these tournaments and then afterwards find ourselves thinking why some nonsense country took the actual medal?

It's a tournament where teams play very limited amount of games with the goal of making more goals than giving them in each game. Some may want to make a big deal about how awesomely talented guys each of the countries can throw into the game but perhaps there should be a paper-hockey rather than ice-hockey tournament for people like that.

Perhaps we are having one right now, actually.

 

[xxxx]

That's a joke.

First of all, it's tough to compare those teams from 1998 and 2006 and 2014.
Second of all, Finland, who didn't win in 2006, now wins all-time tournament?
Third of all, Canada 2010 or 2014 should be top 5 at least. And I'm being very, very nice here.

 

[An Argument For]

First of all I just relooked at some of the rosters and how is that Canada 2002 isn't number one?

There's a dozen guys on that roster that are either in the hall of fame or will be going into the hall of fame. You said you knocked them down a spot because they started slow. So why would you it hold it against a team that lost the first game of a round robin.. but not hold it against Russia and Finland teams who lost the final and most important game?

Plus over a 60 game season... that 2002 team would win 50 games. For sure.

 

[1Gold Standard]

First of all I just relooked at some of the rosters and how is that Canada 2002 isn't number one?

There's a dozen guys on that roster that are either in the hall of fame or will be going into the hall of fame. You said you knocked them down a spot because they started slow. So why would you it hold it against a team that lost the first game of a round robin.. but not hold it against Russia and Finland teams who lost the final and most important game?

Plus over a 60 game season... that 2002 team would win 50 games. For sure.

Not really a thread to be taken seriously imo. My take on it is that it is just a reaction to a few threads started after Sochi (by Canadians) who were a little drunk on our gold medal) and the OP's attempt to say, not so fast Canada, you not as good as you think you are...

It's not really a thread worthy of debate.

 

[EbencoyE]

1 - 2014 Canada
2 - 2002 Canada
3 - 2010 Canada
4 - 2006 Sweden
5 - 2006 Finland
6 - 2002 USA
7 - 2010 USA
8 - 1998 Czechs
9 - 1998 Russians
10 - 1998 Canada
11 - 2014 Finland
12 - 2014 USA
13 - 2014 Sweden
14 - 2010 Slovakia

1-2, 8-10, and 11-13 are pretty interchangeable, but that's my very quickly thought out ranking

 

[ToewsGretzky*]

An argument often brought up against the olympics is the single elimination game format. After all, luck does play an important factor in such a format, and not always do the best teams get out on top.
So let's assume there'd be a tournament in which all NHL era olympic teams played against each others, what would the rankings looked like?
64 teams have competed since the 98 olymoics, meaning that every team would have to play 63 games. So it's basically a season of international play and a big enough sample determine the best teams.
So what would your rankings look like, and why?

Here's my ranking.

1. 2006 Finnland
While they didn't win the gold medal, to me they are really the best team. They dominated the whole tournament untill the finals like no other team has done in the NHL era. In a 63 game season, they'd easily come out on top, imo. They 're the most consistend team.

2. 1998 Russia
This was the most difficult choice, but i had to go with that Russian team. They were 5-1 with a goal ratio of 27:12. By far the best Russian team of the NHl era. Yes they did lose to the Czechs in the finals after beating them in the first round. Overall, i think they were the slightly better team and over the long strech of a 63 game season they'd be just a little bit better.

3. 1998 Czech Repuplique
A great team that wasn't only carried by Hasek. They had great team chemestry and a sound overall game. Of course Hasek was the icing on the cake, of course. Pretty much on the same level as 1998 Russia. Could have gone either way, really.

4. 2002 Canada
Had a very rough start into the tournament and didn't look all too impressive in the first round.
However, the more games they played together the better they looked. On paper this might be the best roster of all the NHl era teams. However, they don't match the consistency of the top 3, hence they finish in 4th place.

5. 2002 USA
The last hurrah of the USA's Golden Generation. Maybe they really the better team compared to Canda. However, one can not neglect that they lost the finals on home ice, although the game was much closer than a 5-2 would suggest.

6. 2002. Sweden
Easily the best Swedish team of the NHl era in my opinion. They looked sharp and doninant in the first round and most people thought they'd be a lock to make the finals. However, a black out in the quaterfinals cost them everything. One of the biggest upsets in sports history, no doubt. However, over the course of a long season there true class would show and they'd finish in a very good 6th position.

7. 2006 Sweden
Pretty much the same story as with 2002 Canada. They didn't really look impressive in the first rounds, but when it mattered most they were running on full cyclinders and delivered. Not quiet good enogh to crack the top 5 but certainly not far away.

8. 2010 USA
The best team of the 2010 tournamnet. They lost the finals to Canada on Canadian ice, but overall they were the better team and a long season would prove it.

9. 1998 Finnland
The most underrated team of the NHl era. Yes they only finished 3-3 in the tournamnet, but their 3 loses came against the against our number 2 and 3 finishers. Beisdes those two teams as well as 2006 Finnland, i don't see too many teams that were clearly better. A sure 10 ten finsiher in our leauge.

10. 2014 Canada
Yes they were the first team to go undefeated and they had brilliant defense. Nevertheless, one can't deny they struggled on offense and benifited of a weak competition. I simply don't see them finish higher then 10th place. To be honest, personally i'd even rank them a bit lower but going undefeated has to give them the Top ten spot.

11. 2002 Russia
12. 2002 Czech Republique
13. 1998 Canada
14. 1998 Sweden
15. 2010 Canada
16. 2014 Sweden
17. 2002 Finnland
18. 2010 Finnland
19. 2006 Czech Republique
20. 2014 Finnland
21. 2006 Slovakia
22. 2010 Sweden
23. 2010 Russia
24. 2014 Sowakia
25. 2006 Russia

Ranking behind 25th place doesn't really make any sense any more nor is it of great interest.

Outside the Big 7 i think 2006/2010 Switzerland were the best teams.

Canada just dominated the 2014 olympics becoming the first team in the NHL era to go undefeated to win the gold, also becoming the ONLY country in the NHL era to win back to back golds. You seem to be forgetting that Canada took out the highest scoring team in the tournament in the US by way of shutout, then shutout the IIHF number 1 ranked Swedes. How is that not good competition? I don't see how the country that has now won 3 of the past 4 olympics isn't considered consistent and is that low on the list sorry.

When it comes to the olympics in the NHL era Canada is clearly on another level. We're 3 for 4 for crying out loud!

 

[Canuckistani]

1. 2006 Finnland
2. 1998 Russia

There have been five gold medal winning teams in the NHL-era and two silver medalists top your list?

The dissapointing seventh-place Czechs of 2002 rank ahead of Canada's 2010 gold, Sweden's 2014 silver, Finland's 2010 bronze and the Czech 2006 bronze?

Bizarre to say the least.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

Not really a thread to be taken seriously imo. My take on it is that it is just a reaction to a few threads started after Sochi (by Canadians) who were a little drunk on our gold medal) and the OP's attempt to say, not so fast Canada, you not as good as you think you are...

It's not really a thread worthy of debate.

Can't see it, they would never do something like that.

Too much class.

 

[1Gold Standard]

Can't see it, they would never do something like that.

Too much class.

LOL. Well, as the previous poster pointed out, the gold medalists ranked 4th, 7th 10th and 15th. So in a quote lifted from one of my favorite films, "****, I need a second to let the classiness waft over me."

 

[Reindl87]

There have been five gold medal winning teams in the NHL-era and two silver medalists top your list?

The dissapointing seventh-place Czechs of 2002 rank ahead of Canada's 2010 gold, Sweden's 2014 silver, Finland's 2010 bronze and the Czech 2006 bronze?

Bizarre to say the least.

The "disasapointing " Czechs of 2002 actually looked way better than 2002 Canada in the first three games.

Canada won a close game against Finnland in the quaterfinals while Czechs lost a close one against Russia. Switch their opponets or a little different lcuk factor and it could have easily gone the other way.

 

[Canuckistani]

The "disasapointing " Czechs of 2002 actually looked way better than 2002 Canada in the first three games.

And the Swedes looked better than anyone in their first three games. Didn't change the fact that their tournament was dissappointing in the eyes of fans and players for obvious reasons. Ditto for the seventh-place Czechs.

 

[Reindl87]

And the Swedes looked better than anyone in their first three games. Didn't change the fact that their tournament was dissappointing in the eyes of fans and players for obvious reasons. Ditto for the seventh-place Czechs.

That's why i asked how you'd rank the teams over a 63 games season. Not based on their actual succes in single elimination agmes.

 

[An Argument For]

That's why i asked how you'd rank the teams over a 63 games season. Not based on their actual succes in single elimination agmes.

So why are you talking about a lucky bounce here or there if you want look at the teams over 63 games? The more games that are played the more opportunity for better teams to play up to their potential and less likely for a bounce to make any difference.

No explain how a team with 13 Hall of Famers, in my opinion, not at the top, or at least the top 3?

Finland 2006 did amazing with guys like Koivu and Lehtinen putting up big numbers.. something they weren't able to replicate in the NHL.

 

[Lempo]

Finland 2006 did amazing with guys like Koivu and Lehtinen putting up big numbers.. something they weren't able to replicate in the NHL.

And yet they produce on the national team. It's Team Finland, a magical place where Leo Komarov is the all-around carrying force rather than 3.-4. line pest, where 18-yo Barkov gets to be 1C because of the lack of depth and where 43-you fellow just can make it to the tournament MVP. The seemingly easily-coachable players get played the way that's nearly impossible to think in NHL surroundings.

And I emplasize, I'm not arguing for Finland 2006 to be 1st, but just saying that the players get utilized in non-NHL way with good results. Also Komarov is producing in KHL just fine in the role he has there.

It may be that the Finnish players are either playing above their level in international games or below their level in NHL, if we talk about the discrepancy between their international results and their NHL results. Sometimes when it's brought up on international games context I get the feeling it's implied to be a player issue but it can be a coaching issue as well. Not that I wouldn't fully understand why Vatanen won't get to play 60 minutes per game in Anaheim even if the Finns would want him to.

 

[mattihp]

Finland 98 Had the most exciting powerplay I've ever seen.

Selänne - Koivu - Lehtinen
Kurri - Numminen

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Honestly.. your rankings are brutal. I would burn them and start from scratch..

Seriously how is the 2014 Slovakia team even close to the top 25? It's not even close to the best Slovakian team ever.. 2006 and 2010 were far, far better rosters.

Not only that, they're ranked ahead of all 4 teams that they lost to!

 

[Uncle Rotter]

1. 2006 Finnland
While they didn't win the gold medal, to me they are really the best team. They dominated the whole tournament untill the finals like no other team has done in the NHL era. In a 63 game season, they'd easily come out on top, imo. They 're the most consistend team.

And yet the 9 other teams in your top 10 beat higher ranked teams

 

[RewBicks]

An argument often brought up against the olympics is the single elimination game format. After all, luck does play an important factor in such a format, and not always do the best teams get out on top.
So let's assume there'd be a tournament in which all NHL era olympic teams played against each others, what would the rankings looked like?
64 teams have competed since the 98 olymoics, meaning that every team would have to play 63 games. So it's basically a season of international play and a big enough sample determine the best teams.
So what would your rankings look like, and why?

Here's my ranking.

1. 2006 Finnland
While they didn't win the gold medal, to me they are really the best team. They dominated the whole tournament untill the finals like no other team has done in the NHL era. In a 63 game season, they'd easily come out on top, imo. They 're the most consistend team.

2. 1998 Russia
This was the most difficult choice, but i had to go with that Russian team. They were 5-1 with a goal ratio of 27:12. By far the best Russian team of the NHl era. Yes they did lose to the Czechs in the finals after beating them in the first round. Overall, i think they were the slightly better team and over the long strech of a 63 game season they'd be just a little bit better.

3. 1998 Czech Repuplique
A great team that wasn't only carried by Hasek. They had great team chemestry and a sound overall game. Of course Hasek was the icing on the cake, of course. Pretty much on the same level as 1998 Russia. Could have gone either way, really.

4. 2002 Canada
Had a very rough start into the tournament and didn't look all too impressive in the first round.
However, the more games they played together the better they looked. On paper this might be the best roster of all the NHl era teams. However, they don't match the consistency of the top 3, hence they finish in 4th place.

5. 2002 USA
The last hurrah of the USA's Golden Generation. Maybe they really the better team compared to Canda. However, one can not neglect that they lost the finals on home ice, although the game was much closer than a 5-2 would suggest.

6. 2002. Sweden
Easily the best Swedish team of the NHl era in my opinion. They looked sharp and doninant in the first round and most people thought they'd be a lock to make the finals. However, a black out in the quaterfinals cost them everything. One of the biggest upsets in sports history, no doubt. However, over the course of a long season there true class would show and they'd finish in a very good 6th position.

7. 2006 Sweden
Pretty much the same story as with 2002 Canada. They didn't really look impressive in the first rounds, but when it mattered most they were running on full cyclinders and delivered. Not quiet good enogh to crack the top 5 but certainly not far away.

8. 2010 USA
The best team of the 2010 tournamnet. They lost the finals to Canada on Canadian ice, but overall they were the better team and a long season would prove it.

9. 1998 Finnland
The most underrated team of the NHl era. Yes they only finished 3-3 in the tournamnet, but their 3 loses came against the against our number 2 and 3 finishers. Beisdes those two teams as well as 2006 Finnland, i don't see too many teams that were clearly better. A sure 10 ten finsiher in our leauge.

10. 2014 Canada
Yes they were the first team to go undefeated and they had brilliant defense. Nevertheless, one can't deny they struggled on offense and benifited of a weak competition. I simply don't see them finish higher then 10th place. To be honest, personally i'd even rank them a bit lower but going undefeated has to give them the Top ten spot.

11. 2002 Russia
12. 2002 Czech Republique
13. 1998 Canada
14. 1998 Sweden
15. 2010 Canada
16. 2014 Sweden
17. 2002 Finnland
18. 2010 Finnland
19. 2006 Czech Republique
20. 2014 Finnland
21. 2006 Slovakia
22. 2010 Sweden
23. 2010 Russia
24. 2014 Sowakia
25. 2006 Russia

Ranking behind 25th place doesn't really make any sense any more nor is it of great interest.

Outside the Big 7 i think 2006/2010 Switzerland were the best teams.

Are you high? Holy smokes. Really not much else to say about this. There's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY the 2006 Finland team comes close to having the best record over the course of even a short season in which teams have a chance to come together. Same goes for the Czechs in '98. You are attaching far too much significance to an incredibly small sample size. This is like watching the Canucks 9-game winning streak earlier in the season, comparing it against results from around the league over the same period of time and saying: see, it's obvious that they will lead the league in points over the course of an entire season. The idea (for example) that the 2014 Canadian team would have a hard time scoring goals over the course of 82 games is just absolutely ridiculous. That 2006 team from Finland has MAYBE 3 players that would have made any of the teams Canada has put together in the olympic era: Teemu Selanne and possibly the 2006 versions of Olli Jokinen and Saku Koivu. They played well over a short period of time. However, that level of talent differential would play out very badly for them over the long term.

 

[Lempo]

That 2006 team from Finland has MAYBE 3 players that would have made any of the teams Canada has put together in the olympic era: Teemu Selanne and possibly the 2006 versions of Olli Jokinen and Saku Koivu. They played well over a short period of time. However, that level of talent differential would play out very badly for them over the long term.

I wonder, could that be a good thing to some extent. When you don't have the depth to form the team from solely 1st line NHLers, the team building emphasis must be put more on making a working team with appropriate role-casting rather than trusting to insane amount of individual talents who then won't necessarily click with each other but who the coach can't afford to scratch due to all the external criticism that would follow such a move.

 

[An Argument For]

I wonder, could that be a good thing to some extent. When you don't have the depth to form the team from solely 1st line NHLers, the team building emphasis must be put more on making a working team with appropriate role-casting rather than trusting to insane amount of individual talents who then won't necessarily click with each other but who the coach can't afford to scratch due to all the external criticism that would follow such a move.

It may be some benefit in a short tournament when, a player has per-determined role, but over a 63 game season the most talented teams while almost always distance themselves from everyone else. When every defensive pairing you have is elite, when all four lines can score eventually it just becomes too much for other teams to keep up with.

I mean this entire exercise is silly because we will never know how these teams would play out over 63 games. A part of the reason the Olympics is soo much fun is because you need to win, and win right now. It's hard enough to rank Olympic teams against each other but to do it under different dynamics than an Olympic tournament is near impossible.

 

[Zine]

Without putting too much emphasis on a single game, I'd rank teams (in their entirely):

1. 2014 Canada.
I'm very hesitant to rank this team #1 due to the lack of relative competition, but going undefeated put them first.

2. 2006 Finland
Despite losing the gold medal game, they were the most dominant team start-to-finish of any 'NHL olympics' team.

3. 1998 Russia
Like Finland of 2006, were great start to finish. Defeated bronze medalist twice, gold medalist once.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

What would be very interesting is take all of the Gold winners and put them into a tournament.

1998 Czechs
2002 Canada
2006 Sweden
2010 Canada
2014 Canada


Who would win???