Toggle sidebar

So who was the SECOND best team?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
hitmen19 said:
and Canada was missing Giroux, stamkos, Tavares and thornton.

I love how the injury excuses are coming out. Well Canada didn't have lemiux, sakic, and kariya in nagano, our best 3 players that year. and in Torino, Canada didn't have Crosby, staal and niedermeyer. I guess Canada should use that as an excuse. but we don't, we don't need to
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point?

Sweden doesn't have the depth that Canada has. Three of our top centers were gone. We're absolutely weaker without them. Are you trying to debunk that simple fact by pointing out that Canada had injuries too or what? It's not en excuse. It's a fact.
 
Switzerland. Hands down. We only lost to Sweden and Latvia (we even beat them once). Both were heavily doped. :sarcasm:
 
The Americans played better than any other team against the eventual gold medal winner. Tournaments like this one are not so clear cut as gold, silver and bronze, 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
 
I think the US could have beat Sweden if they played against each other, but would be really close without Sweden's injuries.
 
ManOfSteel said:
I think the US could have beat Sweden if they played against each other, but would be really close without Sweden's injuries.
Click to expand...

You think there is a big difference in doing , I think Sweden would have beaten USA fairly easy all games I saw the US only played well against Bad teams .
 
Dontdive said:
I'm talking about the mens side, obviously.

I say the U.S. Nevermind that bronze medal game they didn't give a crap about, other than that the only other game they didn't look very good in was against Canada, and even then they only lost by one goal.

They're the only team I felt that (at times) could truly stay with Canada, I didn't see any other team being able to do that.
Click to expand...
I thought we just had a tournament to determine the ranking. Have I dreamed all of these games for almost two weeks?
 
hudson bay rules said:
The Americans played better than any other team against the eventual gold medal winner. Tournaments like this one are not so clear cut as gold, silver and bronze, 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
Click to expand...

Everyone sucked against canada, except latvia who is number two by this standard. Could be argued that usa was below russia, since they would have lost with reasonable rules.
 
DrunkPerrinFan said:
Everyone sucked against canada, except latvia who is number two by this standard. Could be argued that usa was below russia, since they would have lost with reasonable rules.
Click to expand...

Canada had ~60 shot's against Latvia . They did suck actually. An extremely hot goalie with 5 other pseudo goalies just kept it from being 5-1. It can happen in a short tourney like this. Make it a best of seven and the US would've give Canada a better run than any other team there.
 
One team might beat team A but not be able to beat team B. Not every team copes well with the way the other team is playing.

Finland probably would have challenged Canada more in the final, despite the Finns loss to Sweden.
 
Also russia never played against canada. Wouldnt be far fetched to say that they would have had the best chance to breach canada's defence with individual skill. Basing rankings on one game against the tournament winner is a poor way to go about it.

Finland's game against canada was our worst in the tournament, our khl players were asking for autographs for most of it, and rask still almost stole it. On a better day he would have
 
Think the team of Candian refs. was the second best one. Seriously. Like many Canadians have pointed out, they did flawless work out on the ice. Astonishing
 
I'd rank Team Finland as the 2nd best time.


They deserved to be in the Gold Medal Game but couldn't achieve it without healthy Rask.
 
Domen said:
I say it basing on how much chances you allowed for Latvia and Canada and how many unnecessary mistakes the players have made. They the way the swedes play, they should not have had so many mistakes and fails in defense. Against Latvia, Sweden dominated only when they had powerplay and they had powerplay a lot of times in that game, only that's why the score was what it was. Against Canada they lost in every single area, there was literally nothing in the final at what Sweden excelled. For Canada, Sweden was probably the next easiest opponent after Austria.
Click to expand...

I blame Pär Mårts. Very bad gameplan.
 
Lehtonen is an awesome goalie aswell, we didnt lose because of goaltending, we lost because sweden outplayed us.
 
Are some of you guys for real? No Finland was not the second best team, nor was the US.
 
Canada's performance was not a barometer for how their opponents would perform against each other. For what it's worth, KHL players had more success against Canada than NHL players. Means nothing. Finland was quite clearly in the top 3 based on performance and Sweden beat them. That makes Sweden number 2.
 
I think its a tossup between Sweden and the US for second best team.

Canada never shows well against weak teams. It wasn't until Friday that I knew we had a kickass team that was well coached.
 
jbean said:
I agree, but it's also kind of true. Canada's b team would very possibly be favourites against Sweden or America's a teams.
Click to expand...

Yes, Canada's b team would be a great team too (Probably the favourite), I'm not denying it at all. I just think it's pretty pointless speculation to say that they WOULD have won the tournament too, because you never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom