Canada would still be huge favourites. Even with those players this would have been one of the weakest squads for Sweden.
Rank the European teams...
- Thread starter Lollipop
- Start date
- Status
Canada would still be huge favourites. Even with those players this would have been one of the weakest squads for Sweden.
I see your point. But who choose the counting of the years? Who choose the is september 2004 to september 2005? I think go directly by years is better.
But I guess we have different ways to see it.
With or without Ivan Hlinka 2004 and World cup 2004 make no much of change. Finland isn't more constistent than Sweden.
You're right, I was being a little too hard on them based on what happened at the 2014 OGs and WCs. Norway on a very good day can come to play and have upset some significantly stronger teams in the past. Norway's performances in the 2010-2012 WCs haven't been bad. I would revise my rankings and put them ahead of France and Denmark ATM but going forward I don't think a huge chasm will separate the three.
TollefsenFan
Registered User
True.
This is the way i see it.
Nr 1 Canada, USA and Sweden
Nr 2 Czech rep, Russia and Finland
Nr 3 Switzerland and Slovakia
Nr 4 Latvia, Germany, Norway and Denmark
Nr 5 Belarus, France, Austria and Slovenia
The nr 1 teams are Complete without weaknesses. The nr 2 teams got several world class players, but lack Depth. The Czech rep need better goaltending. Russia need better defense and Finland need more scoring.
Switzerland and Slovakia got a rly strong defense and goaltending.
Latvia, Germany, Norway and Denmark got a few players that can change the outcome of a game. Zuccarello, Thoresen, Ehrhoff, Seidenberg, Draisaitl, that Latvian goalie, Bødker, Anderson etc. Those teams also got Depth from SHL and DEL.
The nr 5 teams depend to much on individual players.
IMO its impossible to make a Perfect ranking, because Things change so fast. for example. Bobrovsky became a star over night.
ozo
Registered User
- Feb 24, 2010
- 4,523
- 571
Russia has won 4 of the last 7 World Championships. Maybe if you are Canada or the US you will say that the WC means nothing to you, but European countries certainly can't say that.
habsrule4eva3089
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2008
- 4,278
- 1,084
Of course they can, Finland has medalled in the last 3 Olympics, Sweden has a Gold and a Silver. Russia could win the next 3 ''meaningless'' World Championships, yet Finland and Sweden will still always be ahead until Russia can show they belong when the World's best are playing. In what universe is Russia ahead of Finland or Sweden? Explain that. Russia is lucky that the Czech program isn't as strong as it once was , if it was we're talking about a country that would be ranked 6th worldwide right now. But everything is rosy, right? Winning at the ''No one cares'' Championships proves Russian Hockey is on the up.
Last edited:
Of course they can, Finland has medalled in the last 3 Olympics, Sweden has a Gold and a Silver. Russia could win the next 3 ''meaningless'' World Championships, yet Finland and Sweden will still always be ahead until Russia can show they belong when the World's best are playing. In what universe is Russia ahead of Finland or Sweden? Explain that. Russia is lucky that the Czech program isn't as strong as it once was , if it was we're talking about a country that would be ranked 6th worldwide right now. But everything is rosy, right? Winning at the ''No one cares'' Championships proves Russian Hockey is on the up.
This might shock you but the world doesn't end in North America.
Of course they can, Finland has medalled in the last 3 Olympics, Sweden has a Gold and a Silver. Russia could win the next 3 ''meaningless'' World Championships, yet Finland and Sweden will still always be ahead until Russia can show they belong when the World's best are playing. In what universe is Russia ahead of Finland or Sweden? Explain that. Russia is lucky that the Czech program isn't as strong as it once was , if it was we're talking about a country that would be ranked 6th worldwide right now. But everything is rosy, right? Winning at the ''No one cares'' Championships proves Russian Hockey is on the up.
No one cares? Meaningless? Then explain why Canadians boil up with so much raw emotion to try to prove to the World that they are disinterested in the World Championships. Canadians obviously care very deeply about the Worlds, and it kills that they are such pushovers at that level! Canada hasn't won the Worlds since 2007, and it absolutely eats away at the heart of every Canadian that they've been such failures on the big stage. It destroys the image of Canadian depth that they can never find enough good players to win. To Europeans, it means a lot, and after all, this thread is about Europe.
You are right that the worlds mean something. Canadian hardcore fans like you see as members of this place know it is not a baby tournament and would like to win it every year. Fans like to win everything.
You are wrong that it makes Canadians blood boil that they have not won it since 2007. Canadians hockey fans know it is not the true measure of who are the real world champions and that they are the 2 time defending champions of the tournament that is the true measure and so do not lose a wink of sleep over not having won the WHC tournament for awhile now.They would not trade the last 2 olympic wins for 20 straight WHC wins and neither would any fan from anywhere else. In fact, most Canadians are not even aware Canada has not won theWHC in 7 years. Only hardcore fans even know this, but all fans and even non hockey fans in Canada know they won the olympics and think they are the World champions.
The olympics is where it is at and everyone knows it, and all Canadians know they have won it and think they are the World champs, which as a matter of FACT they are.
That is all they really care about when all is said and done.
But I agree, the WHC is not totally meaningless, it has some value and it is always nice to win.
Last edited by a moderator:
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,807
- 15,467
Some people care, yes. Very, very few Canadians though. Take a look at how many Canadians are on this website for example, and then look at how few relatively even post about the world championship. It's a tiny percentage, and even that would overstate the opinions of the general Canadian public. The tournament is basically meaningless as a competition because the players treat it as such. When Canada can't even get a single top 50 player to participate, you can see what level this tournament is.
Explain this: why would Canadians care about being "pushovers" at this level, when Canada has been consistently dominant at the best on best level, which is obviously much higher? Here's a hint: most don't care at all. When the best players actually play, Canada wins more than the rest of the world combined. When countries (like Russia) send a much larger proportion of their best team than Canada does, the losses don't exactly sting. Your attempts to convince yourself otherwise with hilarious hyperbole are admirable though.
Since 2006 Sweden has (both olympics and Worlds): 3 gold. Yes Russia has 4 gold but that's one tournament. I'm European and I love World championships. But Sweden (and Finland) had showed they can perform both in Olympics and worlds. Russia still, need to show they can do good in olympics too.
Yes, Russia 4 gold in world championships. But ask every Russian player and I'm sure they want give up at least one of those golds to get Sweden's gold and/or even silver in olympics.
Yes, Russia 4 gold in world championships. But ask every Russian player and I'm sure they want give up at least one of those golds to get Sweden's gold and/or even silver in olympics.
The most important thing in this discussion is that Sweden and Finland are more successfull at the olympics, while Russia is better at the Worlds. What is more important to you?
This. They may say 'but you had a chance to bring your best', fair enough. But they also must realize the other team's qualities. It's not just Canada. It's Sweden, USA, and also Finland and the Czechs that have missed some players at those tournaments - and not only because of injury. Just this year for example. Players that didn't play for Sweden, for whatever reason (but certainly not all of them were injured) - Landeskog, D.Sedin, Zetterberg, Kronwall, Hornqvist, Enstrom, Karlsson, Berglund, Steen, Edler, Backstrom.
Last edited:
When Canadians go out of their way to trash the value of the World Championships, it gives non-Canadians the notion that they are just poor losers. I remember the bitterness of the posts this year when Canada lost to France. Granted, this year's Canadian team was C level, and would have had a hard time competing at the relegation level against Luxembourg or Belgium. But why trash those who are having success at the WC? If Canada decides that it is unable to field teams that would be more competitive at the WC, everybody would understand a decision to pull out of the WC competition and limit international play to the Olympics.
Yes, Russia had Ovechkin this year, and Malkin for 3 games, but neither were key figures in Russia's win. Anisimov and Kulyomin were on the team as well, but their selection to the Olympic team as 4th liners was always subject to debate - there are at least 40 or 50 Russian forwards who are as good or better than those guys. The real leaders of this year's team were Tikhonov, Plotnikov, and Shirokov, guys who were otherwise considered B or C level players. At the Olympic level, Russia matches up quite well with Sweden and Finland, but the Swedes and Finns have an edge in coaching and homogenous team play.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,807
- 15,467
I understand why that notion exists, but ultimately it isn't reality. The Canadians who complain about the WC results for Canada on this website are the vast minority in Canada. You lose credibility though when you suggest that this Canadian team would have a hard time competing at the relegation level. As far as Canada pulling out of the WC due to lack of wins, it's a nonsensical idea. Canada would obviously prefer to win the tournament, but its value for many Canadians is more as a learning tool for young players who may eventually play on the big stage.
Say what you wish, but the fact is that Russia had a larger contingent of its Olympic team than every other large hockey nation... similar to most years. Russia can't be attacked for winning the tournament, but I would also give very little credit as well. If it were reversed and Russia didn't get a single top 50 player while Canada had players like Crosby, Stamkos, Price, Doughty, Duchene, Seguin etc. to augment the B or C level players then I doubt that many fans in Russia would be placing much significance on the results.
I disagree. Sweden has clear egde on paper too. Yes Russia has an amazing top 6. But other than that what do they have??? Sweden's depth is way better.
Russian defense is too weak and I don't think that will change in the near future.
Both Canada and Sweden are examples on this. The two final teams best players were DEFENSEMEN. Canada's defense was simple amazing and the biggest reason to why they won gold.
I agree that Russia's defense was weak, but I wasn't overwhelmed by Sweden's defense either. Erik Karlsson is an outstanding offensive defenseman in the NHL, but when you are playing against top offensive players on a larger ice surface, you don't get many offensive chances from the blue line, and what you really need is solid, physical defensemen. Russia's worst defenseman was Slava Voynov, who was almost singularly responsible for Russia's loss to Finland, and he is considered a pretty good offensive defenseman in the NHL as well.
In my opinion, Sweden was just lucky that Tuukka Rask was sick in the Semis against Finland. Finland seemed much tougher and more spirited than Sweden, and they showed it in an impressive win over Russia and the drubbing of the United States. Sweden's demoralizing loss against Canada showed a complete lack of mental will and resolve, along with a lack of sufficient depth once a couple of centers were injured. Sweden seemed to quit after Crosby stripped Jimmy Ericcson at his own blue line and went the length of the ice for a goal, and really kind of played out the clock for the rest of the game. Finland played even up against Canada, and could have easily beaten them. Of the 3, you could make the best case for Finland being No. 1, despite the medal stand in Sochi.
This is pure speculation from your side. No one know how this semifinal would have ended with Rask. Because it didn't happen. How do you know he wouldn't has the worst game in tournament against Sweden?
Also all hype around Finland's goalie depth and then when they lose people come up with these excuse that Sweden was lucky because Rask was sick.
Finland scored only one goal against Sweden. Rask can't score goals. So with Rask you mean it could ended 1-0? Wow what an amazing win. no the problem for Finland was they scored only one goal. Against Russia they scored 3 goals. They could have done that against Sweden too without Rask because he isn't part of the offense. Had they scored 3 goals against Sweden too then they had won. But they didn't. That were their problem, not the goaltending.
Yes Sweden did a very bad final following all problem prior the game around Backstrom. But that don't mean they didn't deserved to be there.
I'm not understand the first part about Karlsson and defense.
Rask was red-hot during the Olympics, while Lehtonen was terrible against Sweden. Having to use your backup is a huge disadvantage in the medal round. Russia voluntarily sat Bobrovsky against Finland in favor of Varlamov, and it cost them a shot at a medal, as Varlamov stunk up the ice in the Quarters.
The Swedish defense was less than stellar in the Olympics when it counted, and frankly, aside from Karlsson, there was very little talent on the blue line for the Swedes. Sweden had the easiest schedule among all the favorites going in to the Semi-Final. Luckily for them, Finland didn't have much offensive firepower, and they somehow snuck by into the Final, where they were embarrassed by a very lifeless performance.
Ohh now you are saying Finland hasn't enough with firepower in a way to discredit Sweden's performance. Still Rask can't score goals and I doubt he would has much affect on that game.
Now, let me say this: why couldn't Russia with all those forwards score more than 1 goal against Finland? Rask or not?? Ovechkin, Malkin ect? So you mean Russia isn't good enough to beat Finland because one player?
Russia wasn't simple good enough.
What do you call easy schedule? Russia barely beat Slovakia in shootout. Czech Republic beat them 5-3. Why couldn't Russia beat them easier than Czech Republic? Czech Republic scored 5 goals against Slovakia. Russia so called amazing team with their forwards couldn't score a single goal in 65 minutes.
Also another team in Sweden's group, Latvia did very well against Canada in QF and lost to them with only 1-2.
I'm sick of ignorant people who discredit other team's success with such arguments. Sweden won all our games except final. What else should we do?
Next time should we ask to get Canada or something in group stage or what?
The point is that Russia couldn't do better at home. Malkin, Ovechkin ect had their chance but they didn't took it because the team wasn't good enough.
Last edited:
Rask was red hot during the Olympics? Why is he only 7th among goaltender statistic then? Lundqvist is better even with 0-3 against Canada in the final and even with Finland's 5-0 in the bronze medal game.
So stop with that stupid excuse.
So stop with that stupid excuse.
Last edited:
I've stated my opinion, which I have a right to do. Of the two teams, Finland was better than Sweden in my view. Look at how much better they acquitted themselves against Canada than Sweden did. Its true that Finland lacks offense to a large degree, but they are fighters who play well together as a team, and their defense is absolutely impregnable. I think it has to do with their coaching. They had a tremendous amount of spirit, which Sweden so often fails to show.
As for Malkin and Ovechkin, I'm the first to acknowledge the obvious - they absolutely stunk. In my opinion, Russia certainly had every bit as much talent as Sweden and Finland, but they were stupidly organized and coached, and the team had no discipline, unity or direction. The good news is that those are conditions that can be fixed. If the MHL and VHL are successful, Russia will start multiplying the number of talented players they produce beginning as soon as 2 or 3 years from now.
- Status
