Toggle sidebar

Olympics: What does your nations roster look like if NHLers don't go?

  • 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
Silky Johnson said:
I guess the exclusion of the top two hockey countries best (NHL) and second best (AHL and other) players increases your odds of winning a meaningless medal in a mediocre tournament. Yay for you!
Click to expand...

Nah, that's not how it works. You don't get to be best "on paper". You earn best status on the ice, in head to head competition.

If, without NHL'ers, Canada and USA ends up behind the likes of Slovakia and Latvia, then they can rightfully be called being worse on the international stage.

On paper, we can only discuss "quality of NHL'ers", which is an entirely subjective matter. To be the world's best, officially, you have to actually win gold.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rcknrollkillnmachine, Eisen and BMann
Elvs said:
Nah, that's not how it works. You don't get to be best "on paper". You earn best status on the ice, in head to head competition.

If, without NHL'ers, Canada and USA ends up behind the likes of Slovakia and Latvia, then they can rightfully be called being worse on the international stage.

On paper, we can only discuss "quality of NHL'ers", which is an entirely subjective matter. To be the world's best, officially, you have to actually win gold.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be rude but this is literally one of the silliest things I have ever read.

First, look at Canada's record in senior best on best. We are lapping the field and it isn't even close.

Canada could beat Germany and Brazil in football if you watered down their teams enough. It just wouldn't mean anything.

Canada and the US have a distinct disadvantage as our second tier players are also not allowed to come as well.

Quality of NHL player IS NOT ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE! There are these things called "statistics", which are completely OBJECTIVE. You can use these "statistics" to make comparisons.

To be the best you need to beat the best. Canada and then the US NHLers are absolutely the best, and you can't beat them at this tournament so it is pointless.

I will assume you are a troll do not actually believe that Canada and the US are anywhere near Latvia and Slovakia at hockey...
 
Silky Johnson said:
I don't mean to be rude but this is literally one of the silliest things I have ever read.

First, look at Canada's record in senior best on best. We are lapping the field and it isn't even close.

Canada could beat Germany and Brazil in football if you watered down their teams enough. It just wouldn't mean anything.

Canada and the US have a distinct disadvantage as our second tier players are also not allowed to come as well.

Quality of NHL player IS NOT ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE! There are these things called "statistics", which are completely OBJECTIVE. You can use these "statistics" to make comparisons.

To be the best you need to beat the best. Canada and then the US NHLers are absolutely the best, and you can't beat them at this tournament so it is pointless.

I will assume you are a troll do not actually believe that Canada and the US are anywhere near Latvia and Slovakia at hockey...
Click to expand...

The stats themselves are objective, and comparisons could be made objectively, but conclusions are still drawn subjectively. You couldn't even objectively prove that Connor McDavid is the best player in the world, but subjectively, the general consensus says that he is.

Similarly, most people would agree that Canada (in best on best) would assemble the strongest team on paper. But there's no evidence that they'd win a tournament they (NHL players) don't even take part in. Thus, they can't officially be deemed the best.

Again, I'm talking about ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE here. Right now there's no such thing as international best on best hockey, and I don't live in a pretend world of "what could have been".

Officially, world rankings are (as they should be) based on results, and not by people looking at rosters on paper.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowthrone
Elvs said:
The stats themselves are objective, and comparisons could be made objectively, but conclusions are still drawn subjectively. You couldn't even objectively prove that Connor McDavid is the best player in the world, but subjectively, the general consensus says that he is.

Similarly, most people would agree that Canada (in best on best) would assemble the strongest team on paper. But there's no evidence that they'd win a tournament they don't even take part in. Thus, they can't officially be deemed the best.

Again, I'm talking about ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE here. Right now there's no such thing as international best on best hockey, and I don't live in a pretend world of "what could have been".

Officially, world rankings are (as they should be) based on results, and not by people looking at rosters on paper.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on player evaluations. Just because we don't agree on objective measures for the best player doesn't mean there aren't any.

Of course you cannot prove canada would win any unplaced tournament. You could however say that they would be the statistical favourite through objective measures.

I know there is no best on best hockey this year and I am not taking about what "could have been". My Point is that the Olympics without NHLers is a boring and pointless third tier hockey tournament. I don't give a crap about IIHF rankings. The IIHF is a useless organisation that unforgivably holds the WC's during the world best leagues playoffs. That alone disqualifies them as a reasonable organisation. If you like it great, just don't try and sell it for something it is not.
 
Elvs said:
The stats themselves are objective, and comparisons could be made objectively, but conclusions are still drawn subjectively. You couldn't even objectively prove that Connor McDavid is the best player in the world, but subjectively, the general consensus says that he is.

Similarly, most people would agree that Canada (in best on best) would assemble the strongest team on paper. But there's no evidence that they'd win a tournament they don't even take part in. Thus, they can't officially be deemed the best.

Again, I'm talking about ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE here. Right now there's no such thing as international best on best hockey, and I don't live in a pretend world of "what could have been".

Officially, world rankings are (as they should be) based on results, and not by people looking at rosters on paper.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on player evaluations. Just because we don't agree on objective measures for the best player doesn't mean there aren't any.

Of course you cannot prove canada would win any unplaced tournament. You could however say that they would be the statistical favourite through objective measures.

