Olympics: Why was Canada so nonchalant in its Sochi victory?

[Get North]

So WHC is a joke because it shows that NA haven't the depth that you think you have? If Canada is that clear #1 then why can't you win without the best players. Canada is the country that screaming about their so called amazing depth every year. But they also is the country that complain most about missing players. Lol.

I like WHC because there we will see what the teams can do without the best. I'm proud that Sweden without our best can do very well in WHC in most year.

Do you still use NHL as excuse on why Canada fail in WJC? 2013 Canada had their best team because the NHL lock-out. Canada missed medal. So now they are not #1 in U20 anymore.

It's not "amazing depth" but it is the best depth without question. Canada sends their "C" or "D" team to the WHC, young players or players who don't get much opportunity to represent their country. Russia had Ovechkin and Malkin so I didn't expect Canada to beat Russia with their two best players. Canada's "B" team is better than other "B" teams from other countries. Hell, Canada's "C" team would give other "B" teams a hard chance and the deeper you go the better Canada's chances get.

Dude no one is saying that as an excuse. Canada is in an slump but everyone knows they'll win again and another streak.

 

[xxxx]

So WHC is a joke because it shows that NA haven't the depth that you think you have? If Canada is that clear #1 then why can't you win without the best players. Canada is the country that screaming about their so called amazing depth every year. But they also is the country that complain most about missing players. Lol.

I like WHC because there we will see what the teams can do without the best. I'm proud that Sweden without our best can do very well in WHC in most year.

The WHC is a joke because of many reasons.

Second, the depth is there and everyone who's screaming that is right. Despite missing many star players, Canada has often (if not almost always) the best team on paper coming into the tournament. This year, it was one of the worst group we have sent since early 90's. And the team around B.Schenn, Turris, or Hodgson, with one and only star in 18 y.o. Nathan MacKinnon, beat Sweden, Slovakia, or the Czechs.

The depth would be clearly seen if all the teams at worlds sent their truly D teams. In that case, Canada would easily win. Just try to write a Swedish 'D' team, and we will compare it with Canadian 'D' roster.

Do you still use NHL as excuse on why Canada fail in WJC? 2013 Canada had their best team because the NHL lock-out. Canada missed medal. So now they are not #1 in U20 anymore.

How many posters here have actually used this as an actual excuse for not winning this tournament?

 

[End on a Hinote]

This leads to a good question for Canadian fans.

What stings more to you?.........................losing a big one to the U.S or Russia?

Would be interesting to see if there are any variations due to the age of the posters.

My guess is 30 and younger would say the U.S and those north of 30 would be more likely to say Russia.

The US. At least for me since it's so politically driven. When it's Canadian fans vs. Russian fans the banter just sticks to hockey for the most part. Whereas when it's Canada vs. USA, it really gets down to the nitty-gritty.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

The US. At least for me since it's so politically driven. When it's Canadian fans vs. Russian fans the banter just sticks to hockey for the most part. Whereas when it's Canada vs. USA, it really gets down to the nitty-gritty.

Who knows, that may change with what's happening around the world (Ukraine)...

 

[JayKing]

A reflection of how they approached the tournament. Dominant yet boring team.

 

[Gigantor The Goalie]

A reflection of how they approached the tournament. Dominant yet boring team.

The other teams were boring. The only reason all those games were close on the scoreboard were the goalies.

 

[Canuckistani]

So WHC is a joke because it shows that NA haven't the depth that you think you have? If Canada is that clear #1 then why can't you win without the best players. Canada is the country that screaming about their so called amazing depth every year. But they also is the country that complain most about missing players. Lol.

The problem for Canada at the WHC lately has been either decent teams that lose one-goal games in the QF (2011, 2012, 2013), or teams handicapped by almost none of the top players showing up (2010, 2014). There's usually at least a few.

Either way, Canadian fans aren't really bothered by our poor showings at the WHC because we win the big ones at the olympics. To put it in soccer terms, we lose the friendlies but win the World Cup. That sentiment annoys European fans but it's just the way it is.

Canada has obviously slumped at the WJC lately, but...

It's revealing that two years without a medal and five years without a gold is considered a horrible slump! That sort of performance is standard, if not above average, for everyone else. Russia's gold in 2011 was their first since 2003. Finland's gold this year was their first since 1998. Sweden's gold in 2012 ended a 31 year drought. Czechs won in 2000-2001 and haven't been heard from since. USA won gold in 2004, took five years off, then won in 2010 and 2013.

Canada has been a team of streaks at the WJC. The last time Canada had a slump like this was 1998-2004 (when they won "only" 4 silvers and 2 bronze in seven years). On either side of that slump were streaks of five golds in a row.

So I can't say I'm overly worried. The top-notch talent is still being produced fast and furious.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

Canada's rivalries always start with a big loss, and more losses are needed to keep the rivalry (and fans' dislike) alive.

Vs USA, it started at the WJC after the choke of 2004, got a huge boost with the 2006 hit by Jack Johnson, the 2007 shootout win, the fireworks of 2009, and the losses of 2010 and 2013.

It's a different story at the senior level. USA became enemy #1 after the 1996 world cup, a sentiment that only started to really dissipate after gold in Salt Lake. After big wins in 2010 and 2014, Canadians feel their team is in control at the senior level (not by much, but they win when they have to) and thus the sense of threat goes away.

That's why no real sense of dislike exists against, say, Finland, Sweden, Slovakia, etc. We haven't suffered any major losses to them that will resonate for years.

Nailed it, great post!

 

[NyQuil]

When Crosby scored, I knew the game was in the bag.

So I was more relieved than exultant when the final buzzer went.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Once we beat the Americans, I knew we would win Gold. No disrespect to the Swedes but I never worried for a second after the semi finals.

 

[NyQuil]

Once we beat the Americans, I knew we would win Gold. No disrespect to the Swedes but I never worried for a second after the semi finals.

I thought Lundqvist might be able to steal one.

He didn't.

 

[Xokkeu]

Interesting to compare the USA basketball players celebration in winning the World Cup, in a game which was over by the first quarter and in a tournament where they won every game by an average of 30 points, to Canada's Sochi win. The basketball players looked a lot more excited even with the blowout.

 

[JackSlater]

Interesting to compare the USA basketball players celebration in winning the World Cup, in a game which was over by the first quarter and in a tournament where they won every game by an average of 30 points, to Canada's Sochi win. The basketball players looked a lot more excited even with the blowout.

I doubt that Lebron James, Kevin Durant and the other best American players would have looked quite so excited. A lot of the players on that basketball team were relatively unknown compared to the big stars from their country and they had people in the media doubting them at times, which Canada never really had.

 

[Xokkeu]

I doubt that Lebron James, Kevin Durant and the other best American players would have looked quite so excited. A lot of the players on that basketball team were relatively unknown compared to the big stars from their country and they had people in the media doubting them at times, which Canada never really had.

Maybe, but I think the whole "unknown" thing was overhyped to sell the team as vulnerable to Spain so they'd have a marketing tool to get people to watch. I mean most of those guys are stars on their team and were #1 picks.

 

[JackSlater]

Maybe, but I think the whole "unknown" thing was overhyped to sell the team as vulnerable to Spain so they'd have a marketing tool to get people to watch. I mean most of those guys are stars on their team and were #1 picks.

I agree that the media did their best to drum up an angle, but the American players (Faried in particular) did bring it up a few times after the tournament. Additionally those players collectively had pretty much won nothing before, while most of the players on the Canadian Olympic team had won the Stanley Cup or an Olympic gold medal before.

 

[Xokkeu]

I agree that the media did their best to drum up an angle, but the American players (Faried in particular) did bring it up a few times after the tournament. Additionally those players collectively had pretty much won nothing before, while most of the players on the Canadian Olympic team had won the Stanley Cup or an Olympic gold medal before.

True. A handful of them had won the 2010 tournament (Rose, Gay and Curry), and Davis and Harden won in 2012. But I think Canada only had eight returnees for Sochi.

I also looked back on the London final highlights and it seemed Lebron and co were pretty stoked to repeat.

I don't really know what I'm trying to argue. I guess I'm still a little surprised how little Canada seemed to care about winning.

 

[jekoh]

I also looked back on the London final highlights and it seemed Lebron and co were pretty stoked to repeat.

Maybe the fact they nearly lost the final had something to do with it?

 

[Xokkeu]

Maybe the fact they nearly lost the final had something to do with it?

Nearly lost is the wrong way to put it. The game was close, but they were up by 8 with 3 minutes left and Spain never led in the second half.

 

[jekoh]

Nearly lost is the wrong way to put it. The game was close, but they were up by 8 with 3 minutes left and Spain never led in the second half.

Not sure what difference it makes that Spain didn't take the lead in the middle of the game, it's not like you need to lead for more than a few seconds at the end to win a game.

The point still stands that the game was very close, certainly a lot more than expected.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

Nearly lost is the wrong way to put it. The game was close, but they were up by 8 with 3 minutes left and Spain never led in the second half.

I agree with you about that game.

Though I have to point out that your argument here is the same one you kind of seemed slightly annoyed with about the U.S -Canada Sochi showdown when Canadian fans claimed.........."yeah, the score was close but Canada was in control almost all game"

Just thought it was interesting. Though maybe it was the use of the word "dominating" that bugged you when some fans used that word describing Canadas victory.

Myself, I think complete defensive shutdowns of an opposing teams offense can be a dominating game. Not always, but sometimes, such as when the defensively dominant team also produces the lions share of legitimate scoring opportunities like Canada did.

Honestly,I think that was one of those games.

Regardless, the core of those Canadian fans argument then and yours here is roughly the same I think.

 

[Xokkeu]

I agree with you about that game.

Though I have to point out that your argument here is the same one you kind of seemed slightly annoyed with about the U.S -Canada Sochi showdown when Canadian fans claimed.........."yeah, the score was close but Canada was in control almost all game"

Just thought it was interesting. Though maybe it was the use of the word "dominating" that bugged you when some fans used that word describing Canadas victory.

Myself, I think complete defensive shutdowns of an opposing teams offense can be a dominating game. Not always, but sometimes.

Honestly,I think that was one of those games.

Regardless, the core of those Canadian fans argument then and yours here is roughly the same I think.

I would never say the US dominated the game vs Spain.

I also would not say that Canada nearly lost the game against the US.

Semantics and all....

I've never denied Canada were the better team and deserved to win, but some of the post game rhetoric got a little out of hand. I'd tell the same to any American basketball fans who claim we dominated Spain.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I would never say the US dominated the game vs Spain.

I also would not say that Canada nearly lost the game against the US.

Semantics and all....

I've never denied Canada were the better team and deserved to win, but some of the post game rhetoric got a little out of hand. I'd tell the same to any American basketball fans who claim we dominated Spain.

O.K, understood.

To be honest though, I thought Spain gave the better game to the U.S then the U.S did to Canada in those two contests.

But I suppose that is a judgement call.

 

[Xokkeu]

O.K, understood.

To be honest though, I thought Spain gave the better game to the U.S then the U.S did to Canada in those two contests.

But I suppose that is a judgement call.

Actually I think it's a pretty good comparison, although the nature of the sport is quite different.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

True, very different sports for sure.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Cuz they run this *****