Who do you root for in the Olympics?

[Whale Mingo]

With the discussion in the other thread about the NHL possibly not going to the next Olympics it reminded me of how much crap I take from co-workers every Olympics about rooting for Canada in the hockey tournament.

Being from the US I understand their point of view, but I root for Canada because most of my favorite players play for Canada and, quite frankly, a lot of players I dislike play for the US. I get the argument that you root for the logo on the front and not the name on the back, but in this case I spend the entire NHL season rooting against most of the players on Team USA so why should I turn and root for them over my favorite players?


On the other side of the coin, I'd like to hear from residents of Canada about who they root for given that the majority here have such hate for Crosby. Do you root for him when he pulls on the Team Canada sweater and suspend your hatred of him or do you just kind of ignore that he's there?

Click to read more...

 

[Whaleafs]

Besides Canada I usually pull for Finland to do well. Also usually pull for the underdogs, Latvia, Belarus, Norway etc depending on who's relegated.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

With the discussion in the other thread about the NHL possibly not going to the next Olympics it reminded me of how much crap I take from co-workers every Olympics about rooting for Canada in the hockey tournament.

Being from the US I understand their point of view, but I root for Canada because most of my favorite players play for Canada and, quite frankly, a lot of players I dislike play for the US. I get the argument that you root for the logo on the front and not the name on the back, but in this case I spend the entire NHL season rooting against most of the players on Team USA so why should I turn and root for them over my favorite players?


On the other side of the coin, I'd like to hear from residents of Canada about who they root for given that the majority here have such hate for Crosby. Do you root for him when he pulls on the Team Canada sweater and suspend your hatred of him or do you just kind of ignore that he's there?

Man, nhl fans are so weird.

 

[StreakingRed]

I root for Canada. It doesn't matter to me which players are on which team. It's always Go Canada.

 

[MullerBrotenVerbeek]

I'm American, I cheer for Team USA.

 

[tigervixxxen]

Whoever plays from the Avs. If there aren't any then I guess USA.

 

[Flyerfan52]

Always #1 Canada.
#2 USA - our neighbor
#3 Finland - they feel closest to NA style than any of the other Euro teams

I've rooted for them in that order for decades.

 

[Urbanskog]

The true underdogs and Finland, in that order to be honest.

 

[RC51]

Look, everyone will root for their own country team, but the better question would be, once you team is gone, who do you root for then?
watch the politics come raging in on this one.

 

[ottawa]

I root for Canada. It doesn't matter to me which players are on which team. It's always Go Canada.

Same, the team could be filled with 12 Marchand's up front and I'd still root for team Canada because it's my country.

 

[rfournier103]

Team USA. No question.

As a Bruins fan, sometimes it's felt a little weird rooting for some of the guys playing for Team USA; but it's only once every four years and I was an American before I was ever a Bruins fan.

When Team USA is not playing, the other team I root for is Canada. Partly because of my Canadian heritage, and partly because many of my favorite players (past and present) suit up for Canada.

I always want the US to win, but even if Canada beats them, I'm happy for Canada. It's not the same, but I don't get angry.

 

[Fragmuffin]

Czechs and Slovaks.

Then when they get eliminated I side with the Swedes and Finns

 

[Bear12Good]

Russia and Canada

 

[tony d]

Canada for me. Also Sweden largely because of Erik Karlsson.

 

[1Gold Standard]

Canada for the Gold. but I prefer Canada v USA finals in every tournament, just b/c it's the most entertaining brand of hockey to be found.

 

[Fragmuffin]

Canada for the Gold. but I prefer Canada v USA finals in every tournament, just b/c it's the most entertaining brand of hockey to be found.

Nothing beats a good ol Finland Sweden rivalry

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Finland.

 

[xxxx]

Canada of course, then the US.

 

[Kalzu]

Finland first and foremost, the only national team I can identify with.

I also have a sweet spot for Slovakia, very much because they've had success despite being the underdog to the biggest hockey nations.

And of the other big hockey nations, I cheer for the USA. I just like the USA in general, and I also think US national team's success would be good promotion for the NHL in its home market. Though in the NHL I tend to support the Canadian teams.

 

[HankHenry]

Canada and then whatever underdog team goes on a run. I have a soft spot for Switzerland, they seem to have good games against Canada and are usually good for an upset victory against one of the big teams.

 

[Nino33]

Canada (being Canadian) and then the top hockey nations (Russia, Sweden, Finland).....I'm not a fan of the lower ranked teams

I usually find Olympic hockey pretty boring in terms of the actual hockey (especially on international ice), and the underdog/lower ranked teams play the most boring hockey of all against top teams

I'd actually prefer a tournament with fewer teams - I think 6 would be good (the 4 nations mentioned above + 2 more), with everybody playing everybody once in a round robin and then playoffs for the top 4 or top 3

I'd like to hear from residents of Canada about who they root for given that the majority here have such hate for Crosby. Do you root for him when he pulls on the Team Canada sweater and suspend your hatred of him or do you just kind of ignore that he's there?

I've seen such posts on the HFBoards, but I myself have no hate for Crosby, nor do I actually personally know anyone who does

 

[HankHenry]

Canada (being Canadian) and then the top hockey nations (Russia, Sweden, Finland).....I'm not a fan of the lower ranked teams

I usually find Olympic hockey pretty boring in terms of the actual hockey (especially on international ice), and the underdog/lower ranked teams play the most boring hockey of all against top teams

I'd actually prefer a tournament with fewer teams - I think 6 would be good (the 4 nations mentioned above + 2 more), with everybody playing everybody once in a round robin and then playoffs for the top 4 or top 3



I've seen such posts on the HFBoards, but I myself have no hate for Crosby, nor do I actually personally know anyone who does

Am I the only person who wants to see more teams? I think it's awesome when a team like Belarus gets the opportunity to knock off a team like Sweden. I think it's boring when it's only ever the same teams over and over. The only way the so called "lesser nations" can improve is if they're given an opportunity. Once given the chance who knows what can happen.

 

[Nino33]

Am I the only person who wants to see more teams? I think it's awesome when a team like Belarus gets the opportunity to knock off a team like Sweden. I think it's boring when it's only ever the same teams over and over. The only way the so called "lesser nations" can improve is if they're given an opportunity. Once given the chance who knows what can happen.

In my scenario I figured there's competition for the last 2 spots...if Belarus works their way up to that level then they'd be in the group of 6.

I consider such upsets a fluke result, pure luck, and therefore pretty much meaningless...I don't think such teams/nations actually improve just by being given the opportunity...the games watching the lesser nations play defensively and pray for a miracle are the most boring IMO

But I don't see my scenario ever being what happens in the Olympics/Worlds, where having such lesser nations involved is the norm (my favourite hockey tournaments were the early Canada Cups); my strongest reason for not wanting the higher number of lesser nations involved is I think it'd be better if everyone played everyone, instead of "group play"


Obviously not everyone has the same viewpoint, and that's 100% OK

 

[HankHenry]

In my scenario I figured there's competition for the last 2 spots...if Belarus works there way up to that level then they'd be in the group of 6.

I consider such upsets a fluke result, pure luck, and therefore pretty much meaningless...I don't think such teams/nations actually improve just by being given the opportunity...the games watching the lesser nations play defensively and pray for a miracle are the most boring IMO

But I don't see my scenario ever being what happens in the Olympics/Worlds, where having such lesser nations involved is the norm (my favourite hockey tournaments were the early Canada Cups); my strongest reason for not wanting the higher number of lesser nations involved is I think it'd be better if everyone played everyone, instead of "group play"


Obviously not everyone has the same viewpoint, and that's 100% OK

I can appreciate your viewpoint that group play limits the amount of games between the top teams. But to me the games with those teams are much better when there's something on the line in an elimination game. My ideal would be a sixteen team tourney using iihf seeding, four groups of four play each other with the top two in each group advancing. Elimination games from there.
You would be in favor of a pre tournament to qualify the final two teams? If so how many teams play in that tournament?

 

[Nino33]

I can appreciate your viewpoint that group play limits the amount of games between the top teams. But to me the games with those teams are much better when there's something on the line in an elimination game. My ideal would be a sixteen team tourney using iihf seeding, four groups of four play each other with the top two in each group advancing. Elimination games from there.

I don't like this myself, as I'd want everyone to play everyone once (I really don't like it mattering so much what group you're in, or one fluke game having the significance it would in such a scenario)

The best setup the NHL ever had IMO was the 21 team NHL where everyone played everyone 4 times (2 home/2 away) and then for the playoffs every round it was the top seed versus bottom seed, 2nd best against 2nd from the bottom, etc

I think everyone playing everyone is the closest we can get to a real competition, and anything else has the rules/setup playing to much of a role IMO

You would be in favor of a pre tournament to qualify the final two teams? If so how many teams play in that tournament?

I honestly hadn't thought it out that far HaHa but I wouldn't be against it (and I wouldn't really care much how many teams were in such a qualification tournament, as they won't be in any gold medal game regardless)

To be honest it doesn't make much difference to me...my whole hockey watching life (since 1976) it's been the same teams that battled for the top

I don't watch the lower teams play (even against Canada) as I find the games really boring and would rather do other things.....the reality for me is when I was younger I'd watch all the hockey I could, now I don't as overall I find modern hockey (international or NHL) boring; the NHL regular season is meaningless to me and I'll watch some of the playoffs but by later in May/June I almost always choose to enjoy the weather outside/do other things