Why is Finland underrated year in year out
- Thread starter Tyttojenvessa
- Start date
-
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
Wouldn't that be the definition of being underrated?
I couldn't say with hockey, but all of the countries I have worked in/with, which should be at least 30, the most impressive one is Finland. Sample size tiny, anecdotal and all that, but I just love how the Finns I have worked with (on average - not all of them) approach issues/challenges. I am also quite impressed with how they have structured their school system. I'm sure it is not perfect, but seeing documentaries about it it just makes so much more sense than what we are doing in Norway (as an example). If they apply the same methods for hockey - then I get why they are successful (even if my impression is that Finland isn't especially good in sports in general - compared to the other Nordic countries etc.).
Even finns themselves underestimate the team year after year. It has always been so and never going to change. At juniors its gold or nothing nowadays. It varies from a great achievement to complete and utter disaster. A the star of every tournament, the media says that our win would me a miracle and others are always stronger.
At mens tournaments, finnish nhl-players don´t want to represent Finland, who knows why... Maybe its the pressure by media and a whole nation. Sot the gold medal is going to be a very rare event in the future also. And don´t mention that 2019 for me, it was a once in a lifetime-event. Still I think that Finland manages pretty well at seniors compared to for example USA although they are always considered stronger for some reason. They have never even reach the IIHF seniors final and all they have is a bunch of bronze medals and one gold from ancient time. At the nhl-olympics its their two silvers vs, our 3 bronzes and 1 silver. Pretty even, I say.
Maybe if Finland can win olympic gold sometime in the future, things could change a bit. I would love to live to see it.
At mens tournaments, finnish nhl-players don´t want to represent Finland, who knows why... Maybe its the pressure by media and a whole nation. Sot the gold medal is going to be a very rare event in the future also. And don´t mention that 2019 for me, it was a once in a lifetime-event. Still I think that Finland manages pretty well at seniors compared to for example USA although they are always considered stronger for some reason. They have never even reach the IIHF seniors final and all they have is a bunch of bronze medals and one gold from ancient time. At the nhl-olympics its their two silvers vs, our 3 bronzes and 1 silver. Pretty even, I say.
Maybe if Finland can win olympic gold sometime in the future, things could change a bit. I would love to live to see it.
Last time i checked we have 5 golds in total and you got 2, your round robin wins are very cute and all, but Finland is better in juniors when games matter and that is what matters.
We even lead the USA in matchups your claims are just pure comedy, with your round robin logic Sweden is the best in the world
Last edited:
FinPanda
Barkov Stanley cup champ!
Its debatable if Finland is better than Sweden on junior level. Yes, we have won more gold and we seem to do well when it matter. Sweden has a big talent advantage though. The players are talented and the quantity is far higher than Finns. Average Swedish prospect is usually better than average Finnish prospect.
2014 Finnish WJC gold team definitely wasn't more talented than the Swedish team who lost the final to us.
On men's level Sweden has even bigger advantage. The amount of NHL playets is massive so when a few guys say no, they still most likely get full team of NHL'ers.
2014 Finnish WJC gold team definitely wasn't more talented than the Swedish team who lost the final to us.
On men's level Sweden has even bigger advantage. The amount of NHL playets is massive so when a few guys say no, they still most likely get full team of NHL'ers.
Winning games when it matters is how you measure, the talent itself is not the whole picture here.
FinPanda
Barkov Stanley cup champ!
Dexter Colt
Registered User
You two combine for what I believe to be the explanation. A team that's weaker on paper but tends to add up to more than the sum of its parts is hard to predict before the games are played.
Conspiracy Theorist
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2016
- 5,860
- 2,097
Offense was crap when Teräväinen wasn't on the ice but defense and goaltending were gold.
Burke the Legend
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2012
- 8,320
- 2,854
What did Finland accomplish this year? They had 4 meaningful games and went 2-2 in them, big deal. Finished 3rd of 5 actually competitive teams but "won" bronze medal. That is a joke.
Arselona
Registered User
- Nov 9, 2007
- 586
- 274
No? Surely amount of NHL players (especially star players) is a big factor when North American media/audience compare nations.
Svedu
Registered User
- Apr 23, 2019
- 2,881
- 1,910
Well... Not the big mass perhaps, but those few leaders were on the same or higher level. You could compare Forsberg to Teräväinen, even if Forsberg was considered the bigger prospect I would choose Teräväinen before him. Biased? Perhaps, I just like his game more. Then we had Saros, who would probably benefitted of another organization selecting him instead of competing with Pekka Rinne. Because Saros performances from that tournament is top2 the last twelve years, at least for me.
Some of Swedens bigger talents from that year didn't manage to succeed at pro level, Collberg for instant. De La Rose is no star either.
Besides Teräväinen and Saros there was Lindell, Ristolainen, Lehkonen, Mikko Lehtonen and you never know, perhaps even Husso becomes an NHL goalie someday. Afterwards we could say it was a decent roster on paper as well, especially defensively.
So, compared to Sweden and their players I wouldn't state that the difference was huge as some would. Bigger depth, yes. With Forsberg, Dansk, Wennberg, Lindholm, Johnsson, Burakovsky, Sundqvist.
Last but not least and important to mention is that this was still a year Team Sweden had more talents than most years, especially when you compare to this years roster. It's not common to see that depth from Sweden in my opinion, not these last years that is.
When it comes to elite talent these five last years? Finland is up there with both Russia and Sweden in my opinion. It takes only a couple of names to mention and then it becomes obvious: Aho, Barkov, Rantanen, Kakko, Laine, Heiskanen. Then you have really good players, potential late bloomers outside them, and also upcoming players as well in: Lundell, Heinola, Niemelä, Hintz, Kapanen, Saros, Luukkonen, Puljujärvi, Nättinen, Kupari, Kuokkanen, Juolevi, Lambert, Räty, Jokiharju, Vaakanainen, Viro, Puutio, Nikkanen, Maccelli, Tolvanen, Vesalainen, Salo, Välimäki, Koivula, Borgström, Niku etc.
Even if i don't want to name young players but... There is legit prospects coming up in: Kiviharju, Jesse Nurmi, Joakim Kemell, Vali, Vinni Topias Hynninen etc.
Excuse me for this long post but some Swedes need to wake up and give Finland the respect they deserve. I mean look at their best player Zibanejad, even he is half Finnish
No, I just don't think Sweden or Russia have bigger talents these last years.
Last edited:
Svedu
Registered User
- Apr 23, 2019
- 2,881
- 1,910
You seem to be a fool? Answering "Complex" questions with simple answers. Hmm... The only team that shook the US was FINLAND. In fact, Finland were the better team too, but that doesn't mean the US didn't deserve the win, they did.
Finland was clearly the better team against Sweden and Russia. The ending result could have been a lot bigger than they were. Not to forget that players like Kakko, Aatu Räty, Miettinen, Saarela and some others were not even selected. That says it all really. Good try but better luck next time
Sweden missed Eklund and a couple of others? I would say Kakko is better than those players wouldn't you? And Aatu Räty is probably on the same level or close. Miettinen is already more than PPG in the NCAA.
All in all, Finland won the bronze WITHOUT these players and they did it convincingly.
Last edited:
Burke the Legend
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2012
- 8,320
- 2,854
You seem to be a fool? Answering "Complex" questions with simple answers. Hmm... The only team that shook the US was FINLAND. In fact, Finland were the better team too, but that doesn't mean the US didn't deserve the win, they did.
Finland was clearly the better team against Sweden and Russia. The ending result could have been a lot bigger than they were. Not to forget that players like Kakko, Aatu Räty, Miettinen, Saarela and some others were not even selected. That says it all really. Good try but better luck next time
So what's your point? Finland was great? But it was 4 games and Finland lost half of them.
Overall this tournament is getting pretty stupid, Canada only had 3 real games.
Should be 6 teams, round robin so there's 5 games against decent teams then a semi-final and final.
Svedu
Registered User
- Apr 23, 2019
- 2,881
- 1,910
Yeah pretty much. They were the only team giving USA a tough time in the playoffs. Rewatch the game if you don't believe me. They steamrolled both Russia and Sweden in the second and third period. All of these games were playoff games as well. Conclusion: They played good when it mattered.
And what's your point? Compared to Sweden who lost all their important games and looked quite bad against the US and Finland. That's the point I´m making. Teams and players show their true colors when the competition gets tough. It's from those game you can draw a better picture of the players true potential.
Canada winning 16-2 against Germany didn't mean s*it when they played the final against the US.
To make it clear for you, I would pick Lundell over Holtz all day, everyday. I would pick Niemelä and Heinola before Swedish D´s all day, everyday. These three players impressed me more against the US than any Canadian player did in the final. Do you understand now?
I would pick Lambert in the future before every Swedish prospect from this years WJC, even Söderblom, Holtz and why not even before Newhook and Caulfield. Is that clear enough?
Last edited:
ilezia
Registered User
- Apr 13, 2010
- 237
- 72
Not sure about underrated but Finland sure does have some of the worst fans on this forum. Although, like the number of prospects, the number of badly-behaving posters is actually quite small compared to other countries, they sure seem to overachieve by being very loud. Saying this as a Finn.
The Cannon of Tesoma
Registered User
Interesting topic. Finland may have overall depth that is really underrated because it doesn't show on paper (or at least in HFB perspective), and usually Finns have to 'fight' against over underrating comments regarding FEL's quality level, or that's my few years long experience.
However, some of recent years' successes has come because of this 'depth' led, coached and organized high quality, not because some kind fluke. Rosters formed from generally grey mass of no-names and neverheards, FEL outcasts and minor KHL starlets, 5th round picks of year X have put some real resistance against comparatively ridiculously over-stacked teams. No, we cannot put this to phenomenon of 'Sisu' only, there must be done something right within the Finnish system as a whole.
Volatility of and changes in year-to-year success comes from the statistical fact that nobody can be successful continuously if their 'grey depth' is in individual quality on average at lower level than their fiercest competants, regardless of how well and coherently these motley ragtag cohorts are built and led.
Please hockey gods, give us a real best-on-best tournament so we all could really gauge what all is really under or overrated. Few more studs and stars wouldn't be bad thing either.
However, some of recent years' successes has come because of this 'depth' led, coached and organized high quality, not because some kind fluke. Rosters formed from generally grey mass of no-names and neverheards, FEL outcasts and minor KHL starlets, 5th round picks of year X have put some real resistance against comparatively ridiculously over-stacked teams. No, we cannot put this to phenomenon of 'Sisu' only, there must be done something right within the Finnish system as a whole.
Volatility of and changes in year-to-year success comes from the statistical fact that nobody can be successful continuously if their 'grey depth' is in individual quality on average at lower level than their fiercest competants, regardless of how well and coherently these motley ragtag cohorts are built and led.
Please hockey gods, give us a real best-on-best tournament so we all could really gauge what all is really under or overrated. Few more studs and stars wouldn't be bad thing either.
IceHockeyDude
Registered User
I don't think Finland is that underrated at least among more mature hockey fans. At these tournaments there have been top 5 countries (recently) that all compite who wins each year. Usually Finland has top 3-5 material so it is reasonable to not rank them on top. This year Finland was 5th best on paper. Next year Finland could be having a stronger team and maybe people will rank them higher.
The SISU and coaching factors are often discredited which would be my only complaint.
The SISU and coaching factors are often discredited which would be my only complaint.
IceHockeyDude
Registered User
Finland was really close in Torino tho. Outplayed all other teams but lost the final by only one goal. Could have gone either way.