I know there is no best on best hockey this year and I am not taking about what "could have been". My Point is that the Olympics without NHLers is a boring and pointless third tier hockey tournament. I don't give a crap about IIHF rankings. The IIHF is a useless organisation that unforgivably holds the WC's during the world best leagues playoffs. That alone disqualifies them as a reasonable organisation. If you like it great, just don't try and sell it for something it is not.
 
This NHL exclusion definitely favors the Russians most. I feel like most of KHL's NHL level talent is Russian, they could play in the NHL but want to play in their home country instead. While other countries have bunch of undrafted and/or nhl/ahl rejects.

Finland also gains from this, well coached hard working defensive style, few new names but mostly players familiar with the system and each other.

While Canada and USA suffer the most, I think even their outside NHL squads will be competitive, especially if they include some of their u20 stars.

I get why everyone is bummed, my interest has dropped about 80%, but I'll still watch as much as I can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast and Czechboy
I have these names for team Finland :

Harri Säteri (KHL)
Juho Olkinuora (KHL)
Juha Metsola (KHL)

Sami Vatanen (NL
Ville Pokka (KHL)
Valtteri Kemiläinen (KHL)
Oliwer Kaski (KHL)
Topi Niemelä (Sm-Liiga)
Atte Ohtamaa (Sm-Liiga)
Mikael Seppälä (Sm-Liiga)

Markus Granlund (KHL)
Sakari Salminen (KHL)
Teemu Hartikainen (KHL)
Harri Pesonen (NL)
Valtteri Filppula (NL)
Miro Aaltonen (KHL)
Niko Ojamäki (KHL)
Iiro Pakarinen (KHL)
Hannes Björninen (KHL)
Marko Anttila (KHL)
Leo Komarov (KHL)
Juuso Pärssinen (Sm-Liiga)
Aatu Räty (Sm-Liiga)
Joakim Kemell (Sm-Liiga)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Czechboy
GeorgeLeafer12 said:
I have these names for team Finland :

Harri Säteri (KHL)
Juho Olkinuora (KHL)
Juha Metsola (KHL)

Sami Vatanen (NL
Ville Pokka (KHL)
Valtteri Kemiläinen (KHL)
Oliwer Kaski (KHL)
Topi Niemelä (Sm-Liiga)
Atte Ohtamaa (Sm-Liiga)
Mikael Seppälä (Sm-Liiga)

Markus Granlund (KHL)
Sakari Salminen (KHL)
Teemu Hartikainen (KHL)
Harri Pesonen (NL)
Valtteri Filppula (NL)
Miro Aaltonen (KHL)
Niko Ojamäki (KHL)
Iiro Pakarinen (KHL)
Hannes Björninen (KHL)
Marko Anttila (KHL)
Leo Komarov (KHL)
Juuso Pärssinen (Sm-Liiga)
Aatu Räty (Sm-Liiga)
Joakim Kemell (Sm-Liiga)
Click to expand...

You mean't Manninen?
 
senswon said:
Yeah, they dont need to be there. Millionaire athletes aren't working class lolol
Click to expand...

You are aware the amateur restriction was to keep the equivalent of millionaires as the only participants? The rule was there because they didn't want anyone who played sport for money to compete, just upper class people who could afford to take time off from work, if they did any.
 
Silky Johnson said:
Of course you cannot prove canada would win any unplaced tournament. You could however say that they would be the statistical favourite through objective measures.
Click to expand...

You could say that, but no one gets recorded in the history books for "would've had the best team, if only...". Winning an Olympic gold, with or without NHL players, is still a very meaningful thing. Certainly for the players involved.

I'm not here trying to sell anything. No one here is suggesting that KHL players or SHL players are as good as NHL players. But still, in the grand scheme of things, players in Europe are professionals and capable of playing entertaining hockey. Otherwise, arenas in the domestic leagues over here would be empty.

And for the record, the IIHF and the World Championships have been around for about 100 years, way before the NHL seasons were 82 games + playoffs and progressed into june. Pretty much any other league, in any other sport (I guess the "big 4" in the U.S. being the exception) make schedules that gives players room to take part in international events. But in ice hockey, the NHL has outgrown the sport, and does whatever it wants - including hosting international events where national teams aren't even allowed to pick what players they want.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BlizzardSloth
Eye of Ra said:
Something like this perhaps:

Mathias Brome - Anton Lander - Carl Klingberg
Linus Omark - Fredrik Olofsson - Pontus Holmberg
Anton Bengtsson - Leon Bristedt - Dennis Everberg
Emil Larsson - Gustav Rydahl - Jacob De La Rose
Max Friberg, Jesper Olofsson

Henrik Tömmernäs - Christian Folin
Lawrence Pilut - Lukas Bengtsson
Christian Djoos - Niklas Hansson

Lars Johansson
Magnus Hellberg
Adam Reidenborn

Not a sexy forward corp but all of them done good everytime they play for Tre Kronor. Lots of grit.
Click to expand...
No Oscar Lindberg who is having the 6th best PPG in the KHL this season and no Tim Heed who's also having a great season in the KHL.

Meanwhile you have Leon ''Diver'' Bristedt, Emil Larsson (lol), Gustav Rydahl (lol) and Jacob De La Rose (LOL) on your roster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom