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

[Westcoasthabsfan]

To the OP if your post was to make people laugh you suceeded...just putting the 2014 Team Canada at number 15 was funny this team didnt trail the entire tournament....thanks for the laugh though

 

[Stats01]

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.

It's not us being insecure, it's just your whole original post is ridiculous. To have the 2006 Finnish team ahead of 4 gold medal winning teams is really bizarre. All 3 of Canada's gold medal teams should be well ahead of everyone. Almost half of that 2002 team are Hall of Famers.

Also shame on you for putting the 2014 Canadian team that low. First team to go undefeated and didn't trail for a second in the tournament in the NHL era, with the best defence performance of all time throughout the whole tournament and you have them #15...SMH. Don't be surprised that you're getting called out.

 

[Xokkeu]

It's not us being insecure, it's just your whole original post is ridiculous. To have the 2006 Finnish team ahead of 4 gold medal winning teams is really bizarre. All 3 of Canada's gold medal teams should be well ahead of everyone. Almost half of that 2002 team are Hall of Famers.

Also shame on you for putting the 2014 Canadian team that low. First team to go undefeated and didn't trail for a second in the tournament in the NHL era, with the best defence performance of all time throughout the whole tournament and you have them #15...SMH. Don't be surprised that you're getting called out.

I actually don't think the 2010 and 2002 teams are above criticism. If you are simply rating the teams based on the names on the roster, that's one thing. But if you are looking at performance that's a different thing entirely. 2002 the Canadians got embarrassed by Sweden, they were desperate just to get back into a tie with the Czechs and just slipped by the Finns. Then they got a relatively easy matchup vs the Belarusians before the Gold medal game. Going into the knockouts the Canadians were not looking good and needed that whole Wayne Gretzky speech incident.

Following the same lines the Canadians in 2010 struggled to beat Switzerland, lost to the US and again looked lost and confused in the group stage. They had a big win against the Russians and Germans, one of which was expected the other not so much. They had a very tight game against Slovakia, with a great save by Luongo keeping the lead late and then as we all remember won an overtime game for Gold.

A lot of fans like to pretend that the 2002 and 2010 Olympic golds were preordained events, but neither team looked particularly dominant.

It could be easily argued that a Swedish team which waltzed through the knockouts in 2006 or the Finns which had a dominating tournament are at least in the same conversation as those Canadian teams.

2014 is a different story and indeed having them ranked so low is pretty odd. This was the first Canadian team that looked like Canadian fans like to think their hockey team should look. They may not have won every game 7-0 but they were in control of every game and won fairly easily.

 

[SwedGrit]

2014 is a different story and indeed having them ranked so low is pretty odd. This was the first Canadian team that looked like Canadian fans like to think their hockey team should look. They may not have won every game 7-0 but they were in control of every game and won fairly easily.

It's like the management with Yzerman and Babcook in front first of all really wanted to win, then took the time to get new understanding for the format of these short tournaments, and what is needed to bring the team to a mindset that gives the most solid performance.

I also belive that the management took a really good look on how to adapt the players and the game they usually play to the big ice.

In a short tournament with a crew on every position capable to outplay the opposition, first you need enough motivation to match the opponent. Then enough focus on detail so that good and bad bounces evens out long before any goal-line. Chance can give the opponents a momentum that lasts long enough to eliminate your team.

This looked like a solid professional effort through and through.

 

[JackSlater]

I actually don't think the 2010 and 2002 teams are above criticism. If you are simply rating the teams based on the names on the roster, that's one thing. But if you are looking at performance that's a different thing entirely. 2002 the Canadians got embarrassed by Sweden, they were desperate just to get back into a tie with the Czechs and just slipped by the Finns. Then they got a relatively easy matchup vs the Belarusians before the Gold medal game. Going into the knockouts the Canadians were not looking good and needed that whole Wayne Gretzky speech incident.

Following the same lines the Canadians in 2010 struggled to beat Switzerland, lost to the US and again looked lost and confused in the group stage. They had a big win against the Russians and Germans, one of which was expected the other not so much. They had a very tight game against Slovakia, with a great save by Luongo keeping the lead late and then as we all remember won an overtime game for Gold.

A lot of fans like to pretend that the 2002 and 2010 Olympic golds were preordained events, but neither team looked particularly dominant.

It could be easily argued that a Swedish team which waltzed through the knockouts in 2006 or the Finns which had a dominating tournament are at least in the same conversation as those Canadian teams.

2014 is a different story and indeed having them ranked so low is pretty odd. This was the first Canadian team that looked like Canadian fans like to think their hockey team should look. They may not have won every game 7-0 but they were in control of every game and won fairly easily.

The issue is the number of games in his hypothetical scenario. Sure those teams looked quite vulnerable in their 7 game tournaments. Would they look nearly so vulnerable after 30 or 40 games together? Extremely unlikely.

 

[Theokritos]

The issue is the number of games in his hypothetical scenario. Sure those teams looked quite vulnerable in their 7 game tournaments. Would they look nearly so vulnerable after 30 or 40 games together? Extremely unlikely.

I think the sample size alone is less an issue than the lack of training camp & exhibition games to implement tactics, get lines familiar with each other etc.

 

[JackSlater]

I think the sample size alone is less an issue than the lack of training camp & exhibition games to implement tactics, get lines familiar with each other etc.

Yes the cohesion aspect. A big part of the reason that it might be easier to consider the first 8 games of an NHL season to be the more significant sample, since there is at least a long period of games (exhibition) leading up to the gameplay and also more continuity from the previous season.

 

[Xokkeu]

The issue is the number of games in his hypothetical scenario. Sure those teams looked quite vulnerable in their 7 game tournaments. Would they look nearly so vulnerable after 30 or 40 games together? Extremely unlikely.

Hypothetically no, but I don't think the OP was to rank the teams on paper or over a hypothetical season. Even in a seven game playoff series, the best team on paper doesn't always win.

If we are ranking performances and what actually happened, there is not a clear substantial gap between 2002 and 2010 Canada from the rest.

 

[JackSlater]

Hypothetically no, but I don't think the OP was to rank the teams on paper or over a hypothetical season. Even in a seven game playoff series, the best team on paper doesn't always win.

If we are ranking performances and what actually happened, there is not a clear substantial gap between 2002 and 2010 Canada from the rest.

He says the scenario for this thread is that each team plays every other team, so 63 games. That is basically a season. I agree that the rankings make some semblance of sense if we look solely at what happened in a given tournament. Over 63 games, talent is by far the biggest factor.

 

[Xokkeu]

He says the scenario for this thread is that each team plays every other team, so 63 games. That is basically a season. I agree that the rankings make some semblance of sense if we look solely at what happened in a given tournament. Over 63 games, talent is by far the biggest factor.

WOW! I totally read over the 64 game season comment.


I retract my statements.

 

[JackSlater]

Instead of just complaining, I will say that I consider 2014 Canada a solid favourite. In terms of talent, at forward the team has Crosby, Getzlaf and Tavares (three of the top ~6 forwards in hockey this year) offensively with defensive specialists like Toews and Bergeron (two of the three best two way centres in hockey) with elite contributors from the wing. The defence has probably 5 of the 10 best defencemen in hockey, backed up by three extremely defensively reliable defencemen. Price is the "weak link", but he looked solid enough.

Realistically the only teams that compete on talent are the other Canadian teams, but 2014 had more contributors who are actually in their prime at the time. For example, Bourque (1998) or Lemieux (2002) are better names than anyone on the 2014 team, but in 2014 almost all of the key contributors were near their peak. Even the 2010 team, quite similar to 2014 in terms of names, features some greats past their best (Pronger, Niedermayer, Iginla) and some who would later improve (Crosby, Toews, Doughty, etc.) giving 2014 an edge. The 2014 team also found chemistry faster than the other Canadian teams, which is an edge if things are tight.

 

[Theokritos]

Instead of just complaining, I will say that I consider 2014 Canada a solid favourite. In terms of talent, at forward the team has Crosby, Getzlaf and Tavares (three of the top ~6 forwards in hockey this year)

Tavares is out for the season after game 4.

Realistically the only teams that compete on talent are the other Canadian teams

Canada has the edge, but I think the 2002 and 2006 versions of Sweden would be formidable foes.

For example, Bourque (1998) or Lemieux (2002) are better names than anyone on the 2014 team, but in 2014 almost all of the key contributors were near their peak.

Post-prime Lemieux is still better than a lot of very good players at their peak. I'd also argue that prime-Sakic (98, 02) and prime-Lindros (98) are more dangerous than anything the Sochi teams has to offer. And aside from Bourque the 1998 team has Rob Blake at his peak and Pronger and Stevens in their prime. And Roy in goal while the 2002 team has Brodeur. Both teams could do a lot of damage over the course of a season. The same is true for the 98 and 02 versions of Team USA while we're at it.

 

[JackSlater]

Tavares is out for the season after game 4.

I would assume that all of the games are new, so there is no reason for Tavares to be out.

Canada has the edge, but I think the 2002 and 2006 versions of Sweden would be formidable foes.

Formidable yes, but not realistic winners over a long stretch of games. Top end talent is nothing special (among the elite teams) and the depth is just ok.

Post-prime Lemieux is still better than a lot of very good players at their peak. I'd also argue that prime-Sakic (98, 02) and prime-Lindros (98) are more dangerous than anything the Sochi teams has to offer. And aside from Bourque the 1998 team has Rob Blake at his peak and Pronger and Stevens in their prime. And Roy in goal while the 2002 team has Brodeur. Both teams could do a lot of damage over the course of a season. The same is true for the 98 and 02 versions of Team USA while we're at it.

I'm quite comfortable with Crosby in 2014 as a superior player to Lemieux, Lindros and Sakic in those respective years, but that's only a minor point. Of course those teams would do damage, I'm well aware of the talent available, but the 2014 team features many great players essentially at their best. That is not common for the Canadian teams. The best American teams still have depth issues compared to the best teams overall, especially in goal.

Name value of course favours the older teams, which were filled with players whose reputations are secure. The players I cited as beyond their best were still quality contributors, but they just served of examples of attractive names who were not at their best. Bourque is worlds better than Weber, but 1998 Bourque was in a lull period while 2014 Weber is basically at his best. 2014 Weber is better than 1998 Bourque. Just one example.

 

[SwedGrit]

Another argument for the most recent teams is time and evolution. Todays players are standing on the shoulders of the great ones of past times.

Hockey is developing, todays players knows alot about the game from the past, the guy's from then would be thrown in with opponents faster, fitter and with more skills all over than they ever did meet.
And if you try to compensate for that the question becomes so hypothetical that all realism fades away.

 

[Big Phil]

I actually don't think the 2010 and 2002 teams are above criticism. If you are simply rating the teams based on the names on the roster, that's one thing. But if you are looking at performance that's a different thing entirely. 2002 the Canadians got embarrassed by Sweden, they were desperate just to get back into a tie with the Czechs and just slipped by the Finns. Then they got a relatively easy matchup vs the Belarusians before the Gold medal game. Going into the knockouts the Canadians were not looking good and needed that whole Wayne Gretzky speech incident.

Following the same lines the Canadians in 2010 struggled to beat Switzerland, lost to the US and again looked lost and confused in the group stage. They had a big win against the Russians and Germans, one of which was expected the other not so much. They had a very tight game against Slovakia, with a great save by Luongo keeping the lead late and then as we all remember won an overtime game for Gold.

A lot of fans like to pretend that the 2002 and 2010 Olympic golds were preordained events, but neither team looked particularly dominant.

It could be easily argued that a Swedish team which waltzed through the knockouts in 2006 or the Finns which had a dominating tournament are at least in the same conversation as those Canadian teams.

2014 is a different story and indeed having them ranked so low is pretty odd. This was the first Canadian team that looked like Canadian fans like to think their hockey team should look. They may not have won every game 7-0 but they were in control of every game and won fairly easily.

I'm not really sure what you mean. Sweden lost two games in the round robin. Heck, they were shutout for two games in the round robin! There has been one of their stars admitting to purposely tanking a game to avoid Canada. That 2006 Swedish roster is nice, but it is clearly behind the 2002, 2010 and 2014 Canadian teams. None of those teams were afraid to meet up with anyone in the playoff rounds. I wouldn't say Sweden waltzed through the tournament by any means.

 

[Pizza the Hutt]

OP says, regarding the 2014 team:

"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.

I'm guessing by "weak competition" you are referring to the best players from everywhere in the world outside of Canada. I don't think this is fair, but given how dominant they were, I suppose I'll go along with it. Over the course of 64 games, a team like Canada 2014 would be absolutely dominant with that defence. It was impregnable, impenetrable, and ruthlessly dynamic.

Redo the rankings with 2014 Canada somewhere in the top 3 and we might be able to have a civilized conversation about this concept.

 

[Billy6]

OP says, regarding the 2014 team:

"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.

I'm guessing by "weak competition" you are referring to the best players from everywhere in the world outside of Canada. I don't think this is fair, but given how dominant they were, I suppose I'll go along with it. Over the course of 64 games, a team like Canada 2014 would be absolutely dominant with that defence. It was impregnable, impenetrable, and ruthlessly dynamic.

Redo the rankings with 2014 Canada somewhere in the top 3 and we might be able to have a civilized conversation about this concept.

Amen brother!

And give me a break about the weak competition excuse. Canada had injuries too, but the difference was that we were able to replace our injured players with other star players and not miss a beat. Our depth was a huge factor.

Team Canada 2014 was a dominant team that played perfect big ice hockey. They were undefeated and won their last two games against the US and Sweden without even giving up a single goal. Anybody who doesn't rank this team at or at least near the top of any best Olympic team list is just plain wrong.

 

[67Cup]

Reindl, as your attorney appointed by legal aid, I advise you to go with either the "Temporary Insanity" or the "I was drunk when I posted" strategy. I am confident the HFBoards jury will accept either defense.

 

[Patchy]

Anybody who doesn't rank this team at or at least near the top of any best Olympic team list is just plain wrong.

It would be so boring if you people had it the way you wanted and everybody just agreed with your opinions. It would just be one big circle jerk over Canada and we wouldn't want that would we? Trolling or not. It's good that people make you challenge your opinions and make you argue. Nobody can be plain wrong when it comes to these sort of things.

 

[CanadaKid]

1) 2002 Canada
2) 2014 Canada
3) 1998 Czech Republic
4) 2010 Canada
5) 2006 Sweden
6) USA 2002
7) Russia 1998
8) USA 2010
9) Finland 2006
10) Sweden 2014

 

[SergeiMakarovStyle]

#1 Russia 2010

Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, Malkin, Fedorov, Ovechkin, Semin. In the long run they would score alot of goals and be #1. Not that good defence or goalie but as long as you score more goals than you let in you win the game.

#2 Sweden 2006

 

[ECanuck]

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???

2014 would win most likely. Almost every line had a center as a winger. Strong side of center the faceoff is taken by that player. Most of the time they started off with the puck and kept it that way. Price cool as a cucumber in net. All defenceman great two way players.

 

[JackSlater]

#1 Russia 2010

Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, Malkin, Fedorov, Ovechkin, Semin. In the long run they would score alot of goals and be #1. Not that good defence or goalie but as long as you score more goals than you let in you win the game.

As long as we ignore defence, goaltending, age, and the talent on other teams, I think this is reasonable.