So who was the SECOND best team?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
This isn't asking who was silver... its asking who was the second best. USA would have beat Sweden in the Semis with the team they iced today.

Canada dominated sweden more.
 
Are you kidding me?? They didn't even medal and looked HORRIBLE the last two games, when it mattered most.

Canada, Sweden, Finland........Gold, Silver, Bronze. TRUE hockey nations.

And that's how it SHOULD be.

Just like in most tournaments, the U.S. beat up on the weak teams and then read too much into it. They were the 4th best team - and could have easily slipped to 5th.
 
Sweden. They just had horrible injuries that screwed up the Final. When you have to mix every line for the final you lose the continuity. I am not saying that Bäckström would have won Sweden the game but I am pretty sure that the powerplay that was before this game the best in the tourney would have been better.
 
and we were missing backstrom, sedin, franzen and zetterberg.

and mårts with some weird roster chooses. like jimmie over some good nhler and put him on first line in the final.

and tallinder over hedman..

and benching oel..
 
Henrik stepped in to accept Daniel's medal.

Obviously Sweden was the 2nd best team.
 
Last edited:
I have seen 2 Sweden games and in both of them they were quite awful. It's fair to say that the second best team was Sweden, because they have won silver. But honestly, some other teams impressed me way more and would have given a much tougher fight for Canada in final.
 
Most swedish players underperformed except EK, Nyquist and Hagelin.

Landy, Berglund, Steen, Loui Ericsson, D Sedin, OEL all played like shadows of themselves. The only players who came into this tournament looking good was Nyqvist and Zetterberg. EK is still recovering from his achilles injury. Alfie is Alfie, but when the whole top 6 are as slow as him without being 40+ then you know you are in trouble.
 
Are you kidding me?? They didn't even medal and looked HORRIBLE the last two games, when it mattered most.

They didn't look "horrible" against Canada. They only lost by one goal! And they put up considerably more of a fight against Canada than anyone else did.

That's what really counts here. It's obvious Canada was the class of the tournament here, and that everybody facing them was going to bring their best effort no matter what.

The Americans did that better than anyone.
 
I know you are just fishing for the 'USA' answer, but I say it was Sweden. They dominated the competition along the way, and just had a few key guys out for the gold medal game that could have made it more competitive.

USA dominated Czech and Slovakia, two teams who had poor tournaments, Slovenia who punched above their weight, and they won a skills competition against Russia. Once they faced teams that played good team defense, they were sunk.
 
Sweden.

As someone else said, US was a ****** goal peg away from losing to all three top teams they faced. They deserved their fourth place finish.

Could the US have beaten Sweden if they played each other for gold? Maybe, anything possible in a tournament where the talent is as close as it is here. But when the talent is this close, that's precisely when actually showing up and performing to your potential matters. The US didn't.
 
They didn't look "horrible" against Canada. They only lost by one goal! And they put up considerably more of a fight against Canada than anyone else did.

That's what really counts here. It's obvious Canada was the class of the tournament here, and that everybody facing them was going to bring their best effort no matter what.

The Americans did that better than anyone.

Ummmm... No.

American fans are always trying to push their team to the front of the line - whether they deserve it or not. This time they definitely don't deserve it.
 
They didn't look "horrible" against Canada. They only lost by one goal! And they put up considerably more of a fight against Canada than anyone else did.

That's what really counts here. It's obvious Canada was the class of the tournament here, and that everybody facing them was going to bring their best effort no matter what.

The Americans did that better than anyone.

Canada won USA in regulation. Finland took Canada to overtime and actually scored against them...

edit: for clarification... Sweden deserved the silver over Finland for sure.
 
Last edited:
sweden beat finland...a finland who beat usa and russia.

why cant people just admit it.

Rask didn't play that game, did he? Out with the flu..

USA, Latvia and Norway lost with less than Sweden;) And Canada was closer to winning this game 6-0 that Sweden was to score. Sweden had such an easy way except for the semi where Rask didnt play.
 
I have seen 2 Sweden games and in both of them they were quite awful. It's fair to say that the second best team was Sweden, because they have won silver. But honestly, some other teams impressed me way more and would have given a much tougher fight for Canada in final.

why you think this is becuse the way we play the game. if we had more energy you would say something else.

as I said 100 times: we need someone like ted nolan, sean simpson etc.

or maybe mats lusth.
 
They didn't look "horrible" against Canada. They only lost by one goal! And they put up considerably more of a fight against Canada than anyone else did.

That's what really counts here. It's obvious Canada was the class of the tournament here, and that everybody facing them was going to bring their best effort no matter what.

The Americans did that better than anyone.

Yes, they did!! They got shutout in their last two games, to embarrass themselves & their nation.

PATHETIC.
 
canada

usa was the best team, nevermind that semi final & bronze game they didn't give a crap about
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad