The Real National Team Ranking

[Canuckistani]

Well, Finland wasn't far from winning it last time.

And as I recall, Finnish fans were watching the Semi (2-1 vs USA) and Final (2-3, Canada) rather intently.

It was Finland's best result in a best-on-best event (matched in 2006). The fact that the IIHF wasn't involved didn't matter, nor should it.

 

[Yakushev72]

There is no interest in a World Cup outside of Canada. It is viewed as a Canadian coronation, and without another team that has established itself as a challenger in Sochi, who really wants to watch the same old thing.

 

[Urbanskog]

And as I recall, Finnish fans were watching the Semi (2-1 vs USA) and Final (2-3, Canada) rather intently.

Despite the fact that the match started on a Wednesday at 2 AM?

 

[SanDogBrewin]

Despite the fact that the match started on a Wednesday at 2 AM?

See that has been tough on North American hockey fans for watching some of the WCH games. Especially on the west coast.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

There is no interest in a World Cup outside of Canada. It is viewed as a Canadian coronation, and without another team that has established itself as a challenger in Sochi, who really wants to watch the same old thing.

Russia has participated but the results haven't been that great. The referring sure is better at the World Cup than IIHF tournaments.

 

[Canuckistani]

Russia > Canada against each other. Prove me wrong. You have the titles, but in face to face battles we have been a better side recently.

Who cares? Most of Russia's head-to-head wins vs Canada were at the WHC, of which any fan would trade several for one Olympic win.

At the Olympics, Russia won 2-0 in 2006, Canada won 7-3 in 2010, with no meeting in 2014. But here's what really counts: Canada 2 golds, Russia no medals.

It's the same story with Russia vs Slovakia, for that matter. At the WHC it's all Russia (5 straight wins). At the Olympics? Slovakia's won 2/3 vs Russia since 2006.

Russia can't get it done at the top level of play, simple as that. Everything else is a consolation prize.

 

[Canuckistani]

There is no interest in a World Cup outside of Canada. It is viewed as a Canadian coronation, and without another team that has established itself as a challenger in Sochi, who really wants to watch the same old thing.

I'll probably never a chance to see it happen, but I wonder what Russian fans would say if they actually won it.

Would they casually dismiss a best-on-best gold medal? I doubt it.

It's like the cocky Russian fan I used to work with: he'd always say the Canada Cup was a meaningless tournament because it was on small ice, not sanctioned by the IIHF, biased NHL refs, etc. Yet then he'd turn around and brag about how Russia slaughtered Team NHL and Canada in 1979 (6-0 at the Challenge Cup), and 1981 (8-1 Canada Cup) - both non-IIHF events on small ice.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

I can't fight this fight anymore. At the end of the day, we are not going to change the minds of the Russian fans and if they want to believe they are in the Top 3 (or Top 1), good for them.

 

[aphyro]

I can't fight this fight anymore. At the end of the day, we are not going to change the minds of the Russian fans and if they want to believe they are in the Top 3 (or Top 1), good for them.

They sure was when their name was Soviet Union and not Russia probably the best national hockey team ever... and i doubt we will see such a team ever again that dominating...

 

[ViD]

I can't fight this fight anymore. At the end of the day, we are not going to change the minds of the Russian fans and if they want to believe they are in the Top 3 (or Top 1), good for them.

Because it's the truth (top 3)

 

[Canuckistani]

Because it's the truth (top 3)

At best they're tied for third with Finland behind Canada and Sweden.

Russia obviously has talent, but their struggles in the Olympics really hurt them in terms of ranking.

Of the top-seven nations, only Russia and Slovakia haven't medalled in the past decade.

 

[Macman]

Why does the NHL have to create its own, unofficial tournament? Why can't it cooperate with the IIHF instead and work on developing the WCH?

In what way does the NHL not co-operate with the IIHF? It sends players to the worlds every year and the last five Olympics. There's nothing unco-operative about wanting a World Cup. Wouldn't you like to see a best-on-best every two years between the Olympics (big ice) and a World Cup? (small ice.) Sounds great to me.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

At best they're tied for third with Finland behind Canada and Sweden.

Of the top-seven nations, only Russia and Slovakia haven't medalled in the past decade.

Russia isn't better than the US, Sweden nor Finland.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Russia isn't better than the US, Sweden nor Finland.

Don't forget Canada.

 

[Lollipop]

How can the US or Canada do better when they have no control over the roster ?

With the NHL playoffs happening there is no control what roster you can send. If the WHC got pushed back 2 weeks then I could see you have a legit argument. The US had a good roster in 2013 because there was some luck in which players NHL teams didn't make the playoffs.

No country have control over the roster.

Still Sweden never complain. We still do well. If USA is a true #2 they should stop complain and get better results.

 

[Lollipop]

Sweden and Finland do not do well in all tournaments at all.


Finland had not won a gold at WJC for almost 20 years and does not medal at the WHC every year and Sweden won gold at the WJC for the first time just a few years ago and does not medal every year the WHC or olympics.

Why do you think they do well every year at all tournaments?

I think I said it wrong. Of course, we don't do well in every single tournament. I meant Sweden can do well in every major tournament. WHC, Olympics and WJC. We can do well in every one. USA don't do very well at WHC. That's the different. A true #2 don't excuses to bad results.

Actually Sweden won WJC gold already 1981. It's way before USA's first gold.

 

[Lollipop]

I like how you always conveniently cut out a year that would add a significant Medal, 2004 Gold Medal, to the US medal count in the WJC. That makes 3 Gold Medals for the US to 1 for Sweden since 2004.

But I already said that I think Sweden should be ranked higher than the US. You can't remove tournaments, that you don't approve of, to fit your argument. The World Cup is significant and it will be back.

I counted the latest 10 years: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Why should we count 11 years instead for 10? That make no sense.

 

[Macman]

seems like a bunch of excuses. While we failed to win best on best, we have definitely found a way to defeat Canada on all levels. 2006 Torino, 5 last WHC, several last WJHC and even a Super Series. The only win Canada has claimed was in 2010 Vancouver.

Russia > Canada against each other. Prove me wrong. You have the titles, but in face to face battles we have been a better side recently.

OK, I'll bite. Since you take it back to 2006, let's round it out to 2004 to make it an even 10 years and a reasonable sample size. I've gone through the results for Russia-Canada head to head in games at the Olympics, World Cup, world championships, world juniors, various junior summits, and U18 worlds for that period.

Olympics: One win each.
World Cup: Canada 1-0.
Worlds: Russia 4-1.
World Juniors: Canada 6-4.
2007 junior summit: 7-0-1 Canada.
2012 junior summit: Two games each (Canada wins series in OT tiebreaker).
Subway Series: 44-18 Canada.
U18 Worlds: Canada 5-2.

Overall record: Canada 67 wins, Russia 31 wins and one tie.

Be thankful I couldn't find head-to-head results for the Ivan Hlinka.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

No country have control over the roster.

Still Sweden never complain. We still do well. If USA is a true #2 they should stop complain and get better results.

Who's complaining from the US ? I simply stated a fact - the US can't send their best roster because of the NHL playoffs.

Not true Sweden complained about the Backstrom ruling and I have already stated that Sweden should be ranked higher.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I think I said it wrong. Of course, we don't do well in every single tournament. I meant Sweden can do well in every major tournament. WHC, Olympics and WJC. We can do well in every one. USA don't do very well at WHC. That's the different. A true #2 don't excuses to bad results.

Actually Sweden won WJC gold already 1981. It's way before USA's first gold.

Every country of the big 7 can do well in every tournament depending on the years.

That is hardly limited to Sweden and Finland.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I'll probably never a chance to see it happen, but I wonder what Russian fans would say if they actually won it.

Would they casually dismiss a best-on-best gold medal? I doubt it.

It's like the cocky Russian fan I used to work with: he'd always say the Canada Cup was a meaningless tournament because it was on small ice, not sanctioned by the IIHF, biased NHL refs, etc. Yet then he'd turn around and brag about how Russia slaughtered Team NHL and Canada in 1979 (6-0 at the Challenge Cup), and 1981 (8-1 Canada Cup) - both non-IIHF events on small ice.

I've had exactly the same experience around here.

Canada Cup 1981 and challenge cup are cited as proof of Russias greatness, all other Canada and world cups where Russia did not win are called illegitimate.

How can this be? Was the Canada cup in 1981 ad Challenge cup organized and sanctioned by the IIHF while the others were not?

Nope.


So, the difference is ONLY the result for Russia . If it was positive for Russia it counts, if it was negative it does not count.

Ah, what silly little games we can play as fans.

 

[Canuckistani]

So, the difference is ONLY the result for Russia . If it was positive for Russia it counts, if it was negative it does not count.

Ah, what silly little games we can play as fans.

Granted, all fans can adopt such self-serving double standards, yet I find most Canadians to be pretty consistent.

When it comes to events that we don't particularly value (namely the WHC) it isn't irrelevant only when we lose and then suddenly is of the utmost importance when we win. Canadians were pretty indifferent to gold in 1994, 1997, 2003, 2004 and 2007. No street parties, no bars crowded with fans for the final. It was nice to win but few Canadians seemed to care either way.

I hate to generalize (and I'm sure this doesn't apply to all Russians), but most Russian fans I've met have been shamelessly hypocritical when it comes to NHL-run events.

Of course ALL Soviet gold medals at the Worlds and Olympics matter - even when it was the best of the USSR beating up on no-name amateurs. But the only best-on-best hockey at the Canada Cup? Totally useless. It was on small ice, had no IIHF sanction and the refs were biased. The whole event was a meaningless fraud.

But not the final in 1981 and the 1979 Challenge Cup! No sir. That's when Russia showed those arrogant North Americans who was boss! Sigh...

 

[The Bad Guy*]

Granted, all fans can adopt such self-serving double standards, yet I find most Canadians to be pretty consistent.

When it comes to events that we don't particularly value (namely the WHC) it isn't irrelevant only when we lose and then suddenly is of the utmost importance when we win. Canadians were pretty indifferent to gold in 1994, 1997, 2003, 2004 and 2007. No street parties, no bars crowded with fans for the final. It was nice to win but few Canadians seemed to care either way.

I hate to generalize (and I'm sure this doesn't apply to all Russians), but most Russian fans I've met have been shamelessly hypocritical when it comes to NHL-run events.

Of course ALL Soviet gold medals at the Worlds and Olympics matter - even when it was the best of the USSR beating up on no-name amateurs. But the only best-on-best hockey at the Canada Cup? Totally useless. It was on small ice, had no IIHF sanction and the refs were biased. The whole event was a meaningless fraud.

But not the final in 1981 and the 1979 Challenge Cup! No sir. That's when Russia showed those arrogant North Americans who was boss! Sigh...

Yes, it does get tiring to see the attitude.

 

[xxxx]

If your country's best players care about World Cup, but you don't, then it's probably your fault, not the system's of the tournament fault.

Biased or bad referees, no cooperation with the IIHF, no games in Europe.....

If you think that your team can't win this tournament because of these excuses - whether it's Russia, Sweden, or Finland - have you ever thought about a possibility that your team may just not be good enough to win? Is here the problem? I mean, is really such a big surprise to see Canada winning most of the World Cups? I mean, we look pretty good on paper, you know. People say that Canada Cup is not relevant because only team that wins is Canada. Are olympics still relevant then? I mean Canada has won 3 times out of 4 since 2002.

 

[Jussi]

Despite the fact that the match started on a Wednesday at 2 AM?

The games were on Nelonen which wasn't available at the time throughout the country as the country hadn't gone full digital at the time yet (happened in 2008). IIRC the semifinal got somewhere around 300-400K viewers. Finland's games at the Worlds and Olympics got twice(triple if Finland made it to the final) as much on the national broadcasting company YLE's channels.