Spengler Cup
- Thread starter De Montreal
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
After every tournament that canada didn't win they are justifying here so hard how come they are best or should have win.
- Feb 24, 2017
- 5,094
- 2,866
The people on this site will complain about everything.
I wish Canada won but no big deal they didn’t. The young opponent played big in a big game and were led by their show stealing young goalie. It was cool to see.
I hope to attend next year!
I wish Canada won but no big deal they didn’t. The young opponent played big in a big game and were led by their show stealing young goalie. It was cool to see.
I hope to attend next year!
What 3? And what is best on best? Only when Canada win? 2014 and 2010 were wins but nothing convincing there and Canada were awful in 2006 and lost in 2005.
TheBeastCoast
Registered User
The World Cup in 2016 was best on best....be it a bad tournament it was best on best. There is also no bonus points for how you win by the way. You win....or you don't win. And for 3 straight best on best Canada has won. I am not sure what can be argued here?
How about 1979 and 2005?
And just a quick history lesson here.
1972= Canada was missing WHA stars, Kharlamov injured, World Champions Czechs were not there= no best on best.
1974= Canada was missing NHL stars and no Czechs again.
1976= USSR sent a B team= no best on best
1979= USSR and Canada had their best players but no other countries represented.
The 1980's Canada Cups are decent but all Canadian home advantage with rinks crowds referees.
1991= USSR sent a B- team.
1998= Russia was missing Zubov Mogilny among others for various reasons.
So unlike in soccer where you have a lot of real international tournaments, hockey almost never had, but international hockey produced a lot of great moments, bragging by clowns who were not there and don't know history is just trolling.
Last edited:
Best on best? The World Cup it's in soccer. What they do in nhl is simply an All Star Game for nations. $ and no real effort by players.
I rate the Spengler more than the nhl "world cup".
2010 and 2014 great, in 2018 Canada refused to enter, that's not everyone's else problem.
TheBeastCoast
Registered User
I don't really give a damn about what Soccer does to be quite honest. They are entirely different sports. This really doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive though so have a good one.
TheBeastCoast
Registered User
Canada didn't refuse to enter? What are you talking about lol. The NHL isn't Canadian....It is an American business.
I see 2 wins in the last 9 World Juniors.
About the same in the last 10 World Seniors.
2 gold in the last 4 olympics and silver in the big 2005 "Olympics" Worlds
That's very good but no domination unlike some troll posted earlier.
And no country at the moment is great. Russia was miles better before, Sweden were better before, Czechs are terrible these days, USA have been better. Canada is winning ugly in a weak era.
About the same in the last 10 World Seniors.
2 gold in the last 4 olympics and silver in the big 2005 "Olympics" Worlds
That's very good but no domination unlike some troll posted earlier.
And no country at the moment is great. Russia was miles better before, Sweden were better before, Czechs are terrible these days, USA have been better. Canada is winning ugly in a weak era.
TheBeastCoast
Registered User
The NHL doesn't represent Canada or USA....They are an American business. There is no "Canada decided not to come." That is a ridiculous twisting of reality.
At least know you probably understand international hockey history a bit better! Remember best on best is at least 66% fantasy...
International hockey at the moment is like what tennis will be in a few years without Federer Nadal and Djokovic= WEAK
Best on Best is the equivalent in Canada hockey folklore of "World Champions" for NFL and MLB teams...
RED ARMY EAST
Registered User
Seriously, what are you talking about?
The Spengler is a European club team tournament , that includes a Team Canada, comprised of mainly Canadians playing in DEL,Swiss,Swe elite leagues etc....
It's not a "best on best", so how do you rate it higher than the World Cup of Hockey ??????
That's like rating the last Olympics (no NHL participation) or the IIHF World Championship higher than the World Cup also.
Because I don't rate the nhl all star game for nations aka world cup at all, my rating for it is 0. Nobody rates this, the players themselves don't care, Canada even forgot the trophy in the room in 2004. Nobody except Canada the host brings their best team and If i'm not mistaken Canadians also refused to play, Roy in 1996 I think for example?
So even if the Spengler is 1/100 it's still better than 0!
IIHF World Championship is like the IIHF U20, a lot of great players but missing some, just like almost every so call "best on best" ever.
Real best on best= soccer
So even if the Spengler is 1/100 it's still better than 0!
IIHF World Championship is like the IIHF U20, a lot of great players but missing some, just like almost every so call "best on best" ever.
Real best on best= soccer
Do you consider the 2005 World Championship when everyone was available but some refused to go to be best on best in your logic?
Because if you don't then you can also erase almost all international competitions that's ever been from your definition of best on best.
Because if you don't then you can also erase almost all international competitions that's ever been from your definition of best on best.
RED ARMY EAST
Registered User
So, How do you rate the Sochi Olympic Games for example???
"Best on best" in Russia. Do you rate the Spengler higher than this??
The NHL All Star is a meaningless exhibition game, why is this being discussed in the first place.
How does this compare to an international tournament?
World Cup or Olympics with NHL participation is the only true "best on best" senior hockey tournament that exists, period, end of story!
"Best on best" in Russia. Do you rate the Spengler higher than this??
The NHL All Star is a meaningless exhibition game, why is this being discussed in the first place.
How does this compare to an international tournament?
World Cup or Olympics with NHL participation is the only true "best on best" senior hockey tournament that exists, period, end of story!
Sochi 2014 Vancouver 2010 Torino 2006 were best on best yes absolutely, the tournament format was bad but that's another story. 1998 Russia was missing several top players and the same in 2002.
World Cup is the NHL All Star Game for NATIONS. It means nothing to most everyone including the players, just watch the games you will see 50% effort at best. It's a big cash grab for the nhlpa. The Canada Cup albeit a real homer tournament was 150% effort and classic games.
But back to the question what is your take on the 2005 Worlds in neutral venue when everyone had everyone available?
Because if you don't consider it best on best then you can't consider almost all the tournaments in history...
Hockey at the moment is the equivalent of tennis without Federer Nadal Djokovic= weak.
Canada is very good but not great, has been better before.
Russia is average, has always been much better.
Sweden is good but were better in the Forsberg years.
Finland is decent but lacking depth.
Czech are awful, never been worst.
Usa are decent, were way better before.
Don't brag too much about winning ugly in a weak era.
We had some "real" best on best in the 21st century but most tournaments were average and the quality of hockey was nowhere near, nor the rivalries that they were before...
World Cup is the NHL All Star Game for NATIONS. It means nothing to most everyone including the players, just watch the games you will see 50% effort at best. It's a big cash grab for the nhlpa. The Canada Cup albeit a real homer tournament was 150% effort and classic games.
But back to the question what is your take on the 2005 Worlds in neutral venue when everyone had everyone available?
Because if you don't consider it best on best then you can't consider almost all the tournaments in history...
Hockey at the moment is the equivalent of tennis without Federer Nadal Djokovic= weak.
Canada is very good but not great, has been better before.
Russia is average, has always been much better.
Sweden is good but were better in the Forsberg years.
Finland is decent but lacking depth.
Czech are awful, never been worst.
Usa are decent, were way better before.
Don't brag too much about winning ugly in a weak era.
We had some "real" best on best in the 21st century but most tournaments were average and the quality of hockey was nowhere near, nor the rivalries that they were before...
Last edited:
Rob
Registered User
I have no problem with it being considered a best vs best tournament. It was the one good thing about the NHL being locked out.
