Toggle sidebar

What was Lemieux/Bourque thinking about when they watched the '96 World Cup?

Big Phil

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,172
What do you think Lemieux and Bourque were thinking about when they watched the '96 World Cup and so Canada lose? Bourque as usual skipped out on the tournament and Lemieux while he was having back trouble missed it as well despite being the best in the world at the time and the fact that he came back for another season with Pittsburgh. Do you think they regretted it? With those two in there Canada doenst lose a game. Kariya, MacInnis, Francis and Roy were either injured or didnt receive an invite but what do you think the guys that chose not to come thought of the loss?

Also what was Patrick Roy's thinking when he realized that Canada could win the Gold medal in '02 without him? Considering he "voluntarily" dropped out of the running.
Click to read more...
 
Bourque, as usual?

He played for team Canada in 1981, 1984 and 1987's Canada Cup. He also played for the NHL all Stars in Rendezvous 87.

In 1996, at age 35, with a million hours of ice time under his belt (and bruises to match) he chose to concentrate upon the upcoming Boston season and upon spending time with his family.

Hopefully the family time turned out better than the Bruin's season did.

I think the whole national pride thing works better with kids in Junior than it does with grown men who have moved closer to another stage in their lives.

Somehow I don't think that having Blake, Stevens, Coffey, Niedermayer, Foote, Desjardins, etc was that huge a step backwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barbu
brianscot said:
Bourque, as usual?

He played for team Canada in 1981, 1984 and 1987's Canada Cup. He also played for the NHL all Stars in Rendezvous 87.

In 1996, at age 35, with a million hours of ice time under his belt (and bruises to match) he chose to concentrate upon the upcoming Boston season and upon spending time with his family.

Hopefully the family time turned out better than the Bruin's season did.

I think the whole national pride thing works better with kids in Junior than it does with grown men who have moved closer to another stage in their lives.

Somehow I don't think that having Blake, Stevens, Coffey, Niedermayer, Foote, Desjardins, etc was that huge a step backwards.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it.

Edit: But yeah, Doctorarc is right. Bourque was better than any other defenseman since Orr, and would have been a huge upgrade with his legendary outlet passes and sick offensive talent.
 
Last edited:
brianscot said:
Bourque, as usual?

He played for team Canada in 1981, 1984 and 1987's Canada Cup. He also played for the NHL all Stars in Rendezvous 87.

In 1996, at age 35, with a million hours of ice time under his belt (and bruises to match) he chose to concentrate upon the upcoming Boston season and upon spending time with his family.

Hopefully the family time turned out better than the Bruin's season did.

I think the whole national pride thing works better with kids in Junior than it does with grown men who have moved closer to another stage in their lives.

Somehow I don't think that having Blake, Stevens, Coffey, Niedermayer, Foote, Desjardins, etc was that huge a step backwards.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your reasoning for Bourque not playing, I can't help but disagree with the "not a huge step backwards" part.

It's Ray Freaking Bourque. You don't think he'd have been quantum leap over Niedermayer in '96?
 
That I know of, Bourque only turned down Team Canada after age 32 and he only did it--when available--in 1993 (Worlds), 1996 (World Cup), and 1997 (Worlds).

Bourque was there for Team Canada at the 1998 Olympics. Everyone probably remembers that because he was picked for that infamous shootout.
 
Big Phil said:
What do you think Lemieux and Bourque were thinking about when they watched the '96 World Cup and so Canada lose? Bourque as usual skipped out on the tournament and Lemieux while he was having back trouble missed it as well despite being the best in the world at the time and the fact that he came back for another season with Pittsburgh. Do you think they regretted it? With those two in there Canada doenst lose a game. Kariya, MacInnis, Francis and Roy were either injured or didnt receive an invite but what do you think the guys that chose not to come thought of the loss?
Click to expand...

I think even with Bourque and Lemieux the Americans still win, it was their tournament, almost their whole team was in it's prime and Richter was unbelievable.
 
My reasoning about Bourque was this:

Would Canada have been a better team with Ray Bourque? Certainly.

Would his presence automatically make Canada the winner of the tourney? Not necessarily.

Canada didn't lose that tournament as much as the U.S. won it.

The U.S. forward contingent was at its peak in 1996 (certainly aided by Brett Hull and a very strong Adam Deadmarsh).

The difference in that tournament was goal scoring in the clutch, hello Brett Hull and Tony Amonte, and Mike Richter's superior play.

Yes, Ray Bourque (even the 35 year old version) would have been a huge asset, but the U.S. actually beat Canada once in the round robin and then 2/3 in the finals. That's pretty decisive.
 
roy always struck me as a seperatist. i think he only accepted being no1 in 1998 nagano for that reason...he was chosen as no1 and marty as backup. it was a competition thing rather than a national pride thing. along with some comments he's made during his younger years, i have the biography written by his father (which also happens to be under a very seperatist publishing company "libre expression" and was refused to translate it into english) and i dunno...that's just what i think. it's a very touchy subject here, people don't really randomly talk about their political views but i just get that feeling from him. so ya, i think he may have chosen not to come.
 
Mario missed the 96 cup due to his son didn't he?.

Correct me if I am wrong, but his son was born that year and had some complications and serious health issues that summer?.
 
trenton1 said:
That I know of, Bourque only turned down Team Canada after age 32 and he only did it--when available--in 1993 (Worlds), 1996 (World Cup), and 1997 (Worlds).

Bourque was there for Team Canada at the 1998 Olympics. Everyone probably remembers that because he was picked for that infamous shootout.
Click to expand...

