Toggle sidebar

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

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Sorry guys, i don't understand why some of you have to react in such a away. No reson to get personal. Just post your opinions and rankings.
Why ist it that Canadian posters are so insecure? It seems that all other posters are willing to contribute to the discussion in a calm and objective way.
 
Reindl87 said:
Sorry guys, i don't understand why some of you have to react in such a away. No reson to get personal. Just post your opinions and rankings.
Why ist it that Canadian posters are so insecure? It seems that all other posters are willing to contribute to the discussion in a calm and objective way.
Click to expand...

Why is it some people say Canadian posters are insecure when they're just reacting to a list they vehemently disagree with?

I am editing my post because I think you have a point about how some have over reacted to your opinions. I'll disagree that Canadian posters are insecure though.
I will agree that some of the responses were a bit over the top.

I'll just say that I disagree with your assessment but appreciate your opinion.
 
Last edited:
It's hard not to put any of the Canada teams no.1, but Finland's 2006 team is just so good. 19-2 goal ratio, before semis. (final ratio; 29 - 8)
GF/G: 3,6, GA/G: 1. those are impressive figures.

Shutting out, both Canada and Russia. Too bad, we never won the gold. Debate would be alot easier then.
 
Best rosters/teams in order:

1. 2002 Canada - Gold
2. 2014 Canada - Gold
3. 2006 Sweden - Gold
4. 1998 Czech Republic - Gold
5. 2010 Canada - Gold
6. 2010 USA - Silver
7. 2006 Finland - Silver
8. 1998 Russia - Silver
9. 2010 Finland - Bronze
10. 2006 Czech Republic - Bronze

HM: 2014 Sweden (Silver), 2010 Slovakia (4th place), 1998 Finland (Bronze)
 
I would light a match to that list. It is just ill-advised to be kind. Personally, I can see some team like the 1998 Czechs eventually run out of luck since after a full season they'd be lacking game breakers. But how can Finland 2006 be #1 when they couldn't even win in their own tournament? I would honestly say that Canada 2006 and 1998 would eventually find a way to come together and beat out most of the teams in this tournament. Or over a full season how does it NOT benefit the gold medal teams? Their chemistry would only improve and when you have the best team on paper to start with, don't you think the longer it goes the better?
 
Just because you win in the gold medal game does not mean you are really the better team. Sweden beat Finnland in that one game, but over the whole tournament Finnland looked so much better. That's why i think over along season, Finnland would certainly finish ahead of Sweden.
 
The 2010 Olympics showed that the best team does not always win in a short tournament. IMO the US was a better team than Canada yet we won Gold.

That said in a long series I have no doubt Canada2010 would win, not necessarily overwhelmingly but convincingly. If I remember right the preliminary game that the US won, Canada outplayed them.

The best example of the best team not winning is the 1980 Olympics.
No disrespect to the US team but the Soviet team was far better...just not in that game.
 
Reindl87 said:
Just because you win in the gold medal game does not mean you are really the better team. Sweden beat Finnland in that one game, but over the whole tournament Finnland looked so much better. That's why i think over along season, Finnland would certainly finish ahead of Sweden.
Click to expand...

The tournament isn't that long. Also the longer teams play together the better they demonstrate how good they really are. Plenty of teams start off the first 10 games of a season doing well and end up not making the playoffs.
 
Reindl87 said:
Just because you win in the gold medal game does not mean you are really the better team. Sweden beat Finnland in that one game, but over the whole tournament Finnland looked so much better. That's why i think over along season, Finnland would certainly finish ahead of Sweden.
Click to expand...

Seven games. The pretty large talent gap would almost always ensure that Sweden 2006 would finish ahead of Finland 2006 in this scenario. Finland seems to have the ability to gel more quickly than other nations. It is a big advantage in a tiny sample size, but fa less significant in this scenario.
 
Reindl87 said:
Just because you win in the gold medal game does not mean you are really the better team. Sweden beat Finnland in that one game, but over the whole tournament Finnland looked so much better. That's why i think over along season, Finnland would certainly finish ahead of Sweden.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Sweden also looked good in the preliminary rounds in 2002 and look what happened. Canada was the best team in 2002 because as the tournament went on they improved. Sweden peaked in Game 1. A season that goes longer means the team playing the best at the end is only going to get better. This would be a disadvantage to Finland for sure. The deeper teams would benefit.

2525 said:
The 2010 Olympics showed that the best team does not always win in a short tournament. IMO the US was a better team than Canada yet we won Gold.

That said in a long series I have no doubt Canada2010 would win, not necessarily overwhelmingly but convincingly. If I remember right the preliminary game that the US won, Canada outplayed them.

The best example of the best team not winning is the 1980 Olympics.
No disrespect to the US team but the Soviet team was far better...just not in that game.
Click to expand...

You think USA was the better team in 2010? I've never heard anyone say that before. On paper they certainly weren't. At the time USA had Miller in net, who was in the middle of his Vezina winning season. We had Brodeur and then Luongo. If there is an advantage for the US it was slight. But on defense and up front with the forwards there was no contest. Canada had a stacked team. USA had more pluggers and grinders. I think the overacheived completely in order to push Canada to the limit. Compare those rosters, it really isn't even close.
 
Big Phil said:
It doesn't matter. Sweden also looked good in the preliminary rounds in 2002 and look what happened. Canada was the best team in 2002 because as the tournament went on they improved. Sweden peaked in Game 1. A season that goes longer means the team playing the best at the end is only going to get better. This would be a disadvantage to Finland for sure. The deeper teams would benefit.



You think USA was the better team in 2010? I've never heard anyone say that before. On paper they certainly weren't. At the time USA had Miller in net, who was in the middle of his Vezina winning season. We had Brodeur and then Luongo. If there is an advantage for the US it was slight. But on defense and up front with the forwards there was no contest. Canada had a stacked team. USA had more pluggers and grinders. I think the overacheived completely in order to push Canada to the limit. Compare those rosters, it really isn't even close.
Click to expand...


You can label the players on either team whatever you'd like, but games aren't played on paper. The US was undefeated in regulation, but came up a fraction short in the end. Canada won the Gold fair and square, but why bother arguing about what happened on paper when they actually played on the ice.
 
Xokkeu said:
You can label the players on either team whatever you'd like, but games aren't played on paper. The US was undefeated in regulation, but came up a fraction short in the end. Canada won the Gold fair and square, but why bother arguing about what happened on paper when they actually played on the ice.
Click to expand...

Well Canada lost a round robin game to Sweden in 2002. Were they not the best team in the tournament at the end? Besides, in 2010 the better team on the ice won didn't they? Did the Americans outplay the Canadians in that game or something that I am missing? Canada won, and with the line up they had still underacheieved in my opinion.
 
Big Phil said:
Well Canada lost a round robin game to Sweden in 2002. Were they not the best team in the tournament at the end? Besides, in 2010 the better team on the ice won didn't they? Did the Americans outplay the Canadians in that game or something that I am missing? Canada won, and with the line up they had still underacheieved in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Canada deserved their gold medal in 2010, they won fair and square. Canadian fans continue to portray this tournament as if Canada sort of shrugged their way to victory and dismiss the performance the Americans put on in the tournament.
 
Not this Canadian fan.

U.S played very well that tournament, 2010 was a tough tournament to win for Canada.
 
Xokkeu said:
Canada deserved their gold medal in 2010, they won fair and square. Canadian fans continue to portray this tournament as if Canada sort of shrugged their way to victory and dismiss the performance the Americans put on in the tournament.
Click to expand...

It was a fine tournament for the Americans, they won a Silver medal. But I'm not the only Canadian who expected them to play better. Look, Crosby's goal is one for the ages, that moment created one of the most exciting moments in my life. But Canada had a 2-0 lead in that game, and then a weak goal Luongo lets in. Then when its 2-1 Heatley misses a point blank chance, and then Crosby on that breakaway. I guess what I am saying is that there are so many players on that team that could have had a better tournament and we can start with Crosby. Heatley come to think of it is another one (don't laugh, he was good back then and on the best line in the NHL). Pronger and Niedermayer both had mediocre tournaments. No one really stood out the way I thought.

So it is more of me saying Canada could have made things easier on themselves than saying USA wasn't any good. We had the roster to blow things open, and while we did dominate in half of the games the other half were too close for comfort.
 
OP, your ranking is god-awful and makes zero sense. Call me a homer if you want, but all of the Canadian teams (with the possible exception of '06, because that roster was picked horribly by Gretzky) would be at the top of this ranking, because they always had far and away the most talented team on paper, and if given a longer period of time to develop some chemistry, they would more than likely become dominant at all facets of the game. When a team does beat Canada at the Olympics, or comes close to doing so, it's because they have better team chemistry, not because they have more talent. Over the course of a longer season, the time to gel and mesh as a team would be a massive advantage for the Canadian squads.
 
Total respect for the 2014 Canadien team, Canada often comes with a group of players, full of talent, grit and a culture of improving and winning.
This time they included respect for their opponents, and a total commitment to their gameplan. Impressive, maybe the best Olympic team ever, maybe not. But for the first time I'm prepared to bow my head to Team Canada.
 
Last edited:
SwedGrit said:
Total respect for the 2014 Canadien team, Canada often comes with a group of players, full of talent, grit and a culture of improving and winning.
This time they included respect for their opponents, and a total commitment to their gameplan. Impressive, maybe the best Olympic team ever, maybe not. But for the first time I'm prepared to bow my head to Team Canada.
Click to expand...

100% agreed. I'm always very critical of Team Canada.

2002 was good, but then Mario and Sakic were there, these guys just win. 2010 still feels OK but not more. USA could have won that one.

In 2006, I: 1-placed about 100$ of bets with my friends that they would not medal; 2-did not even bother to watch their games; 3-profit! :laugh: It felt like 98 from the start.

And yes, 2014 was something else. First time I was that impressed with a team. Before the finals, I would have been ready to bet my house on TC winning. Unfortunately, my friends remembered about 2006.

Maybe not the best team, but man did they get the job done. I'd say most impressive performance, without a doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom