WJC: Semifinal post-game talk

[Scotty B]

I saw every game that both of those teams player in person that year, and I have no doubt that Canada would have beaten Russia at least seven times out of ten. Russia won fair and square, but Canada out played them for five of the six periods they played that year. Sweden outplayed Russia twice that year too. Those are the breaks sometimes.

7 out of 10, yet they scored 5 goals in 3rd period, plus 2 in like 11 seconds ( yeah I saw the game too, not live mind u )? Sorry, I don't buy that they were inferior. Like I said NA bias, and the well publicized ' Russian factor' among NHL scouts. Also, from memory, Russians were really starting to push back, by the latter stages of second period. Ergo, even before that meltdown in 3rd, things weren't as one sided as u seem to suggest.

Let's not forget either, that our boyz haven't exactly been lights out vs theres, in more recent do or die contests. Even losing bronze game during latest NHL strike. As an aside, same RUS bench boss as 2011 again eh?

Wonder how our Russians friends saw it?

 

[Swipes]

Canada-Slovakia 5-0.

 

[aphyro]

Totally not the impression I had of Scandinavians. But is this mentality something all Scandinavians 'know of' or is the younger generation not really aware of it?

This is applayable to moste of swedes

 

[SwedeChild]

This is applayable to moste of swedes

That is not true. This does not apply on southern swedes. But northern parts of Sweden (above Stockholm) is still very much "jante". Must be the isolation and lack of influence from other countries.

And just as BlitzSnipe thought, "jante" isn't something that younger swedes are really aware of now with all the social media and stuff, everybody thinks that everybody's life and achievements in life is better than they really are.

 

[JackSlater]

7 out of 10, yet they scored 5 goals in 3rd period, plus 2 in like 11 seconds ( yeah I saw the game too, not live mind u )? Sorry, I don't buy that they were inferior. Like I said NA bias, and the well publicized ' Russian factor' among NHL scouts. Also, from memory, Russians were really starting to push back, by the latter stages of second period. Ergo, even before that meltdown in 3rd, things weren't as one sided as u seem to suggest.

Let's not forget either, that our boyz haven't exactly been lights out vs theres, in more recent do or die contests. Even losing bronze game during latest NHL strike. As an aside, same RUS bench boss as 2011 again eh?

Wonder how our Russians friends saw it?

You're just reiterating the same thing. I know they had a great period. I also know that they looked bad for the first two periods against Canada, looked bad the first time they played and lost to Canada, looked weak against Sweden twice, and struggled to beat a mediocre Finnish team in the quarterfinals. They were valid winners, but it wasn't a great team by any stretch. Anything ca happen in a single game elimination tournament, and that year demonstrated it.

 

[SwedeChild]

Exactly, we are doing largely better than expected. I believe we will hardly get the bronze medal. Russia is going to kick our ass tonight. Even if we do win, we should stand aside and just let Russia play Canada in the finals because that will be a better game.

4-1 Russia.

1. Canada
2. Russia
3. Not worth mentioning, throw it away.

Allow me to quote myself..

 

[Fantomas]

LOL, nice poll results, doofuses.

 

[Fantomas]

Allow me to quote myself..

I hope you're only half-right.

 

[WALLY Spartak Moscow]

you are so funny )

Lucas Wallmark:


Source:
http://www.expressen.se/sport/hockey/tre-kronor/sverige-slog-finland---ar-klart-for-semifinal/

 

[Scotty B]

You're just reiterating the same thing. I know they had a great period. I also know that they looked bad for the first two periods against Canada, looked bad the first time they played and lost to Canada, looked weak against Sweden twice, and struggled to beat a mediocre Finnish team in the quarterfinals. They were valid winners, but it wasn't a great team by any stretch. Anything ca happen in a single game elimination tournament, and that year demonstrated it.

Seems to me ur argument hasn't changed much either...Canada's lineup that year wasn't exactly scary. Visentin was no Legace, Waite, Luongo or Price And wasn't Schenn ( even though he broke Dale McCourt's scoring record )playing with a separated shoulder late in tourney ? There's NO WAY that team beats the eventual gold medal winners 7 outa ten. Russia beat both Sweden and Canada when it counted. So too, a la this year, Russia playing possum in round robin is nothing new. Seen it MANY Times

 

[JackSlater]

Seems to me ur argument hasn't changed much either...Canada's lineup that year wasn't exactly scary. Visentin was no Legace, Waite, Luongo or Price And wasn't Schenn ( even though he broke Dale McCourt's scoring record )playing with a separated shoulder late in tourney ? There's NO WAY that team beats the eventual gold medal winners 7 outa ten. Russia beat both Sweden and Canada when it counted. So too, a la this year, Russia playing possum in round robin is nothing new. Seen it MANY Times

My argument doesn't need to change, it's based on how the teams actually played. You seem to be looking at the names on Canada (and ignoring the unimpressive Russian names) and making conclusions. Russia was outplayed by Canada and Sweden in the first round, then needed late comebacks to win in each knockout game. Good on them for actually attaining those comebacks, but something like that isn't sustainable. I honestly think that Sweden played the best in that tournament overall, but a bit of bad luck in the semi finals did them in. Hopefully the same won't happen to Canada tonight.

 

[Scotty B]

My argument doesn't need to change, it's based on how the teams actually played. You seem to be looking at the names on Canada (and ignoring the unimpressive Russian names) and making conclusions. Russia was outplayed by Canada and Sweden in the first round, then needed late comebacks to win in each knockout game. Good on them for actually attaining those comebacks, but something like that isn't sustainable. I honestly think that Sweden played the best in that tournament overall, but a bit of bad luck in the semi finals did them in. Hopefully the same won't happen to Canada tonight.

my argument doesn't need to change either. It's based on the team , with Kuznetsov and Tarasenko , that actually won every do or die game.

 

[flaneur]

My mind: Canada vs Sweden
My heart: Canada vs Russia (I like watching traditional rivalries)

apparently: heart > mind

 

[JackSlater]

my argument doesn't need to change either. It's based on the team , with Kuznetsov and Tarasenko , that actually won every do or die game.

Yes, they won. Good for them on that, it's the ultimate goal. That doesn't mean they were a better team or even as good, just that they had the most luck. That team was outplayed in more than half of their games, and having Kuznetsov and Tarasenko doesn't change that. A team that is consistently outplayed can't be expected to continually win. The best team doesn't always win, and that was the case in 2011 among other years. Canada beats them at least 7 times out of 10 (Sweden would too), but obviously they lost the one that counted most.

 

[Scotty B]

Yes, they won. Good for them on that, it's the ultimate goal. That doesn't mean they were a better team or even as good, just that they had the most luck. That team was outplayed in more than half of their games, and having Kuznetsov and Tarasenko doesn't change that. A team that is consistently outplayed can't be expected to continually win. The best team doesn't always win, and that was the case in 2011 among other years. Canada beats them at least 7 times out of 10 (Sweden would too), but obviously they lost the one that counted most.

Russia won the only 2 games that counted verses those supposedly vastly superior teams.That wasn't a particularly good Canadian lineup, compared to most years. But keep telling yourself otherwise...

 

[BlitzSnipe]

Yes, they won. Good for them on that, it's the ultimate goal. That doesn't mean they were a better team or even as good, just that they had the most luck. That team was outplayed in more than half of their games, and having Kuznetsov and Tarasenko doesn't change that. A team that is consistently outplayed can't be expected to continually win. The best team doesn't always win, and that was the case in 2011 among other years. Canada beats them at least 7 times out of 10 (Sweden would too), but obviously they lost the one that counted most.

Dude, what matters is who won. You can't just say Canada was better in 2011 if they lost in the final. The Russians outplayed them in the 3rd period, got 5 goals. That's what matters.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Dude, what matters is who won. You can't just say Canada was better in 2011 if they lost in the final. The Russians outplayed them in the 3rd period, got 5 goals. That's what matters.

Exactly. Canada's collapse was horrific. Pretending that Russia was badly outplayed in that game is ludicrous. Same old excuses for Canada.

 

[JackSlater]

Russia won the only 2 games that counted verses those supposedly vastly superior teams.That wasn't a particularly good Canadian lineup, compared to most years. But keep telling yourself otherwise...

Not vastly superior (that's your addition) but better. Say what you will about the lineup, but in the games that were played they performed well. Their level of play throughout the tournament was better than Russia's, but Russia got the bounces needed to win. Good for them, but all I can see is you reading the names on the Canadian roster, ignoring the relatively unimpressive Russian roster, and pointing to the scoreboard. A team can get hot and win three in a row. Even Edmonton won three in a row this year. It doesn't make them automatically the best team. Russia rode two hot periods (third against Canada, last half of the third against Sweden) to a tournament win. They won fair and square (reffing issues against Sweden aside) but I doubt they could replicate that result.

How many of Russia's games do you remember from that tournament?

Dude, what matters is who won. You can't just say Canada was better in 2011 if they lost in the final. The Russians outplayed them in the 3rd period, got 5 goals. That's what matters.

I know what matters is who won, I never disagreed. I would much prefer my team win than actually be the best team. What you are saying is irrelevant, as best team does not always mean winning team.

Here's an example, since logic seems to be poor for some people: In the 1993 WJC, Sweden was clearly the best team. They dominated the tournament and outplayed every team they went up against. Canada had a good tournament, getting good bounces in some tight games and playing well, outside of a loss to the Czechs. When Canada and Sweden played, Sweden completely outplayed Canada, but Manny Legace had the game of his life and Canada pulled it out and won the tournament. I'm glad that Canada was the winner, but there is no doubt that Sweden was the better team and was the best team in the tournament. This is hockey, and the best team often loses.

Exactly. Canada's collapse was horrific. Pretending that Russia was badly outplayed in that game is ludicrous. Same old excuses for Canada.

Show me where I said that Russia was "badly" outplayed in that game? You can't. Russia was outplayed by Sweden twice, clearly outplayed by Canada the first time they met and again until Canada collapsed, marginally outplayed by Finland in the quarterfinals. They still won. Congratulations to them on winning, but it doesn't automatically make them the best team. The world isn't black and white, and the winning team isn't always the best team. I've already sad that Sweden played the best in that tournament, I guess that's another old excuse for Canada oh wise one.

 

[Yakushev72]

7 out of 10, yet they scored 5 goals in 3rd period, plus 2 in like 11 seconds ( yeah I saw the game too, not live mind u )? Sorry, I don't buy that they were inferior. Like I said NA bias, and the well publicized ' Russian factor' among NHL scouts. Also, from memory, Russians were really starting to push back, by the latter stages of second period. Ergo, even before that meltdown in 3rd, things weren't as one sided as u seem to suggest.

Let's not forget either, that our boyz haven't exactly been lights out vs theres, in more recent do or die contests. Even losing bronze game during latest NHL strike. As an aside, same RUS bench boss as 2011 again eh?

Wonder how our Russians friends saw it?

I thought the first game was fairly evenly played, and the difference was probably the fans, who had the Canadian team playing in an emotional frenzy, and the Russian goalie Shikin, who should have been pulled. Russia lost the next game to Sweden, 2-0, and a couple of needed lineup changes were made.

By the time of the medal round, the Russian team was clearly as good as any team in the tournament. It was a very tough and feisty Russian team, and by the middle of the 2nd period, even though Canada was up 3-0, Russia had taken control of the game. It was just a matter of time before Russia took over on the scoreboard, and that came early in the 3rd, when the roof caved in for Canada. This Russian team is similarly feisty, but Canada is fired up and determined to avenge 4 consecutive medal round losses to the Russians.

 

[Yakushev72]

Yes, they won. Good for them on that, it's the ultimate goal. That doesn't mean they were a better team or even as good, just that they had the most luck. That team was outplayed in more than half of their games, and having Kuznetsov and Tarasenko doesn't change that. A team that is consistently outplayed can't be expected to continually win. The best team doesn't always win, and that was the case in 2011 among other years. Canada beats them at least 7 times out of 10 (Sweden would too), but obviously they lost the one that counted most.

We both view it through biased eyes, but it sure looked to me like the Russians were the better team in the Gold Medal game. Canada had nothing much going for it in the first period, but ended up with a 2-0 lead on goals that a competent goaltender would have stopped (especially the 2nd, which was simply a goaltender error). The 3rd Canadian goal was a really nice play, which probably would have been scored on anybody, but it caused Shikin to be pulled in favor of Bobkov. After that, the rink was totally tilted in Russia's favor, and they poured the pressure on the Canadian net for the rest of the game. I'm sure Canada would have loved to have reversed the momentum, but they just couldn't stop the Russians. I have the game archived, and that is how I see it.

 

[cska78]

Unbelievable outcome! I didnt have any faith and they played both best games vs the swedes. Should have won both times, but I take the semifinal win anytime! Good luck to us tonight!

 

[BlitzSnipe]

That is not true. This does not apply on southern swedes. But northern parts of Sweden (above Stockholm) is still very much "jante". Must be the isolation and lack of influence from other countries.

And just as BlitzSnipe thought, "jante" isn't something that younger swedes are really aware of now with all the social media and stuff, everybody thinks that everybody's life and achievements in life is better than they really are.

Very interesting to find out about this kind of stuff on a hockey board . But thanks for the cultural information. Basically, you can trace that kind of thinking to Christianity, since pride was considered one of the 7 deadly sins. But I guess this might be the reason so much heavy metal is produced in Scandinavia - perhaps a backlash against that kind of thinking?

 

[BlitzSnipe]

Not vastly superior (that's your addition) but better. Say what you will about the lineup, but in the games that were played they performed well. Their level of play throughout the tournament was better than Russia's, but Russia got the bounces needed to win. Good for them, but all I can see is you reading the names on the Canadian roster, ignoring the relatively unimpressive Russian roster, and pointing to the scoreboard. A team can get hot and win three in a row. Even Edmonton won three in a row this year. It doesn't make them automatically the best team. Russia rode two hot periods (third against Canada, last half of the third against Sweden) to a tournament win. They won fair and square (reffing issues against Sweden aside) but I doubt they could replicate that result.

How many of Russia's games do you remember from that tournament?



I know what matters is who won, I never disagreed. I would much prefer my team win than actually be the best team. What you are saying is irrelevant, as best team does not always mean winning team.

Here's an example, since logic seems to be poor for some people: In the 1993 WJC, Sweden was clearly the best team. They dominated the tournament and outplayed every team they went up against. Canada had a good tournament, getting good bounces in some tight games and playing well, outside of a loss to the Czechs. When Canada and Sweden played, Sweden completely outplayed Canada, but Manny Legace had the game of his life and Canada pulled it out and won the tournament. I'm glad that Canada was the winner, but there is no doubt that Sweden was the better team and was the best team in the tournament. This is hockey, and the best team often loses.



Show me where I said that Russia was "badly" outplayed in that game? You can't. Russia was outplayed by Sweden twice, clearly outplayed by Canada the first time they met and again until Canada collapsed, marginally outplayed by Finland in the quarterfinals. They still won. Congratulations to them on winning, but it doesn't automatically make them the best team. The world isn't black and white, and the winning team isn't always the best team. I've already sad that Sweden played the best in that tournament, I guess that's another old excuse for Canada oh wise one.

Dude, nobody is saying that Russia is the best team - most of the time, people here are saying that Canada is the best team. We'll see which team is the best tonight, at least in 2015. The game will show us.

 

[BlitzSnipe]

Not vastly superior (that's your addition) but better. Say what you will about the lineup, but in the games that were played they performed well. Their level of play throughout the tournament was better than Russia's, but Russia got the bounces needed to win. Good for them, but all I can see is you reading the names on the Canadian roster, ignoring the relatively unimpressive Russian roster, and pointing to the scoreboard. A team can get hot and win three in a row. Even Edmonton won three in a row this year. It doesn't make them automatically the best team. Russia rode two hot periods (third against Canada, last half of the third against Sweden) to a tournament win. They won fair and square (reffing issues against Sweden aside) but I doubt they could replicate that result.

How many of Russia's games do you remember from that tournament?



I know what matters is who won, I never disagreed. I would much prefer my team win than actually be the best team. What you are saying is irrelevant, as best team does not always mean winning team.

Here's an example, since logic seems to be poor for some people: In the 1993 WJC, Sweden was clearly the best team. They dominated the tournament and outplayed every team they went up against. Canada had a good tournament, getting good bounces in some tight games and playing well, outside of a loss to the Czechs. When Canada and Sweden played, Sweden completely outplayed Canada, but Manny Legace had the game of his life and Canada pulled it out and won the tournament. I'm glad that Canada was the winner, but there is no doubt that Sweden was the better team and was the best team in the tournament. This is hockey, and the best team often loses.



Show me where I said that Russia was "badly" outplayed in that game? You can't. Russia was outplayed by Sweden twice, clearly outplayed by Canada the first time they met and again until Canada collapsed, marginally outplayed by Finland in the quarterfinals. They still won. Congratulations to them on winning, but it doesn't automatically make them the best team. The world isn't black and white, and the winning team isn't always the best team. I've already sad that Sweden played the best in that tournament, I guess that's another old excuse for Canada oh wise one.

Saying 'the best team often loses', is, imo, a way of creating an 'excuse' for a losing team or for making oneself feel better about one's own team, who may have lost. There are cases, for eg. the recent Russia-Sweden game, where Russia seemed to look better, but the result in the end was a 1 goal win for Sweden, with 1 goal not being counted for Russia. If Russia comes out in the 3rd and scores 5 against Canada, you can't say Canada was the better team. The better team is the one who wins gold. 'What could've' or should've been are methods of psychological escape, imo.

 

[NyQuil]

Often when the "best team" loses it's because the opposing goalie puts on a clinic.

Well, I'm one of those people that counts the goalie as a member of the team.

In my mind, the best team always wins.

That's what makes them the "best" team - delivering victory when it really matters, whether it's a single game, or four games out of seven, or over an entire season - whatever the winning formula happens to be.

Fulfilling the on-ice requirement for victory is the best objective measure for determining that.