Still Sweden beat Finland. How can you call them better than Sweden ?? So you make a opinion about who's better with an another team?? Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!
Finland hasn't beat Sweden in olympics since 1998. But you call them better?
Rank the European teams...
- Thread starter Lollipop
- Start date
- Status
Still Sweden beat Finland. How can you call them better than Sweden ?? So you make a opinion about who's better with an another team?? Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!
Finland hasn't beat Sweden in olympics since 1998. But you call them better?
The European part of Kazakhstan is larger than Germany. And Slovenia's better than France? No chance.
Sure you do, but why don't you list how you rank the Euro teams? That is what the thread was created for after all.
Here's my top six. This list has nothing to do with hockey history, just how things stand today.'
1. Finland
2. Sweden
2. Russia
4. Czechs
5. Slovakia
6. Germany
I credit Finland for their outstanding play in the Olympics and the WC. I have Russia and Sweden tied for Second in order to credit Russia for going undefeated throughout the WC's.
You've got Germany ahead of the Swiss?
No way. And I am not sure I would put Slovakia ahead of them at the moment either.
Actually, I absent-mindedly listed Germany, and I really meant to list Switzerland. Thanks for pointing it out!
Here's my revised list:
1. Finland
2. Sweden
2. Russia
4. Czechs
5. Switzerland
6. Slovakia
I agree that Slovakia has really slipped and could be over-respected here.
Sorry, but this is silly. You give credit to Finland for their olympic performance, but when Russia and Sweden are tyied, you give the edge to the Russians because of the WHC gold and ignore the Swedish olympic silver, and Russian QF exit??
Seriously I'm starting to think you are very offended by Sweden.
This is what you said about an another post that had Sweden and Finland ahead of Russia.
So Sweden with 3 golds including olympics is bad to have as #1 but not Finland with 1 gold since 2006? Why were you so mad about the other post then?
What make Finland okay to rank higher than Russia's so called amazing 4 golds in 7 years but not Sweden?
Sorry, but this is silly. You give credit to Finland for their olympic performance, but when Russia and Sweden are tyied, you give the edge to the Russians because of the WHC gold and ignore the Swedish olympic silver, and Russian QF exit??
This guy seems to be offended by Sweden somehow. There's no logic at all.
He was so mad on Canadian poster to put Sweden and Finland ahead of Russia and their so called amazing 4 WCH in 7 years. But then he put Finland ahead of Russia (and Sweden). Finland has only one WCH gold since 1995. But they are okay to put ahead Russia but not Sweden with 3 golds since 2006 including olympics.
habsrule4eva3089
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2008
- 4,278
- 1,084
Sweden and Russia tied, there's the daily laugh of the day from our friend Yaku72. 
I wonder if there's one defensemen in all of Russia that would even be invited to Sweden's Olympic training camp...speaks volumes of how horrible the Russian defense is, one of the worst in generations and definitely last from all the teams that have a chance of winning an Olympics. Why don't we rank that before we go into even contemplating putting the likes of Russia at the level of Sweden. But wait, Russia has won 4 out of the last 7 wch, this means something, this might even mean Russia can challenge Canada!!! 
O goodness me, our friend doesn't understand winning the next 10 out of 10 doesn't mean squat if Russia doesn't do anything at the ..OLYMPICS! Sweden has Gold from 06 and Silver from 14, that alone puts Sweden number one in Europe. Finland Number 2, and jeez lucky Czech Hockey is going downhill lately, Russia wouldn't even come third lol.
I wonder if FIFA held a tournament every year and Germany and the Dutch, and Argentines, all sent their C teams, while Brazil trying to recapture past glory keeps sending the majority of their World Cup team, and kept winning this tournament, and they win 4 out of 7. Does this mean Brazil should be ranked in the same category as the Dutch and Germany? Funny how this relates since both Brazilian Football and Russian Hockey have no defense to speak of whatsoever lol.
I wonder if there's one defensemen in all of Russia that would even be invited to Sweden's Olympic training camp...speaks volumes of how horrible the Russian defense is, one of the worst in generations and definitely last from all the teams that have a chance of winning an Olympics. Why don't we rank that before we go into even contemplating putting the likes of Russia at the level of Sweden. But wait, Russia has won 4 out of the last 7 wch, this means something, this might even mean Russia can challenge Canada!!! O goodness me, our friend doesn't understand winning the next 10 out of 10 doesn't mean squat if Russia doesn't do anything at the ..OLYMPICS! Sweden has Gold from 06 and Silver from 14, that alone puts Sweden number one in Europe. Finland Number 2, and jeez lucky Czech Hockey is going downhill lately, Russia wouldn't even come third lol.
I wonder if FIFA held a tournament every year and Germany and the Dutch, and Argentines, all sent their C teams, while Brazil trying to recapture past glory keeps sending the majority of their World Cup team, and kept winning this tournament, and they win 4 out of 7. Does this mean Brazil should be ranked in the same category as the Dutch and Germany? Funny how this relates since both Brazilian Football and Russian Hockey have no defense to speak of whatsoever lol.
Last edited:
Sorry, but this is silly. You give credit to Finland for their olympic performance, but when Russia and Sweden are tyied, you give the edge to the Russians because of the WHC gold and ignore the Swedish olympic silver, and Russian QF exit??
What you are saying is don't do an analysis, just mindlessly repeat the scores published on the Olympic website. If you are just accurately reproducing scores, what sense does it make to have people listing their personal opinions of rank orders?
Yes, Sweden eked out an OT win over Finland in the Semis when Finland was forced to use a mediocre backup goalie. Overall, the Finns had a superior Olympic AND WC performance to Sweden, as evidenced by Sweden stinking up the place in the Gold Medal game and only winning the Bronze in the WC. When they played head-to-head, Finland was just as good as Canada, and could have and probably should have beaten Canada. And whether you agree or not, if Russia would have had the opportunity to play Sweden in the Olympics, I like the Russians chances, unless, of course, the idiotic coach decided to go with Varlamov, as he did against Finland.
Which OT win? There was no OT between Sweden and Finland in the semi. Stop to make false stories. The goalie wasn't problem. After the 2nd period the score was 2-1. If they had a superior olympic performance than Sweden then why couldn't they score one single goal in the last period? Rask can't score goals so stop use that stupid argument.
I don't really get why Finland would have won with Rask in goal. They only managed to score one goal where Lundqvist was caught of guard since he thought it was icing. Goaile was not the biggest problem for Finland in the semis.
Also, Russia sucked big time in their game against Finland. If they would have won that game somehow, it would still be a win for Sweden in the semis. Russia struggled to score on Norway.
Also, Russia sucked big time in their game against Finland. If they would have won that game somehow, it would still be a win for Sweden in the semis. Russia struggled to score on Norway.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,806
- 15,466
This is where you are completely exposed. Finland was vastly outplayed by Canada. Sweden looked better against Canada, despite injuries, than Finland did. Finland sat back in a shell all game and hoped for a shootout. They never attempted to go out and win the game, which at least Sweden did. This is the third time you claimed that Finland played better against Canada than Sweden did, which is wrong, but now Finland deserved to beat Canada? Not even the biggest Fin homers claimed that after the game. This has little relevance to whether Sweden or Finland is better, but to try and claim that Finland played better against Canada, better yet actually deserved to win a game that they basically conceded by playing defence and praying for goals, is a complete fabrication. Sweden looked like a team that thought they could beat Canada and attempted to win. Finland looked like a team hoping to get lucky.
I get your opinion that you probably liked their performance better, but, didn't they lose to Sweden? Didn't Sweden also beat the Czechs, Latvia, and the Swiss? And that was a harder group IMO. But fine, it's your opinion.
To your statement that Finland should've beaten Canada.... did you watch the game? Finland was lucky to score the single goal. Second of all, Canada played on a level or two higher in the final game, than vs Austria or Finland. I can easily say that if Finland was in the finals, it could end 5-0.
Last edited:
Nailed it on the head.
Think he's a little upset with Canada and trying to take some sneaky shots.
C'mon Jack, stop trying to revise history. Suddenly, quitting in the middle of the Second Period is "trying to win," as if Sweden's effort was not disgraceful, but suddenly, after a few months, valiant and heroic. Finland, if I recall, held Canada to 1 goal in regulation time, which wasn't different from what several other teams did, but by Canadian spinmeisters, they "didn't look good," and "played in a defensive shell." Canada completely sacrificed offense in the Olympics to play the defensive shell first and foremost. That's why Canada couldn't find the net very often. If that means teams played in a shell, then that's smart, and they should be congratulated for it. I'm not one of those who calls Canada's 1-0 win over the USA a slaughter, and I don't call Sweden's 3-0 loss to Canada heroic.
This might be the biggest load of bull I have ever seen posted on the HFBoards. If you believe this it tells me you either didn't watch the games or don't have a clue about hockey.
Did you actually watch that Canada-Finland game? Canada was all over them for 60 minutes.
The score was close but the game play certainly wasn't, no idea how you could have watched that game and drawn the conclusion that Finland should have won, holy smokes.
Canada dominated them in that game.
It was exactly as described by Jack Slater, with Finland just collapsing in a shell game and hoping to keep it close and get lucky.
Anyone that watched that game could see that. There is no need to "spin" anything, you only had to witness the game to draw the obvious conclusions.
You are ridiculous. When we are talking about Canada, it's suddenly only and only the result on a score-board, that matters, no matter how the teams actually played or what was going on the ice. But when talking about Finland, your argument ignore the fact that Sweden beat them. Finland played better though, right?
Canada was also not too much lucky, otherwise they could beat Latvia 5-1 easily and no one could say a word with regard to the play on the ice. And in the gold-medal game, if both teams' big chances ended as a goal, Canada would win something like 7-2. I'm saying this because of your nonsense that Canada 'completely sacrificed offence to play the defensive shell first and foremost'.
I just realized I hadn't posted my rankings here
Here's my top 15:
1. Sweden
2. Finland
3. Russia
4. Czech Republic
5. Switzerland
6. Latvia
7. Slovakia
8. Belarus
9. France
10. Norway
11. Slovenia (I think their performance at the Olympics was a one-time thing, but I'd gladly be proven wrong)
12. Germany
13. Denmark
14. Austria
15. Italy
Note: Kazakhstan is considered an Asian country in my opinion.
Here's my top 15:
1. Sweden
2. Finland
3. Russia
4. Czech Republic
5. Switzerland
6. Latvia
7. Slovakia
8. Belarus
9. France
10. Norway
11. Slovenia (I think their performance at the Olympics was a one-time thing, but I'd gladly be proven wrong)
12. Germany
13. Denmark
14. Austria
15. Italy
Note: Kazakhstan is considered an Asian country in my opinion.
You're 100% right. If you walked around any city in Canada after this year's WHC QF loss, you would have thought you were in any Russian city after they lost to the Finns in the Olympic QFs. Such long and sad faces.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,806
- 15,466
Well, I would agree that Sweden's loss was not "heroic", particularly since I never said it in the first place. They did play like a team trying to win though, which Finland did not. Finland sat back in a shell even when Canada took the lead in the first period. Since you obviously didn't even watch the game, the 27-15 shot disparity indicates which team played in which way.
Despite your frequent claims, Canada never sat back and defended in a shell. Canada was definitely a defence first team, but they were aggressive in all zones, which is why they outshot (and of course outscored) every team that they played against. A team in a shell like Finland was against Canada will not outshoot the opposition. Canada had 58 more shots on goal than any other team in the tournament, which indicates what style the team played. Sweden at least attempted to win the game, though it is important to note that the context of the Canada-Finland game (group deciding game) was different from the Canada-Sweden game (tournament deciding).
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Rumor: Trade Rumors & Proposals Thread | No More Pacifism For the Oilers?- Latest: Oilslick941611
-
