I don't have a full argument in mind to defend this opinion, but I personally have Canada and the US as a cut above the rest. I really like the american team, I think they have got a good group of hard working players who play with some sandpaper and can score goals, they obviously have strong goaltending, and I just feel that they have a good amount of guys who can elevate their game when it counts. In my post by no means am i trying to say that the US would be a heavy favorite, but for me they are a sure cut above, however popular that opinion may be.
Rank the top 8.
- Thread starter Lollipop
- Start date
1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. Finland
4. United States
5. Russia
6. Czech Republic
7. Switzerland
8. Slovakia
Seems like the most popular sentiment and I'm sticking with it
2. Sweden
3. Finland
4. United States
5. Russia
6. Czech Republic
7. Switzerland
8. Slovakia
Seems like the most popular sentiment and I'm sticking with it
The USA was affected the most there. They could have had Galchenyuk, Trouba AND Jones on that WJC team. I'd say the 3 missing Canadian's would have had a bigger impact on the team than the 2 missing finns.
Ranking those missing 8 guys
Mackinnon
Galchenyuk
Trouba
Jones
Barkov
Monahan
Rielly/Maata
Kharkov
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2013
- 1,214
- 0
Based on pure results I'd have to rank Finland above the US, even though I think we are better than they are.
Facts on the ground are that they keep on eliminating us in competitions. Sure we got to beat them up pretty bad in 2002 and 2010, but they always seem to knock us out in the worlds and in 2004 and 2006. I'd like to rank the US 3rd but I just can't.
Facts on the ground are that they keep on eliminating us in competitions. Sure we got to beat them up pretty bad in 2002 and 2010, but they always seem to knock us out in the worlds and in 2004 and 2006. I'd like to rank the US 3rd but I just can't.
The US and Finland are near dead even. In Olympic play it's 2-2, with the US twice crushing the Finns 6-0 and 6-1. Meanwhile the Finns got a bit of revenge this year 5-0 but in Turin only slipped by a terrible US team 4-3. If you throw in the 2-1 World Cup victory then it's 3-2 Finland, but hardly a dominating record.
Kalamazoo Wings
Registered User
And doesn't this mean that the wjc2014 was a very good tournament based on the quality of the hockey teams? If you did not have pretty much all of your best players in your roster, you were not able to rank in top 3. And what about sochi2014? Finland became 3rd without almost their entire top 6 and Sweden 2nd with also very significant losses to their roster.
I'm sorry to say this, but I think that sochi2014 was not a good tournament based on the quality of the teams. I mean do you really think that Finland or Sweden has so superior depth in rosters that they should be able to rank #2 and #3 without so many key players? And Canada at the same time don't have enough depth to do the same in juniors?
I personally think that it was mostly because none of the top countries really showed up besides Canada in Sochi. Did the canadian players really looked that happy after the final buzzer that you could see them winning the greatest tournamet ever? I have seen players winning an inner city league and celebrating more than those canadian olympic gold medalist. Vancouver 2010 was a different story. They really had to play their best game in final to beat USA and they did it in over time. So amongst the canadian players, I really think that they don't rank that Sochi gold anywhere near they rank the Vancouver gold. Only you fans seem to do it. I mean can you really say that sochi 2014 was best-on-best tournament? Vancouver was, Sochi was no where near. I'm glad you canadians win it and i'm glad that so many great players got a medal in their last olympic appearance.
There have been close to 20 ego boosting threads on how great Team Canada is after sundays final. (all these ranks us #1 and canada vs rest of the world, we can bring 10 teams and all of them can easily win etc) You did win the tournament of the century, but you did it 4 years ago, not 2 days ago. Like many candians said after wjc final - Keep it classy, keep it classy..
I see them like this...
1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. Usa
4. Finland
5. Russia
6. Switzerland
7. Czech
8. Slovakia
1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. Usa
4. Finland
5. Russia
6. Switzerland
7. Czech
8. Slovakia
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
The WJC was irrelevant when Canada was racking up 5 golds in a row but now is an indicator of national strength.
Meanwhile, Sochi doesn't mean anything all of a sudden due to the fact that it was a weak tournament.
Basically, if Canada wins decisively, the competition is irrelevant internationally.
Good to know.
Meanwhile, Sochi doesn't mean anything all of a sudden due to the fact that it was a weak tournament.
Basically, if Canada wins decisively, the competition is irrelevant internationally.
Good to know.
These same boring threads after each other... I'll do it more interesting.
Based on teamwork, not individual skill:
1. Finland
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Belarus
5. Denmark
6. Slovenia
7. Latvia
8. Canada
Now, attack me North America!
Based on teamwork, not individual skill:
1. Finland
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Belarus
5. Denmark
6. Slovenia
7. Latvia
8. Canada
Now, attack me North America!
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
These same boring threads after each other... I'll do it more interesting.
Based on teamwork, not individual skill:
1. Finland
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Belarus
5. Denmark
6. Slovenia
7. Latvia
8. Canada
Now, attack me North America!
Canada ahead of Austria?
Are you nuts?
Canada had easily one of the best age groups ever in juniors 5 years ago. They dominated pretty much all of those 5 tournaments and deserved to win all of them.
But do you personally think that Sochi was not a weak tournament? That it was worth the best-on-best status?
So, Canada didnt defeat Sweden in final game, bcs some of best swedish players couldnt play. So it wasnt best-on-best.
Teams on WC have best available players, so actually its best-on-best.
BTW: I dont know, why people rate Russia so high. They failed this year and even 4 years ago, they have results just on WCs. SO, when you rate Canada and US higher than they should be with argument that WCs doesnt matter, why u rate so high Russia, when they failed so many times?
Russia is only nation, which has always best available players in roster. (Even on WC.)
Yeah - Austria had more scoring chances on us than mighty finland - they must be better than us, too...
These same boring threads after each other... I'll do it more interesting.
Based on teamwork, not individual skill:
1. Finland
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Belarus
5. Denmark
6. Slovenia
7. Latvia
8. Canada
Now, attack me North America!
Based on swedish last names:
1.Sweden
2.Norway (?)
3.Finland
.
.
.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Everyone always laughed at Canadians when they would talk about a Canada B team at tournament and question why Canada didn't dominate every tournament with the number of quality players they had.
Finally we have a tournament where Canada's biggest strength was exhibited.
Who were the big injuries to the US and Russia?
In 98, Canada lost Lemieux, Sakic and Kariya. Do we strike that tournament from the list of best-on-best?
I certainly haven't been, but hey, if we are going there, great.
Great point!
I certainly never thought of it that way before. Different cultures? Odd how in this tournament losing players matters, but losing 3 of the top players in the world in '98 is overlooked.
Pretty hypocritical, guys. And before you roll out that Canada depth BS, you can't replace players of THAT calibre.
Your federations picked the players they thought would best represent your country - knowing full well that injuries could and likely would happen.
So Finland and Sweden with significant amount of injuries > healthy USA and Russia
---> Healthy Finland and Sweden >>>>>>>>>>>> healthy USA and Russia
USA and Russia did not show up for whatever reason. They could both do better..
And I actually think that the best olympics have been 2002 and 2010 (2010 being the best tournament). I have always cheered for Team Canada when they don't play against Finland except on sunday. Sweden was so big underdog that it was not even funny anymore. I personally value your 2010 and 2002 gold a lot higher because you had to work for the gold in those tournaments (except against Belarus in 2002).
2010 gold >>> 2002 gold >>>>>>> 2014 gold
Great point!
Odd how in this tournament losing players matters, but losing 3 of the top players in the world in '98 is overlooked.
Pretty hypocritical, guys. And before you roll out that Canada depth BS, you can't replace players of THAT calibre.
Your federations picked the players they thought would best represent your country - knowing full well that injuries could and likely would happen.
Doesn't this prove the fact that the quality of the teams was very high in 1998 if a top team can't finish in top 3 without 3 of their key players?? Again the point why 2010 and 2002 were the best olympics of the best-on-best era.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
I agree from an entertainment point of view.
But winning and entertainment are two different things.
But winning and entertainment are two different things.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 33,401
- 23,793
I think you're underrating Maatta by a lot. He was great in the Olympics against men. He would have torn up the World Juniors.
Latest posts
-
-
-
GDT: #62 | Flames at Flyers | Tuesday, March 4, 2025 | 7:00 PM | NBCSP- Latest: CanadianFlyer88
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Props Alex Ovechkin to Record 895th Career Goal During 2024/25 Regular SeasonWagers: 12Staked: $21,883.00Event closes - 2 days from now- Updated: