Why is Finland underrated year in year out

[Tyttojenvessa]

A third of the gold medals in the last decade has gone to the finns in u20. Three gold medals in ten tournaments, and on top of that the Finns have a lot of stellar prefomances to show for with a few 2nd and 3rd finishes.
The question is, why is Finland so underrated every year? Why isn't Finland considered a main contender for the finals every year? Is this a legacy of the cold war?

Click to read more...

 

[CanadienShark]

Because outside of those wins, they've had some really poor showings.

 

[Tripod]

I thought they were?

I think every year almost every person knows that the winner will be from one of the top 5 teams: Can, US, Russ, Fin, Swed.

What people ignore, is that Finland is usually better on the ice, than on paper. They usually play a great "team game" every year. Other teams, it's hit an miss.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Because there can be only two teams in final game and every year there is more than 2 better teams starting tournament.
Maybe Finland over achieves and some other teams under achieve which is kind of normal in sports. Otherwise medals could be sent via postal service and skip the games.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

A third of the gold medals in the last decade has gone to the finns in u20. Three gold medals in ten tournaments, and on top of that the Finns have a lot of stellar prefomances to show for with a few 2nd and 3rd finishes.
The question is, why is Finland so underrated every year? Why isn't Finland considered a main contender for the finals every year? Is this a legacy of the cold war?

In recent years, they were almost always "Gold or nothing", which could totally lead to the belief they were over achieving and had very little consistency. And while they won 3 gold medals in 10 tournaments, they also won a total of... 3 medals. This bronze medal was the first non-gold medal they won since 2006.

 

[joe dirte]

A third of the gold medals in the last decade has gone to the finns in u20. Three gold medals in ten tournaments, and on top of that the Finns have a lot of stellar prefomances to show for with a few 2nd and 3rd finishes.
The question is, why is Finland so underrated every year? Why isn't Finland considered a main contender for the finals every year? Is this a legacy of the cold war?

They're not underated. It's not "a few 2nd and 3rd" finishes. They've won a few gold, but they've more often finished 5th or worse.

I'm not really sure why they're typically so bad, and then manage to turn out a gold medal team every once in a whlie, but that's how they've been this last 10 years.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

We're almost never one of the best teams on paper. That's pretty much it.

 

[Fatass]

I don’t think the Finns are underrated. They should slot in as the number five hockey nation, right? Canada, US, Russia, Sweden, then Finland, no? There’s a group of five really good hockey nations. The Finns would be number five in that group, but they are way better than whichever country is sixth.

 

[Dingo]

They're not underated. It's not "a few 2nd and 3rd" finishes. They've won a few gold, but they've more often finished 5th or worse.

I'm not really sure why they're typically so bad, and then manage to turn out a gold medal team every once in a whlie, but that's how they've been this last 10 years.

Maybe due to their small population they tend to not produce the same depth of high end talent as the other four teams. But they produce well balanced teams that never say die, so when they have a crop with a couple of truly talented guys they leapfrog the often selfish and all offence Russians and the teamfirst and prickless Swedes (i say this as someone who has cheered for the Swedes for 20 years - they just dont ever have that prick player that plays over the line or wants to be selfish and do it alone no matter what). When they are one of the top three teams, the Finns have likely been a bit fortunate in their results but they are absolutely capable of beating anyone and believe in themselves as a unit no matter where the score is or who they are up against. Most years although they play with the same grit, they simply dont have enough talent.

 

[Dingo]

I thought they were?

I think every year almost every person knows that the winner will be from one of the top 5 teams: Can, US, Russ, Fin, Swed.

What people ignore, is that Finland is usually better on the ice, than on paper. They usually play a great "team game" every year. Other teams, it's hit an miss.

Literally nobody else has won Gold since Czechloslovakia split up. also, aside from a bronze medal for the Czechs and a bronze for the Slovaks, no country other than the big five has even medalled in 20 tournaments. The drop between those five and the rest is basically an unscalable cliff.

 

[Dingo]

Finland has the same population as Alberta. Its a testament to their passion for hockey that they are always considered top 5 at the bare minimum and 2nd or third going in to many tournaments on good years.

 

[julkki]

Because outside of those wins, they've had some really poor showings.

This is actually BS. Winners are remembered, hardly anyone remembers who was second or third after years pass.

 

[garbageteam]

I don’t think the Finns are underrated. They should slot in as the number five hockey nation, right? Canada, US, Russia, Sweden, then Finland, no? There’s a group of five really good hockey nations. The Finns would be number five in that group, but they are way better than whichever country is sixth.

I think that is the question posed, why they are #5 in that "Top 5" which also confuses me. I'm guilty of underrating them every pre-tournament too and did not peg them to get a medal this year. They've had more Gold than Russia/Sweden combined in the last 10 years in the WJCs and more hardware and success than the USA in the senior men's tournaments.

Finland has some claim, based on past decade's results, on being the number 2 or 3 hockey country.

 

[joe dirte]

Maybe due to their small population they tend to not produce the same depth of high end talent as the other four teams. But they produce well balanced teams that never say die, so when they have a crop with a couple of truly talented guys they leapfrog the often selfish and all offence Russians and the teamfirst and prickless Swedes (i say this as someone who has cheered for the Swedes for 20 years - they just dont ever have that prick player that plays over the line or wants to be selfish and do it alone no matter what). When they are one of the top three teams, the Finns have likely been a bit fortunate in their results but they are absolutely capable of beating anyone and believe in themselves as a unit no matter where the score is or who they are up against. Most years although they play with the same grit, they simply dont have enough talent.

often in cases like this, it also comes down to the structure of the development programs. I know the USNDP helps the US fare better at the world juniors, as they play together all year. the canadian junior leagues don't care about that. So, while the Canadian juniors may turn out better players, but not necessarily play as well together. They're geared toward player development, not team success. The way the Euro leagues work, I can imagine it's a bit erratic. The best kids play in the senior pros from age 17.... I have no idea what effect that may have.

And obviously, coaching makes a big difference.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Are they underrated? They seem to get quite a bit of credit for punching above their weight in most international tournaments (junior and senior).

 

[joe dirte]

This is actually BS. Winners are remembered, hardly anyone remembers who was second or third after years pass.

This isn't really about who is getting remembered and who isn't. In terms of player development, and general strength of the nation in hockey, you want 10 silvers over 2 golds, in a tournament like the world juniors.

If you're a fan, yeah, you want the two golds.

 

[notDatsyuk]

They prefer it that way - makes for better kalsarikannit!

 

[Fatass]

I think that is the question posed, why they are #5 in that "Top 5" which also confuses me. I'm guilty of underrating them every pre-tournament too and did not peg them to get a medal this year. They've had more Gold than Russia/Sweden in the last 10 years in the WJCs and more hardware and success than the USA in the senior men's tournaments.

Finland has some claim, based on past decade's results, on being the number 2 or 3 hockey country.

Oh, yes. In this tournament the Finns were better than expected for sure. But in a general hockey sense, they are the fifth best nation. I think for the Juniors these top five countries bounce around from year to year. Canada will likely be one of the best, but the other four countries of those five will move up or down depending on the year. This year, I agree, the Finns were better than anticipated.

 

[joe dirte]

Oh, yes. In this tournament the Finns were better than expected for sure. But in a general hockey sense, they are the fifth best nation. I think for the Juniors these top five countries bounce around from year to year. Canada will likely be one of the best, but the other four countries of those five will move up or down depending on the year. This year, I agree, the Finns were better than anticipated.

2010 - 5th place (Switzerland 4th)
2011 - 6th (Switzerland 5th)
2012 - 4th
2013 - 7th (ended up in the relegation tournament, behind Czechs and Swiss)
2014 - Gold
2015 - 7th
2016 - Gold
2017 - 9th place (narrowly beat Latvia to avoid relegation)
2018 - no longer place all teams - lost in quarters to czechs
2019 - Gold
2020 - 4th

some pretty horrendous finishes in there.

 

[CanadienShark]

This is actually BS. Winners are remembered, hardly anyone remembers who was second or third after years pass.

It's really not. Look at their placements.

 

[Eye of Ra]

I dont know. Its weird, yes.

For some reason, People still think in WJC that Sweden is better. The truth is that Finland is better than Sweden in juniors.

When it comes to seniors, its the same there. People count out Finland but say Sweden is a top nation. Fact is that Finland is on the same level as Sweden is in seniors and have been it for a while, atleast playing-wise and
results-wise but now also on the paper if you look at player-quality.

League-wise also Finland is underated. Liiga is on the same level as SHL and NLA for sure, its not some beer league and never have been.

 

[FinRanger]

Because good defensive and smart players are underrated in general. Finland usually have good structure and hard working players. Individual stats are mostly offensive oriented.

 

[FinPanda]

I prefer us to be an underdog. It makes us humble and makes us work better as a team. We have had some really bad results with teams where the names on the back of the jersey hasbeen bigger than the team. We definitely need some good coaching to really excel.

 

[Lambo]

A third of the gold medals in the last decade has gone to the finns in u20. Three gold medals in ten tournaments, and on top of that the Finns have a lot of stellar prefomances to show for with a few 2nd and 3rd finishes.
The question is, why is Finland so underrated every year? Why isn't Finland considered a main contender for the finals every year? Is this a legacy of the cold war?

It is too small country! As a result weak media with low widespread. For example, would have be GB exactly the same strengh like Finland, the media there and in US would recognise this much more.

 

[AvatarAang]

Because of people that make threads like this. Finland might not always have the flashiest players but they know how to play the game well and will always be a threat.