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

[jigglysquishy]

And 91.

(Not 16 or 25.)

I struggle with 1991.

The Soviets basically sent a B team because of the political turmoil. Injuries and declines are life. But intentionally leaving off many great players because of a political situation is a weird spot.

No Fetisov. No Makarov. No Bure. No Konstantinov. No Mogilny. No Krutov. No Fedotov. It's not a Crosby 2006 situation. It's a political interference to prevent defection.

 

[reckoning]

What about the 2005 World Championships? With no NHL, every country had their best available

 

[GMR]

Great bump.

Whatever happened to Big Phil? He used to be a regular here.

 

[Michael Farkas]

What about the 2005 World Championships? With no NHL, every country had their best available

The U.S. defense was...
Brett Hauer (not an NHLer)
Aaron Miller (low talent support d-man)
Jordan Leopold (depending on the old guys, he might have made it...?)
Andy Roach (not an NHLer, was playing in DEL)
John-Michael Liles (rookie NHLer, but fine)
Paul Martin (rookie NHLer, but fine)
Ryan Suter (0 NHL games at this point)
Hal Gill (low pairing defensive d-man)

Countries might have had their best available, but they certainly didn't utilize it.

Russia only brought 3 NHL d-men I believe (Kalinin, Karpovtsev, and Markov). No Gonchar, Zubov, Zhitnik, Tverdovsky, Yushkevich, etc.

With all due respect, Canada had Maltby, Draper, Mike Fisher at forward...

 

[The Panther]

I struggle with 1991.

Ha! I don't struggle with 1991. I was 15 then, and had growing interests outside of hockey, to put it mildly. The 1991 Canada Cup was thrilling to me, and was one of my best hockey memories as a fan, largely because the Canadian team had Gretzky (at his best... for the very last time) playing with Messier, Ranford, Smith, Coffey... it was a 1990 Oilers' re-union, with many other great players. Other favorites of mine from this era, like MacInnis, R. Courtnall, Robitaille, Graham, Larmer were important on that club, too.

(As for the lack of competition, I frankly didn't care!)

Everything about the tourney was perfect for me... until Suter ruined Gretzky's back.

 

[The Panther]

Pretty good overview of the 1996 World Cup for Team Canada... if a little spiteful:

 

[MadLuke]

One of the biggest upset in international hockey history seem quite overblown, they were favorite obviously, but not by much against the whole field (if they even were).

Not sure about arrogance cost them the world cup, an better American team won, how much arrogance would be left in them after losing to the US in the game pool qualifier and being 1-1 in the final series.

USA was +11 after the round-robin, Canada +1, US beat Russia 5-2, win game 2... Canada won a single game by more than 1 goal to a good team for the whole tourney.

Could have been too young, but it would be hard to pin point in what way they acted over-confident and that did cost them, they were playing against a Hull-Leclair-Leetch-Chelios filled team, their own teammates, not some amateur squad or Germany.

 

[Staniowski]

When I was watching the '96 World Cup (I also attended the QF and SF games in Ottawa), in hockey terms I liked the American team better than the Canadian team. That generation of American players was REALLY good. Young, fast, talented. They were a more cohesive unit than the Canadians. Certainly better defenseman and better wingers.

Canada was a bit disjointed. Still a little too reliant on Gretzky, Messier, Coffey. These guys were no longer good enough players to lead the team and ensure victory.

The US won 3 of 4 games against Canada, and the lone Canada win was from an Yzerman goal that was 10 miles offside.

Canada was missing Lemieux, Kariya, Bourque, and MacInnis...and it's possible they would've been the team's four best and most important players. They were big holes on the team.

But the US certainly shouldn't have been considered big underdogs, if underdogs at all. The '91 Team USA heralded a new exciting era in USA hockey, and the '96 team was ready for prime time.

The Americans were the better team.

 

[buffalowing88]

When I was watching the '96 World Cup (I also attended the QF and SF games in Ottawa), in hockey terms I liked the American team better than the Canadian team. That generation of American players was REALLY good. Young, fast, talented. They were a more cohesive unit than the Canadians. Certainly better defenseman and better wingers.

Canada was a bit disjointed. Still a little too reliant on Gretzky, Messier, Coffey. These guys were no longer good enough players to lead the team and ensure victory.

The US won 3 of 4 games against Canada, and the lone Canada win was from an Yzerman goal that was 10 miles offside.

Canada was missing Lemieux, Kariya, Bourque, and MacInnis...and it's possible they would've been the team's four best and most important players. They were big holes on the team.

But the US certainly shouldn't have been considered big underdogs, if underdogs at all. The '91 Team USA heralded a new exciting era in USA hockey, and the '96 team was ready for prime time.

The Americans were the better team.

I'm just jealous that you got to see them.