GDT: Sweden (2) vs. Canada (5) • Semifinals • Jan. 4 • Part 3

[Cellee]

Sorry, I still don't get how Speers hold (when Strome scored on 4 on 4) was a bogus call. Can anyone post it here again? That was as blatant of a hold as it could get. Swedish defender takes his hand off his stick and pushes him down to the goalie. Like if that isn't a penalty, I don't know what is.

Not trying to argue about officiating, but seriously...

You are equally pissed about the too many men call on Sweden going uncalled as well I am sure.

Reffing is subjective. Unfortunately.

 

[Matte99]

Great game! Kudos to the Canadian team that got the game where they wanted and showed off their excellence along the boards and in front of the net. Refs made a two bad calls that resulted in goals for Canada but that's how it can go. Monten need to figure out how to play against these mad dog forchecking Canadians for next year.

 

[Fossy21]

Except it's not true. Having one or two elites among 7 or 8 is not "matching". Just compare bottom pairings and 4th lines of the national teams...

I specifically said they're not close at the forward position, 4th line is irrelevant.
As for bottom pairings, it's closer than you think. Especially if you're building an actual team, not a fantasy one.

 

[Cellee]

I specifically said they're not close at the forward position, 4th line is irrelevant.
As for bottom pairings, it's closer than you think. Especially if you're building an actual team, not a fantasy one.

4th line is not irrelevant when it is stacked.

 

[Quality Oil]

If the refs called everything that game we would have had nearly 20 minutes of penalty time for each team, it was a chippy game for sure.

 

[Fossy21]

You are equally pissed about the too many men call on Sweden going uncalled as well I am sure.

Reffing is subjective. Unfortunately.

Biggest difference being that was with 8 seconds left of a period, when the puck was nowhere near a dangerous position and had little business going there. Should it have been called? Of course.

All of Canada's goals came right after huge gaffes from the refs. Good on Canada to capitalise, it wasn't even unfair with the way they dominated possession. It's just not as simple as "It didn't affect the game" or "It went both ways".

4th line is not irrelevant when it is stacked.

Irrelevant to my argument about Sweden's strength at D, not to the team. Yikes.

 

[Novak Djokovic]

You are equally pissed about the too many men call on Sweden going uncalled as well I am sure.

Reffing is subjective. Unfortunately.

No, I didn't bring the Barzal hook until people started complaining of other calls. I let it go.

Great game! Kudos to the Canadian team that got the game where they wanted and showed off their excellence along the boards and in front of the net. Refs made a two bad calls that resulted in goals for Canada but that's how it can go. Monten need to figure out how to play against these mad dog forchecking Canadians for next year.

I don't think two 4 on 4s with a whole new play after whistle is the ref's fault. A ref assisting on a goal against Canada in the Czech game, however...

 

[trilobyte]

If the refs called everything that game we would have had ~20 minutes of penalty time for each time, it was a chippy game for sure.

Geez, this was a normal high stakes WJC game.
The officials are not going to get even close to everything right. Like you say, if they called them all, it would have been all special teams.

 

[NyQuil]

There are two certainties in life.

1. Canada will beat Sweden.

2. The refs are against Sweden.

 

[Cellee]

Biggest difference being that was with 8 seconds left of a period, when the puck was nowhere near a dangerous position and had little business going there. Should it have been called? Of course.

All of Canada's goals came right after huge gaffes from the refs. Good on Canada to capitalise, it wasn't even unfair with the way they dominated possession. It's just not as simple as "It didn't affect the game" or "It went both ways".

Huge gaffs? Like blatant penalties?

Come on.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I specifically said they're not close at the forward position, 4th line is irrelevant.
As for bottom pairings, it's closer than you think. Especially if you're building an actual team, not a fantasy one.

4th line is irrelevant? The 10-12th best forwards your team can produce are irrelevant? You specifically said "at any position" as well.

How about real teams. Most recent best on best; WCH.

Canada:
Bouwmeester
Burns
Doughty
Muzzin
Pietrangelo
Vlasic
Weber
(missing: Subban, Keith)

Sweden:
Ekholm
Ekman-Larsson
Hedman
Hjalmarsson
Karlsson
Lindholm
Stralman

(missing: Kronwall)

Please compare.

 

[Cellee]

Biggest difference being that was with 8 seconds left of a period, when the puck was nowhere near a dangerous position and had little business going there. Should it have been called? Of course.

All of Canada's goals came right after huge gaffes from the refs. Good on Canada to capitalise, it wasn't even unfair with the way they dominated possession. It's just not as simple as "It didn't affect the game" or "It went both ways".



Irrelevant to my argument about Sweden's strength at D, not to the team. Yikes.

Defence is all 5 guys.

Deal with that

 

[NyQuil]

Did you guys win the World Cup of Hockey?

 

[Fossy21]

4th line is irrelevant? The 10-12th best forwards your team can produce are irrelevant?

How about real teams. Most recent best on best; WCH.

Canada:
Bouwmeester
Burns
Doughty
Muzzin
Pietrangelo
Vlasic
Weber
(missing: Subban, Keith)

Sweden:
Ekholm
Ekman-Larsson
Hedman
Hjalmarsson
Karlsson
Lindholm
Stralman

(missing: Kronwall)

Please compare.

****ing reading comprehension guys. Come on.

I said Sweden can match Canada D for D. I then stated it's impressive when a nation of Sweden's size (and more importantly dramatically fewer active hockey players) can match the land who likes to pride itself in hockey being "their game" in a position (this case D-men). 4th line is irrelevant to this discussion, not to the ****ing game.

And yes, I would take the Swedish lineup in that case. You obviously wouldn't, if you're ranking Hedman at barely top 10, and that's fine.

Defence is all 5 guys.

Deal with that

I specifically started the discussion with "Yes, Sweden is lacking at the forward position".

And as for Defence being all 5 guys, that kind of undermines your argument since you guys would most likely be filling out the fourth line with fantasy type players, whereas Sweden in reality has to rely on actual role players. Canada would still dominate possession in any scenario, so they would be much more efficient defensively anyway (case in point, the Olympics which was possibly the greatest team ever for team defence, even though I would prefer Sweden at this point). Just irrelevant to discussion about D-men.

 

[Captain Bowie]

****ing reading comprehension guys. Come on.

I said Sweden can match Canada D for D. I then stated it's impressive when a nation of Sweden's size (and more importantly dramatically fewer active hockey players) can match the land who likes to pride itself in hockey being "their game" in a position (this case D-men). 4th line is irrelevant to this discussion, not to the ****ing game.

And yes, I would take the Swedish lineup in that case. You obviously wouldn't, if you're ranking Hedman at barely top 10, and that's fine.

Maybe if you kept your story straight.

A nation with so few players to choose from being able to match the behemoth that is Canada on any position is impressive.

I specifically said they're not close at the forward position, 4th line is irrelevant.
As for bottom pairings, it's closer than you think. Especially if you're building an actual team, not a fantasy one.

 

[Fossy21]

Maybe if you kept your story straight.

Maybe if you didn't misinterpret me as if intentionally.

"At any position" as in "at any one position". Why would I contradict myself instantly like that?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Maybe if you didn't misinterpret me as if intentionally.

"At any position" as in "at any one position". Why would I contradict myself instantly like that?

Dunno.

Bottom line is, you can play the population argument all you want. It's a fun hypothetical I guess. I use it too, to tell all the whiners during the Olympics that complain that we don't win enough medals compared to the US in the summer Olympics to quite whining. But it's more to say "for our population, we are doing fine!" than to say "if we had 350 million people too, we'd dominate as well, so suck it America!".

However, it is just that, hypothetical. You guys are a hockey super power, I don't know why you are so hellbent on finding a way to show you are superior to Canada in some twisted way. It's kinda sad.