What I'm saying is that it's not really an objective statement to claim that Canada was the best prior to 2010 having won one Olympic gold the previous 58 years. They might be the best now, but to judge the past through that is simply anachronistic.
The Real National Team Ranking
- Thread starter ViD
- Start date
- Status
What I'm saying is that it's not really an objective statement to claim that Canada was the best prior to 2010 having won one Olympic gold the previous 58 years. They might be the best now, but to judge the past through that is simply anachronistic.
I think it's pretty obvious that Canada ranks 1st and USA 2nd.
Both countries have by far the strongest national hockey pyramids and incredibly deep line-ups.
Sweden has improved a lot over the last 10-15 years and it comfortably makes the top3.
The 4th place is questionable. On the one hand Finland has had more success and if we go only by that, ignoring quality, depth and the fact that chance plays a significant role in short tournaments with single-round elimination play-offs, then I guess Finland should take the 4th place.
If we take into account actual quality and depth, Russia should probably take the 4th place and Finland/Czech Republic would split the 5th/6th place.
Switzerland takes the 7th place over Slovakia and Germany.
Both countries have by far the strongest national hockey pyramids and incredibly deep line-ups.
Sweden has improved a lot over the last 10-15 years and it comfortably makes the top3.
The 4th place is questionable. On the one hand Finland has had more success and if we go only by that, ignoring quality, depth and the fact that chance plays a significant role in short tournaments with single-round elimination play-offs, then I guess Finland should take the 4th place.
If we take into account actual quality and depth, Russia should probably take the 4th place and Finland/Czech Republic would split the 5th/6th place.
Switzerland takes the 7th place over Slovakia and Germany.
What's the point of this? Do we seriously need any stupid ratings? IIHF rating is just for seeding purpose. It doesn't have any importance for big hockey countries, but only for lesser ones (automatic qualifications in Olympics). This rating haven't got even small relevance at all.
What are you talking about?
We have simply won 4 out of last 5 best-on-best tournaments, what's so hard to understand? According to what other thing do you want to judge who the best is, in any sport, than according to the tournaments where every team plays the absolute best players?
It's far too simple. Maybe too much for some people.
What are you talking about?
We have simply won 4 out of last 5 best-on-best tournaments, what's so hard to understand? According to what other thing do you want to judge who the best is, in any sport, than according to the tournaments where every team plays the absolute best players?
It's far too simple. Maybe too much for some people.
You've won the argument, THF - what little argument there is. Best to let it go.
Johno
Deserved it Tour - the sloppy seconds
- Oct 30, 2013
- 5,242
- 3,185
So you mean succeeding with even the C-team is not depth?
But USA consistently not making it to semis means having deep line-ups? If they really did have good, deep player pools, why don't they do better in the tourneys?
In no way does US rank higher than the two Nordics.
Even your own league was dominated by European and American players back then, I guess you're old enough to remember that. And if you're not, that'd explain a lot.
Russia has beaten Canada on multiple occasions in the last few years including beating their close to Olympic team on Canadian soil
You sent your C team, they sent their F/G/H team. That's a pretty significant difference that you're ignoring there.
The US doesn't care about IHWC.
Finland and Sweden were better than the U.S in the olympics as well.
The only people who rank USA ahead of either one, are those who only follow the NHL and name recognition is the only criteria in determining who has the best team. Actual results don't matter to these people, it's about how they FEEL, not how things actually are.
Dismissing what Sweden and Finland has accomplished in recent years would destroy the legitimacy of any ranking. They deserve to be 2 and 3. The order you choose is up to you.
how are people saying russia comes remotely close to us lol, they literally have like 6 good players
Yup. For some reason this thread has become a mess because we are arguing the obvious.
A couple of years ago in the NHL 4 of the top 6 scorers were Russian. So if they do have only 6 good players, at least they're properly good then.
Seriously though their previously strong player development is not quite what it used to be anymore, and that's starting to show.
Actually, that surprised me. Most of the stop scorers thru the last decade and a half have been Canadian. So, I looked at the Top Scorers in that year and, like most years, 16 of the Top 30 were Canadian - and 28 of 50.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,807
- 15,470
Considering Canada couldn't send anything remotely resembling its optimal roster until 1998, and considering Canada performed quite well when given the opportunity to send its best players in a few tournaments prior to 1998, your point is irrelevant. By no means would Canada have won every Olympic gold medal prior to 1998 if allowed to send all of its best players, but there is no chance that there would have been a drought since 1952. In fact, Canada would have waltzed to gold every year until at least the late 1960s when the Soviets emerged as an elite nation, closely followed by Czechoslovakia. After that, in the worst case scenario Canada would have gone into each tournament as a very strong contender with the USSR and Czechoslovakia.
... do you not remember Canada winning Olympic gold on Canadian and Russian soil? With actual Olympic teams?
I laugh about this whole thing. Real national teams only exist every four years at the Olympics. The WC features a random collection of players from countries with differing levels of player acceptance. Honestly, this is really laughable. If we want to compare Canada and Russia, let's at least wait until Russia can develop a single elite defenceman or something. Canada cuts better defenceman than the best Russia has to offer... that is a massive gap. Maybe some centres beyond Malkin and Datsyuk so that the likes of Anisimov isn't actually representing them at a meaningful tournament would help. Russia picks Nichushkin to play on their Olympic team... that's nice... Canada cuts his far superior linemate Seguin. The gap between Canada and Russia is so large that it isn't worth discussing. This isn't the Soviet era when Canada and USSR were extremely close in international competition and there was a legitimate question as to who was better. Canada has won four of the last five international best on best competitions. Russia has won zero. None. Russia hasn't even been to the finals during that span. Performing well in a tournament where Russian players seem to be by far the most likely to accept an invitation is not particularly impressive. Winning an actual best on best tournament is. If an when Russia ever wins one of those it can be a valid discussion. Until then, Russia cannot be considered even close to Canada. Russia is not a legitimate rival for Canada anymore unfortunately.
I agree absolutely, my only point being that there has rarely been a period of such hegemony in hockey at all. At the moment Canada is very dominant, probably the most dominant anyone has been in the post-Soviet era. But when you look at the 1990's or 2000's it's very diverse, Canada had their years, the Czechs had their ones, as did the Swedes and the Russians too. The Slovaks, the Finns and the Americans did well to challenge as well, I think it's extremely arrogant and even more wrong to claim that it would have been an era of Canadian (or any other) dominance.
Finally, we agree. Canada is currently more dominant than any team since the USSR came over and started playing games. I believe Canada will have at least another half dozen years of dominance - whether (or not) we have the tournaments (2016 World Cup, 2018 Olympics?) to prove it...
- Russia's best players are getting old fast and they have few, if any, players coming up to replace their best.
- The U.S. has not had a strong NHL draft since 2007.
- Sweden's best offensive players are old and the team will see a big transition in the coming years.
- Finland has not produced top NHL players (non goalie) in a long while.
Minus a Hasek like goalie performance, Canada should be Golden/dominant until at least 2020.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
