Worse NHL olympics ever?

[Mehar]

This is probably the best summation of why this tournament sucked.

Yeah my apologies (LOL). However- since last summer, many posters in this forum said Canada could not win on the "big ice". That myth was proved wrong. Anyways- the US will be back in the future to challenge for the Gold again. Hopefully 2018 is on an NHL Size Rink, because the "big ice" is not always exciting like it had been claimed by some people.

 

[Danny__K]

This whole tournament was like a GSP fight, Canada was just on another level from any other team in tournament so there was no reason for them to trade punches in a exciting style. Play their technically perfect game and the result was pretty much inevitable outside a crazy possibly fluke shot.

At the beginning of the tournament i thought Canada had maybe 40% chance of repeating, now having watched, if Canada plays that tournament like that again, I'd say 90-95% chance of repeating. Never once did i feel any of the 6 games were in doubt.

Does that make for a exciting tournament? hell no, but it was the best tournament a team has ever played and we probably won't see something like that again.

 

[Xokkeu]

Yeah my apologies (LOL). However- since last summer, many posters in this forum said Canada could not win on the "big ice". That myth was proved wrong. Anyways- the US will be back in the future to challenge for the Gold again. Hopefully 2018 is on an NHL Size Rink, because the "big ice" is not always exciting like it had been claimed by some people.

I met one of the NBC analysts at the USA-Canada women's group stage match, won't say who. We started a quick conversation about the big ice factor, well I asked him if he thought it was a factor. "Huge factor" he said. I asked him if he thought maybe it wasn't just a small sample size. Canada had simply lost to a hot goalie in 1998, and in 2006 it just wasn't a very good team. Canada had won the World's on big ice, World Juniors on big ice and maybe the two Olympic tournaments were just the case of small sample size aberrations. He sort of nodded and said "good points."

Long story short much to my dismay, I was right.

 

[Mehar]

I met one of the NBC analysts at the USA-Canada women's group stage match, won't say who. We started a quick conversation about the big ice factor, well I asked him if he thought it was a factor. "Huge factor" he said. I asked him if he thought maybe it wasn't just a small sample size. Canada had simply lost to a hot goalie in 1998, and in 2006 it just wasn't a very good team. Canada had won the World's on big ice, World Juniors on big ice and maybe the two Olympic tournaments were just the case of small sample size aberrations. He sort of nodded and said "good points."

Long story short much to my dismay, I was right.

Good post. People forget that the 2006 team was not picked well. Guys like Bertuzzi, Doan, Draper looked terrible on the big ice. They were coming off a 2004 World Cup win and basically took the same guys. In 1998- There was no Sakic, Kariya or Lemieux to count on against the best goalie in the world in Hasek. Those were critical losses, and Bobby Clarke made some poor choices that year as well (Linden, Corson and Zamuner to name three guys who had no business making it that year). The US this year reminds me of Canada in 1998- they were playing very well up until the Semis and ran into a great defensive team and a goalie that was outstanding. Just like Canada in 1998- the US basically gave up after they were down a couple of goals against the Finns. The US will be back to challenge for the Gold in 2018. Canada will still be the team to beat (LOL).

 

[MilanKraft*]

This whole tournament was like a GSP fight, Canada was just on another level from any other team in tournament so there was no reason for them to trade punches in a exciting style. Play their technically perfect game and the result was pretty much inevitable outside a crazy possibly fluke shot.

At the beginning of the tournament i thought Canada had maybe 40% chance of repeating, now having watched, if Canada plays that tournament like that again, I'd say 90-95% chance of repeating. Never once did i feel any of the 6 games were in doubt.

Does that make for a exciting tournament? hell no, but it was the best tournament a team has ever played and we probably won't see something like that again.

They barely beat finland in ot on a crappy goal.

Variance would make them lose played again and again.

 

[danyhabsfan]

They barely beat finland in ot on a crappy goal.

Variance would make them lose played again and again.

I thought Price only had 15 shots or something like that?

 

[Yakushev72]

It was the most boring tournament in history because all of the teams played in a defensive shell, focusing on the negative - not losing, as opposed to the affirmative - going balls out to win. It was the worst Gold Medal game in history because, I'm sorry to say, it looked Sweden threw in the towel about midway through the First Period. When you know that one team is going to win, and its not your team, then the rest is just boring.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

It was the most boring tournament in history because all of the teams played in a defensive shell, focusing on the negative - not losing, as opposed to the affirmative - going balls out to win. It was the worst Gold Medal game in history because, I'm sorry to say, it looked Sweden threw in the towel about midway through the First Period. When you know that one team is going to win, and its not your team, then the rest is just boring.

And that's why Olympic Hockey should be played on small ice, physical play, fore-checking and the attacking mentality is much more present in the smaller venue, as 2010 proved where nearly every team played an attacking brand of Hockey. You almost have no choice, otherwise you'll be run out of the arena pretty quickly.

And judging by your constant posts never crediting Canada, you undervalue this Canadian team way too much, that's a ridiculous Hockey team that was assembled, and this is without Stamkos, this could be possibly even superior then the 2010 team had it not been for the defense.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

As a Canadian- these were the best Olympics ever. Canada- won Gold by playing the best defensive hockey possible (allowing 3 goals the whole tournament). They beat Sweden in dominating fashion in the Final (avenging the loss of the 1994 Olympics 20 years later). Russia was embarrassed on home ice losing in the QF after all the smack their fans talked for one year (LOL). USA was shut out the last two games, and lost the Bronze Medal in humiliating fashion. The Canadian Women got an impressive victory in the final as well, coming from behind 2-0. It was the best Olympics ever if you were a Canadian Hockey Fan (LOL).

I agree but I still thought the hockey was boring.

Hopefully 2018 is on an NHL Size Rink, because the "big ice" is not always exciting like it had been claimed by some people.

If there is a 2018, sadly it will not be on NHL sized ice.

This whole tournament was like a GSP fight, Canada was just on another level from any other team in tournament so there was no reason for them to trade punches in a exciting style. Play their technically perfect game and the result was pretty much inevitable outside a crazy possibly fluke shot.

At the beginning of the tournament i thought Canada had maybe 40% chance of repeating, now having watched, if Canada plays that tournament like that again, I'd say 90-95% chance of repeating. Never once did i feel any of the 6 games were in doubt.

Does that make for a exciting tournament? hell no, but it was the best tournament a team has ever played and we probably won't see something like that again.

Well said.

I met one of the NBC analysts at the USA-Canada women's group stage match, won't say who. We started a quick conversation about the big ice factor, well I asked him if he thought it was a factor. "Huge factor" he said. I asked him if he thought maybe it wasn't just a small sample size. Canada had simply lost to a hot goalie in 1998, and in 2006 it just wasn't a very good team. Canada had won the World's on big ice, World Juniors on big ice and maybe the two Olympic tournaments were just the case of small sample size aberrations. He sort of nodded and said "good points."

I reviewed the tapes Xokkeu and I found the point when this happened. I don't want to hurt your feelings but when the analyst nodded and said "good point", he was NOT responding to you. He was responding to the security guy beside him who was whispering in his ear:

"That's the guy who keeps following all the hockey people around. We think he's dangerous. Let's get you the hell out of here."

(*Teasing, of course.*)

It was the most boring tournament in history because all of the teams played in a defensive shell, focusing on the negative - not losing, as opposed to the affirmative - going balls out to win. It was the worst Gold Medal game in history because, I'm sorry to say, it looked Sweden threw in the towel about midway through the First Period. When you know that one team is going to win, and its not your team, then the rest is just boring.

I knew who was going to win AND it was my team AND I still found the GMG boring.

And that's why Olympic Hockey should be played on small ice, physical play, fore-checking and the attacking mentality is much more present in the smaller venue, as 2010 proved where nearly every team played an attacking brand of Hockey. You almost have no choice, otherwise you'll be run out of the arena pretty quickly.

And judging by your constant posts never crediting Canada, you undervalue this Canadian team way too much, that's a ridiculous Hockey team that was assembled, and this is without Stamkos, this could be possibly even superior then the 2010 team had it not been for the defense.

Canada is the best!!!!

 

[1Gold Standard]

I agree but I still thought the hockey was boring.



If there is a 2018, sadly it will not be on NHL sized ice.



Well said.



I reviewed the tapes Xokkeu and I found the point when this happened. I don't want to hurt your feelings but when the analyst nodded and said "good point", he was NOT responding to you. He was responding to the security guy beside him who was whispering in his ear:

"That's the guy who keeps following all the hockey people around. We think he's dangerous. Let's get you the hell out of here."

(*Teasing, of course.*)



I knew who was going to win AND it was my team AND I still found the GMG boring.



Canada is the best!!!!

The 1998 GMG Russia and the Czechs was a dog of a game. I couldn't watch 5 minutes of that 1-0 snooze fest.
The 2006 GMG Sweden and Finland was only mildly entertaining....
The 2014 tournament was for the most part uninteresting

All big ice tournaments.

2002 was a entertaining tournament,featuring fast paced exciting games and upsets.. hybrid ice.
2010 fantastic hockey start to finish NHL ice.

Smaller ice = a more entertaining brand of hockey.

and yes, Canada is the best.