Bourque turned down the '91 Canada Cup too
 
lasainteflanelle said:
roy always struck me as a seperatist. i think he only accepted being no1 in 1998 nagano for that reason...he was chosen as no1 and marty as backup. it was a competition thing rather than a national pride thing. along with some comments he's made during his younger years, i have the biography written by his father (which also happens to be under a very seperatist publishing company "libre expression" and was refused to translate it into english) and i dunno...that's just what i think. it's a very touchy subject here, people don't really randomly talk about their political views but i just get that feeling from him. so ya, i think he may have chosen not to come.
Click to expand...

Well... What would be the problem about that? A man has the right to think what he wants to...
 
MXD said:
Well... What would be the problem about that? A man has the right to think what he wants to...
Click to expand...

Not a problem but a possible explanation.

I dont think it's a separatist thing more like an ego thing. Ever since his youth Roy has rarely been the starter for Canada. Funnily enough in 1998 I think the arguement could be made that he didnt deserve to be the clearcut starter. While in 2002, I think he is far and away the man who should be the starter.
 
They probably noted how ridiculously one-sided the team groupings were. 3 out of the tournaments' best three or four teams were pitted against each other in the North American group, with Russia, Canada, and the USA on one side (all of which made it to the semis), and only Sweden (from semifinal teams) in the infinitely weaker European group.

Russia (#3 in the NA group) ended up beating Finland (#2 in the Euro group) 5-0 in the crossover match, and that was with a minor leaguer in net!

Still, it was a very memorable tournament. The best in the world from all the great hockey nations.

John LeClair impressed me the most. Here are the top 10 scorers (courtesy of wiki):

Leading scorers
Rk Player GP G A Pts PIM

1 Brett Hull 7 7 4 11 4
2 John LeClair 7 6 4 10 6
3 Mats Sundin 4 4 3 7 4
4 Doug Weight 7 3 4 7 12
5 Wayne Gretzky 8 3 4 7 2
6 Brian Leetch 7 0 7 7 4
7 Paul Coffey 7 0 7 7 12
8 Keith Tkachuk 7 5 1 6 44
9 Theoren Fleury 8 4 2 6 8
10 Sergei Fedorov 5 3 3 6 2
 
Lemieux is my favorite player ever and I was really disappointed that he chose not to play in the tournament. Same for 1991, although he had a valid reason that time because he had just played a grueling playoffs and won the Cup and needed some time to heal. Or sober up. But I was hoping he would play in 96. At the time I think he cited his back as the reason. As another person noted, his son was born that previous spring and there were complications so maybe that had something to do with it. But I think he regretted this later on because when he did play in the 2002 Olympics he said something to the effect of 'you only have so many of these opportunities and you have to take advantage of them.' He seemed to be making up for lost time there. With Mario and Bourque it's hard to see Canada losing that tournament in 1996 but the U.S. was really, really stacked.
 
That quite the necro, I would imagine a lot of mixed emotion.

There can always bit a little devil on the shoulder telling them, see did not win without me and shamefully happy (someone that got not pick like a Kessel will feel less shameful about it), always a regret not being there win or loose.

Regret not being there because it care-thing it matter a lot in some way that Canada win... maybe for the 2002 olympics at home, but the 1996 world cup. It is important Canada do well and not have 2006 happen maybe, loose to a good team in the final, probably not a big deal to them (or they would be there)
 
Holy necro bump indeed, 16 years!! o_O

But to the point; Meh, it's just the world cup. The Olympics is one thing, but I doubt anyone who ever skipped a WC looks back and thinks; 'Man... I really wish I had played in the NHL’s bastardized version of a best-on-best tournament.' 🥴
 
  • Like
Reactions: vadim sharifijanov
MadLuke said:
Canada do well and not have 2006 happen maybe,
Click to expand...
Are we really still dwelling about this?? Canada won 3 out of the 5 best-on-best Olympic tournaments. No other country has won the ultimate hockey tournament more than once, the U.S. & Russia never! Imo that's still domination especially when we consider that hockey isn’t basketball, there’s more parity overall and any low scoring sport is naturally subject to greater variance in result and higher probability of upsets, especially in single-game elimination tournaments. Sure, there were some disappointments and mistakes were made, but the overall track record is undeniably impressive. In hindsight no one should be unsatisfied with the overall results.
 
TheStatican said:
Canada won 3 out of the 5 best-on-best Olympic tournaments. No other country has won the ultimate hockey tournament more than once, the U.S. & Russia never!
Click to expand...

This is only true if you carefully select what "the ultimate hockey tournament" means. I count the 1996 World Cup of Hockey; you don't. Our conclusions therefore differ.
 
I think I'd give Bourque a pass on 1996. I mean, he was 36 and pretty banged-up. Would have been better if he'd been there, but after 17 NHL seasons playing 30 minutes a game, if he needs some time off, I can understand it.

Lemieux's absence confused me at the time. When 1996-97 began, the narrative was "it's the first start-of-season in 5 or 6 years that Lemieux has been fully healthy!" So then I was wondering: If he was fully heathy, why didn't he play at the World Cup?? But if, as someone said, his son was born that off-season, then I can totally understand it (the more so if his son --- as some reported --- had some early health issues).

Bourque was missed, but Mario's absence was the killer. Lindros hadn't won anything yet, and Gretzky / Coffey / Messier were past or passing their primes. There wasn't the Superman-of-Hockey guy that everyone could line-up behind, as there had been in past tournaments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom