GDT: Semifinal - May 20 - Canada (4) vs Russia (2)

[JackSlater]

World Championships were best on best until Canada p***yed out and stopped sending NHLers because the USSR was dominating.

Ah yes, and what year exactly was that?

 

[jj cale]

Russia was the better team and should have won this
To many penalties in the 3
Tomorow Sweden will win

Aaaah............................no.

Russia played well but got beat by a better team, Canada came to play in the 3rd and took over.

better teams don't let that happen,sorry.

 

[X66]

A team with Malkin, Kucherov, Tarasenko, Ovechkin, Panarin, Kovalchuk and Kuznetzov on it has a chance to win any tournament.

Have you seen that Russian defence?

There entire future depends on the development of Provorov, and even that is nothing compared to the other big countries.

Zaitsev and Orolov are the best Dman from Russia today, that is not good considering they're both just solid top 4.

 

[Yakushev72]

Those fans would be pretty stupid to think playing the NHL (not Canada!) is the same as playing a tournament with the top hockey national teams



Wow...comical if it wasn't so sad; totally asinine



There is commonly held views on hockey's best-on-best tournaments actually (for example the Olympics since 1998 have been best-on-best, the Worlds have never been best-on-best)

Just your opinion!

 

[Yakushev72]

You are a big hypocrite. Before the 2014 Olympics- you said the tournament was a Best on Best tournament, unlike the World Cup. After Russia choked and had a quick exit, you made excuses. The fact of the matter is, whether you or any other Russian likes it or not- Russia has failed to win Best on Best, since the 1981 Canada Cup.

Stop talking about sample size and other garbage. Before the 2014 Olympics- you said that tournament was a best on best, and Canada will struggle on the big ice. Canada did not fail, but Russia did- leaving the Sochi Bear in Russia, and Russian fans to cry and be dismayed. So sad.

Here is what I mean by sample size: Since 1998, when the NHL joined the Olympics, Russia and Canada have only played twice, and their respective head-to-head records are 1-1. Total goals are 7-5 in favor of Canada. How can you say that Canada has been better than Russia in the Olympics when head-to-head competition has been a draw? You aren't making any sense.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Here is what I mean by sample size: Since 1998, when the NHL joined the Olympics, Russia and Canada have only played twice, and their respective head-to-head records are 1-1. Total goals are 7-5 in favor of Canada. How can you say that Canada has been better than Russia in the Olympics when head-to-head competition has been a draw? You aren't making any sense.

Well I mean seeing as Canada has won the last two while Russia has failed to make it out of the quarters. Losing 7-3 to Canada in 2010. I mean it is pretty easy to see how Canada has been better

 

[jj cale]

Here is what I mean by sample size: Since 1998, when the NHL joined the Olympics, Russia and Canada have only played twice, and their respective head-to-head records are 1-1. Total goals are 7-5 in favor of Canada. How can you say that Canada has been better than Russia in the Olympics when head-to-head competition has been a draw? You aren't making any sense.

By winning 3 golds to Russias 1 silver and 1 bronze?

Is there any other standard to go on?

That is how we judge team sports, wins and placements.

In the N.H.L olympic era it's Canada over Russia hands down, cmon, even the most homer of homer has got to admit that.

That's no opinion, it's fact.

Or have the refs skewered things and you are protesting the results?

Jesus, stop now for god sake.

 

[snipes]

Just your opinion!

No, best on best has been established as international competition where national teams have full access to their player pool (i.e. IIHF WHC isn't because the NHL playoffs are still on), pre 1998 Olympics aren't because NHL players weren't playing.

Canada Cups, 1996 & 2004 World Cup (2016 technically doesn't count because there were barriers to accessing full player pools for Canada and the USA), 1998-2014 Olympics.

 

[Yakushev72]

Well I mean seeing as Canada has won the last two while Russia has failed to make it out of the quarters. Losing 7-3 to Canada in 2010. I mean it is pretty easy to see how Canada has been better

Great win by Canada in 2010, but in 2006 Russia dominated and shut Canada out, 2-0. The sample size is so tiny that that is the only time the teams met since 1998. You can't take credit for victories that didn't occur.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Here is what I mean by sample size: Since 1998, when the NHL joined the Olympics, Russia and Canada have only played twice, and their respective head-to-head records are 1-1. Total goals are 7-5 in favor of Canada. How can you say that Canada has been better than Russia in the Olympics when head-to-head competition has been a draw? You aren't making any sense.

Maybe if Russia could stop losing enough to meet Canada in the finals then we'd have a larger sample size to go by. The two nations are not even close to being close in terms of top end talent in every position and depth

 

[Yakushev72]

By winning 3 golds to Russias 1 silver and 1 bronze?

Is there any other standard to go on?

That is how we judge team sports, wins and placements.

In the N.H.L olympic era it's Canada over Russia hands down, cmon, even the most homer of homer has got to admit that.

That's no opinion, it's fact.

Or have the refs skewered things and you are protesting the results?

Jesus, stop now for god sake.

You can't logically say that Canada was better Russia based on results against other teams. I'm sure you agree with that obviousl premise.

 

[JackSlater]

Here is what I mean by sample size: Since 1998, when the NHL joined the Olympics, Russia and Canada have only played twice, and their respective head-to-head records are 1-1. Total goals are 7-5 in favor of Canada. How can you say that Canada has been better than Russia in the Olympics when head-to-head competition has been a draw? You aren't making any sense.

Indeed, for instance, Canada's record against Switzerland in that timeframe is one shootout win and one loss. Other than noting that Switzerland has a better record against Canada in that timeframe, we cannot conclude that Canada has been better than Switzerland. Maybe Switzerland has been best all along, who knows. Canada having the best players and winning most of the tournaments might just be a fluke, and maybe Russia really was second best to Switzerland all along.

On another note, no need to get so worked up about a loss in this tournament. It means very, very little.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Great win by Canada in 2010, but in 2006 Russia dominated and shut Canada out, 2-0. The sample size is so tiny that that is the only time the teams met since 1998. You can't take credit for victories that didn't occur.

You realize the sample size is small because Russia has lost out to early to actually face Canada right? I mean this is just such a nonsensical argument it's actually hilarious.

 

[jj cale]

You can't logically say that Canada was better Russia based on results against other teams. I'm sure you agree with that obviousl premise.

You're not serious about this so I'm not going further on the subject.

Would like to end this on a positive note however and say thank you for your insights on the russian team per my request on the TC thread going into the game, they were good.

 

[Rob]

Congratulations on proving for yourself, but who did ever say Canada always have north american refs?


Other than that, I think Nyquil is as I have mentioned elsewhere - a proof if this forums disadvantage of too many North americans, just having stupid things being said because you seem to have same opinion as most other (north americans) here is irrelevant. I mean, I know that it is pretty much impossible to go on to any teams page and say anything bad about its team or organization - you will get flooded with all kind of stupid arguments and your own arguments, how interesting they may be will be ignored or ridiculed. And since this is pretty much a pro-NA/Canada forum I guess I have to put up with guys like you, Nyquil, from time to time. By just ignoring other opinions doesn´t make your own true, since we can all agree there are big differencies in priorities in the NA-European hockey discussion even up to NHL vs. IIHF level.

This is more than just a simple opinion. You made a substantial claim about the IIHF being biased in favor of Canada. I think it is reasonable to ask for evidence to back this up. Are there any respected hockey journalists who share your view?

 

[Mehar]

Great win by Canada in 2010, but in 2006 Russia dominated and shut Canada out, 2-0. The sample size is so tiny that that is the only time the teams met since 1998. You can't take credit for victories that didn't occur.

In 2006- Russia went home without a medal just like Canada. Russia has no medals in the last three Olympics. They suffered embarrassing QF defeats in the last two Olympics. They lost against Canada in the Semis of the 2016 World Cup. You are very delusional. Canada has won 3 of the last 4 Olympics. The sample size is small because Russia cannot reach the finals to play Canada. If they are as good as Canada- how come Russia has no medals the last three Olympics? They have not won a Best on Best tournament since 1981. Your argument about head to head is a joke, since Russia has failed to medal in the last three Olympics. They also failed to reach the finals the last two World Cups. Keep living in your fantasy world, just like how you said before the 2014 Olympics- that Canada would struggle on the big ice and not win the Gold (lol).

 

[Yakushev72]

Indeed, for instance, Canada's record against Switzerland in that timeframe is one shootout win and one loss. Other than noting that Switzerland has a better record against Canada in that timeframe, we cannot conclude that Canada has been better than Switzerland. Maybe Switzerland has been best all along, who knows. Canada having the best players and winning most of the tournaments might just be a fluke, and maybe Russia really was second best to Switzerland all along.

On another note, no need to get so worked up about a loss in this tournament. It means very, very little.

This is my point exactly. The Olympics are a very short, anecdotal tournament where you determine a Gold Medalist, but you don't have enough of a body of work to make in-depth conclusions about the various teams. Obviously, the Gold Medalist is going to be from among 4 or so nations, but it is too short and limited to make any kind of conclusions about who is better. Because that can only be done by head to head competition, which is why the NHL awards the Stanley Cup for winning a series of on-ice best of 7 series, and not by the assessments and conclusions of a panel of bloggers.

Thanks for your soothing words of calm, but actually, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the Russian team has played this year. Of the total of 19 skating positions, 14 were young and relatively anonymous (by NA standards) KHL players who weren't expected to do much. It took a Canadian NHL "C" team until the last 5 minutes to finally surpass them in the Semis, so those kids deserve a lot of credit. And about how little the tournament means...you Canadian fellas sure do post about it a lot!!

 

[jimstark]

This is my point exactly. The Olympics are a very short, anecdotal tournament where you determine a Gold Medalist, but you don't have enough of a body of work to make in-depth conclusions about the various teams. Obviously, the Gold Medalist is going to be from among 4 or so nations, but it is too short and limited to make any kind of conclusions about who is better. Because that can only be done by head to head competition, which is why the NHL awards the Stanley Cup for winning a series of on-ice best of 7 series, and not by the assessments and conclusions of a panel of bloggers.

Thanks for your soothing words of calm, but actually, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the Russian team has played this year. Of the total of 19 skating positions, 14 were young and relatively anonymous (by NA standards) KHL players who weren't expected to do much. It took a Canadian NHL "C" team until the last 5 minutes to finally surpass them in the Semis, so those kids deserve a lot of credit. And about how little the tournament means...you Canadian fellas sure do post about it a lot!!

Well what Yakushev72 say its true regarding only Russia and Canada. Since 1998 best on best they have meet 2 times where both have won. Ofcourse Canada has been better winning more since 1998 there is no question about that and that Russia has failed gooing deeper in the tournaments to actually meet them. Dont get med starting about Canada Cup or the World Cup just look at the best games that has ever been played in my eyes the 1987 games and tell me if Canada in the last game did not get help from the referees that was a shame tough the players on both teams are the best ever as i see it. If you have the time watch the games on youtube you will be amazed about the speed and talent even if it was played i 87.

Since we are talking about 1998 Canada has (until last nighs final against Sweden) won the WC 5 times and Russia 4. Pretty close ( Czhec has also won 5 times during that periode)

Russia did very well with a team with 85 % KHL players and could and should have won yesterday.

And just for the record i have to coment on the last coments here where Canadians always wanted to point out how small this WC really is...well its not a small tournament and by looking at all the Canadian posters it does seem like most of you agree..or to say what my good canadien friends always use to say: we havent wont so much so therefor we pretend we dont care...but be honest you do as we do. Its the same for every team..you could have Tavares and Crosby we could have Malkin and Tarasenkov etc...every team missing some of the best but everyone wants to win.

 

[XokkeyGuy]

This is more than just a simple opinion. You made a substantial claim about the IIHF being biased in favor of Canada. I think it is reasonable to ask for evidence to back this up. Are there any respected hockey journalists who share your view?

Of course, but I don´t have all the video material and working all the texts over the years would be too hardcore. I think easiest way to find out is for the NA-fans here to get out of the HFboards/NA-media bubble and come listen to the international crowd. Just have a look at IIHF's facebook comments for example and see for yourself what people think of Canada (except for the canadien fans themselves) and you will see that the kind of opinions that is in majority here is purely because of the huge advantage in numbers the NA-fans here have. I mean, as soon as anyone mentions a legitimate issue or opinion that isn´t in favour of NA-teams on these forums you get hostile comments instantly - but, those are often only from NA-fans themselves so it says little if I'm (or anyone else here) is right or wrong.

 

[Blue prez]

Hmmm ...I remember when Canada first wanted to add, like 2 journeymen, ex NHLers to a WC team , IIHF agreed BUT , after CCCP had a hissy fit, it was IIHF brass who p***yed out/ reneged on their earlier agreement...

Canada withdrew from international competition in protest...and it was NOT until 1972 Summit Series ( which was none of IIHF doing ) that things were put back on a semi-even ( read fair ) keel...

NOT sure when u think Canada STOPPED sending NHLers to worlds? In the bad old days of BuNNy Ahearn and company Canada wasn't allowed to send ANY of their NHL, or even ex-NHLers

By the way: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=81969
745 games. 3 times All-Star. 3 Stanley cups

freaking "beer-league" amateur, I mean

 

[JackSlater]

This is my point exactly. The Olympics are a very short, anecdotal tournament where you determine a Gold Medalist, but you don't have enough of a body of work to make in-depth conclusions about the various teams. Obviously, the Gold Medalist is going to be from among 4 or so nations, but it is too short and limited to make any kind of conclusions about who is better. Because that can only be done by head to head competition, which is why the NHL awards the Stanley Cup for winning a series of on-ice best of 7 series, and not by the assessments and conclusions of a panel of bloggers.

Thanks for your soothing words of calm, but actually, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the Russian team has played this year. Of the total of 19 skating positions, 14 were young and relatively anonymous (by NA standards) KHL players who weren't expected to do much. It took a Canadian NHL "C" team until the last 5 minutes to finally surpass them in the Semis, so those kids deserve a lot of credit. And about how little the tournament means...you Canadian fellas sure do post about it a lot!!

Yes yes I understand your main point - the team that has won 60% of the tournaments (plus the best on best 2004 World Cup in between where Canada beat Russia) may not actually have been better than the team that won 0% of the tournaments. It's an interesting argument at least.

 

[Bear12Good]

Russia play bad in recent all-stars tournamets because we have lousy coaching.

 

[Scotty B]

By the way: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=81969
745 games. 3 times All-Star. 3 Stanley cups

freaking "beer-league" amateur, I mean

...IIHF ( After CCCP's flaming hypcrites cried foul ) reneged on their earlier promise to let Canada add 2 ex-NHLers to one of its WC rosters, and Canada withdrew from international competition in protest...THAT was the most salient point...a point made, less we forget, after a Russian claimed that Canada ' p***yed out' and stopped sending pros cause they couldn't take CCCP competition...Obviously , quite the opposite was true...

CCCP balked at the mere thought of having some pro competition...bearing in mind that, at the time, team CCCP were ' amateurs' in name ONLY

Was the guy u reference above, one of Canada's DQ'd guys? No idea, t'was a LONG time ago and I was speaking strictly from memory...As per usual, I'm WAY TOO LAZY to do any research

CHEERS

 

[MXD]

...IIHF ( After CCCP's flaming hypcrites cried foul ) reneged on their earlier promise to let Canada add 2 ex-NHLers to one of its WC rosters, and Canada withdrew from international competition in protest...THAT was the most salient point...a point made, less we forget, after a Russian claimed that Canada ' p***yed out' and stopped sending pros cause they couldn't take CCCP competition...Obviously , quite the opposite was true...

CCCP balked at the mere thought of having some pro competition...bearing in mind that, at the time, team CCCP were ' amateurs' in name ONLY

Was the guy u reference above, one of Canada's DQ'd guys? No idea, t'was a LONG time ago and I was speaking strictly from memory...As per usual, I'm WAY TOO LAZY to do any research

CHEERS

Regardless if it was Tod Sloan (a good player, but probably a Team C kind-of player in the grand scheme of things, and that was in his prime) or not... He was friggin' 35 years old.

 

[Rob]

Of course, but I don´t have all the video material and working all the texts over the years would be too hardcore. I think easiest way to find out is for the NA-fans here to get out of the HFboards/NA-media bubble and come listen to the international crowd. Just have a look at IIHF's facebook comments for example and see for yourself what people think of Canada (except for the canadien fans themselves) and you will see that the kind of opinions that is in majority here is purely because of the huge advantage in numbers the NA-fans here have. I mean, as soon as anyone mentions a legitimate issue or opinion that isn´t in favour of NA-teams on these forums you get hostile comments instantly - but, those are often only from NA-fans themselves so it says little if I'm (or anyone else here) is right or wrong.

Once again, could you even link to a respected hockey journalist who has the same opinion? As for the IIHF facebook comments I noticed that it is all Russians who have this opinion. That doesn't make it true.