JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,801
- 15,456
Do you even realize that what you are saying makes no sense at all? Do you understand that when you say "Russia's depth is poor enough so that Anisimov and Kulemin are able to make a best on best roster has nothing to do with the advantage that Russia gets at the World Championship every year" is totally nonsensical? Its really a weak excuse, and a really pathetic attempt to make an indefensible point , to say that, in effect, "yes, you had Anisimov and Kulemin and Tikhonov and Shipachyov and Dadonov and Panarin and Zaripov and Kovalchuk and and Plotnikov and Mozyakin at forward, and, you had Belov and Kulikov and Chudinov and Mironov and Yakovlev and Mironov and Antipin on defense, and that represents a huge roster advantage over teams like Canada that just have a lot of "B" team NHL players.
As far as I can tell, you are literally the only poster on this website who doesn't even understand the argument. Some disagree, but you seem to lack the ability to actually comprehend it. The "advantage" that Russia has is that it gets a better percentage of its best players than other countries do. Most times it is a significantly higher percentage. Again, for emphasis:
The "advantage" that Russia has is that it gets a larger percentage of its best players than other countries do.
That has nothing to do with how good or bad those players are. No reasonable person complains that Russia's players are too good, which seems to be what you think people are saying.
Which of the players that I have listed do or would rank in the top 10 in the NHL at their position? And, if they don't rank in the top 10, explain why you judge their presence to represent a "huge roster advantage" over the rest of the World? Keep in mind, this roster finished in 3rd place in their preliminary round group behind the United States and Finland, and through sheer guts and determination advanced to the Gold Medal game. If your response is that they had Malkin and Tarasenko, and Ovechkin for the last 2 games (less than 30 hours after he skated off the ice from Game 7 of a Stanley Cup semifinal series), that's a really sorry excuse to explain why Canada doesn't win the WC every single year, which should be a minimum expectation.
Once again: The "advantage" that Russia has is that it gets a larger percentage of its best players than other countries do.
Your insistence on missing the point is admirable though. I also admire how you laud the sheer guts and determination of the Russian team, featuring 10 recent Olympians including its best three forwards and best goaltender. No other top country had a roster featuring that large a percentage of its top players (USA for instance had exactly 1 Olympian). Your inability to see that is baffling.
Of course I agree with your point here, but why do you keep saying that Russia's successes in other venues (WC, WJC) must be discounted because they haven't done well in the Olympic Games of late? That is inconsistent with your correct point that the Olympic Games produce a result but don't prove anything? For example, since the NHL started coming to the Olympics, Russia and Canada have only met twice in 5 Olympics, and are tied 1-1. This is hardly an adequate sample size to match up the 2 teams.
The comparisons don't make sense. I certainly wouldn't regard World Championship results as indicative of anything, considering the vastly different level of commitment that different countries show toward the tournament. If the Russian team with 10 Olympic players beats the American team with literally 1 Olympian, it goes without saying that nothing is proven. WJC results haven't historically been very indicative of results at the top level, but they do show some trends at least.