HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   World Junior Championship (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Olympics: About 2002 Canada & U.S. Olympics teams (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1205919)

Stars and Bolts 06-11-2012 07:23 PM

About 2002 Canada & U.S. Olympics teams
 
Going into the gold metal game in the 2002 olympics between USA and Canada, one obvious edge that Canada had was that they had a great balance of youth and veterans while USA was essentially a veteran team. With this year being the 10th anniversary of those olympics, this advantage is now perfectly clear. Of the 23 man rosters, 7 players from Canada are still active (Jarome Iginla, Simon Gagne, Ryan Smyth, Chris Pronger, Ed Jovanovski, Eric Brewer, and Martin Brodeur). while only 2 from USA are (Brian Roloston and Tom Poti). In fact, 3 players from Canada still play for the same NHL team that they played for then.

Team USA players still active:

Brian Rolston (then with Boston, now in his 2nd stint with Boston)
Tom Poti (then with Edmonton, now with Washington)

Team Canada players still active:
Jarome Iginla (played whole career with Calgary)
Simon Gagne (then with Philadelphia, now with Los Angeles)
Ryan Smyth (then with Edmonton, now back with Edmonton)
Chris Pronger (then with St. Louis, now with Philadelphia)
Ed Jovanovski (then with Vancouver, now with Florida)
Eric Brewer (then with Edmonton, now with Tampa Bay)
Martin Brodeur (played entire career with New Jersey)

So yeah, 7 players from Team Canada are still active 10 years later. Brodeur, Iginla, and Smyth are even with the same teams they were with at the time (though Smyth was traded away before returning). Meanwhile, only 2 players from Team USA are still active today.

Systemfel 06-11-2012 07:40 PM

Poti is basically retired.

Xokkeu 06-18-2012 12:17 AM

Team USA built their entire run in 2002 on the back end of that great generation of players who also won the 1996 World Cup.

Just compare the 2002 and 2006 rosters and you'll see huge turnover.

AmericanDream 07-29-2012 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stars and Bolts (Post 50778393)
Going into the gold metal game in the 2002 olympics between USA and Canada, one obvious edge that Canada had was that they had a great balance of youth and veterans while USA was essentially a veteran team. With this year being the 10th anniversary of those olympics, this advantage is now perfectly clear. Of the 23 man rosters, 7 players from Canada are still active (Jarome Iginla, Simon Gagne, Ryan Smyth, Chris Pronger, Ed Jovanovski, Eric Brewer, and Martin Brodeur). while only 2 from USA are (Brian Roloston and Tom Poti). In fact, 3 players from Canada still play for the same NHL team that they played for then.

Team USA players still active:

Brian Rolston (then with Boston, now in his 2nd stint with Boston)
Tom Poti (then with Edmonton, now with Washington)

Team Canada players still active:
Jarome Iginla (played whole career with Calgary)
Simon Gagne (then with Philadelphia, now with Los Angeles)
Ryan Smyth (then with Edmonton, now back with Edmonton)
Chris Pronger (then with St. Louis, now with Philadelphia)
Ed Jovanovski (then with Vancouver, now with Florida)
Eric Brewer (then with Edmonton, now with Tampa Bay)
Martin Brodeur (played entire career with New Jersey)

So yeah, 7 players from Team Canada are still active 10 years later. Brodeur, Iginla, and Smyth are even with the same teams they were with at the time (though Smyth was traded away before returning). Meanwhile, only 2 players from Team USA are still active today.

2002 was a bit more of a transition year for Canada then the US. The same "old guard" was the majority of the US team, while team Canada had plenty of young new blood to bring in to play with some of their legends...

USA Hockey was just starting to see the results from the USNDP which was implemented basically 4 years prior to actually start producing solid players. USA Hockey also had so many prospects bust in the prior years that our development from 1992-2000 was horrid and almost crippled our hockey program overall.

When top picks from 92-2000 like Jason Bonsignore, TY Jones, Ryan Sittler, Brad Defauw, Jeff Kealty, Matt Alvery, Rory Fitzpatrick, Peter Ferraro, David Wilkie, Joe Hulbig, Chris O'Sullivan, Peter Roed, Peter Ratchuk, Josh DeWolf, Nikos Tselios, J-M Pelletier, Brian Gaffaney, Bobby Allen, Philip Sauve, Chris Bala, Barrett Heisten, Michael Ryan, Ed Hill, Dan Cavanaugh, Matt Murley, Matt DeMarchi, Kris Vernarsky, all bust, and I mean this was about 80% of our top 2 round picks from that era that busted, we were screwed ...these are pretty much off the top of my head as there are more.

plus a ton of guys like Michael Rupp, Dan Lacouture, Scott Parker, Erik Rasmussen, Jeff Jillson, Doug Janik, Adam Hall, Andrew Hutchinson, Jeff Taffe, Brad Winchester, Andy Hilbert, etc that could be considered busts as well or labeled as players that didnt deliver compared to their draft rankings...and now you can see that probably 90% of all American players drafted in the first 2 rounds of the draft from 92-2000 either busted or underperformed and it is amazing that USA Hockey still got a silver in 02 and a silver in 2010....a miracle perhaps??

Just abysmal numbers when looking at a single nation and the amount of highend draft busts that it did have, simply pathetic and something that I really didnt know how bad it was until I started looking at it closer a few years back..


also, the injury of Bryan Berard just added to the luck that we had to that era as Berard played on the 98 Olympic team and would have been as dynamic of a dman in the league if he stayed healthy. very sad to lose one of the few that was a talent and a NHL player

OttawaRoughRiderFan 07-29-2012 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xokkeu (Post 51030167)
Team USA built their entire run in 2002 on the back end of that great generation of players who also won the 1996 World Cup.

Just compare the 2002 and 2006 rosters and you'll see huge turnover.

After the 2002 Olympics, The Hockey News wrote an article saying exactly what was stated in the title post - that the well was dry, for the U.S., when it came to players above the age of 21 and below the age of 30.

The 2004 World Cup team was a retread of the 2002 team but, at that point, it was well beyond its expiry date.

After drying up, the fact that the U.S. managed to restock and get back to the Gold Medal game in 2010 is a credit to their youth program - and to Ryan Miller ;).

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanDream (Post 53085725)
When top picks from 92-2000 like Jason Bonsignore, TY Jones, Ryan Sittler, Brad Defauw, Jeff Kealty, Matt Alvery, Rory Fitzpatrick, Peter Ferraro, David Wilkie, Joe Hulbig, Chris O'Sullivan, Peter Roed, Peter Ratchuk, Josh DeWolf, Nikos Tselios, J-M Pelletier, Brian Gaffaney, Bobby Allen, Philip Sauve, Chris Bala, Barrett Heisten, Michael Ryan, Ed Hill, Dan Cavanaugh, Matt Murley, Matt DeMarchi, Kris Vernarsky, all bust, and I mean this was about 80% of our top 2 round picks from that era that busted, we were screwed ...these are pretty much off the top of my head as there are more.

plus a ton of guys like Michael Rupp, Dan Lacouture, Scott Parker, Erik Rasmussen, Jeff Jillson, Doug Janik, Adam Hall, Andrew Hutchinson, Jeff Taffe, Brad Winchester, Andy Hilbert, etc that could be considered busts as well or labeled as players that didnt deliver compared to their draft rankings...and now you can see that probably 90% of all American players drafted in the first 2 rounds of the draft from 92-2000 either busted or underperformed and it is amazing that USA Hockey still got a silver in 02 and a silver in 2010....a miracle perhaps??

Wow... Good post and memory, buddy. The U.S. really did have a lot of kids bomb during that window of time.
Just shows what a crap shoot the draft is.

OttawaRoughRiderFan 07-29-2012 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stars and Bolts (Post 50778393)
Going into the gold metal game in the 2002 olympics between USA and Canada, one obvious edge that Canada had was that they had a great balance of youth and veterans while USA was essentially a veteran team. With this year being the 10th anniversary of those olympics, this advantage is now perfectly clear. Of the 23 man rosters, 7 players from Canada are still active (Jarome Iginla, Simon Gagne, Ryan Smyth, Chris Pronger, Ed Jovanovski, Eric Brewer, and Martin Brodeur). while only 2 from USA are (Brian Roloston and Tom Poti). In fact, 3 players from Canada still play for the same NHL team that they played for then.

Team USA players still active:

Brian Rolston (then with Boston, now in his 2nd stint with Boston)
Tom Poti (then with Edmonton, now with Washington)

Team Canada players still active:
Jarome Iginla (played whole career with Calgary)
Simon Gagne (then with Philadelphia, now with Los Angeles)
Ryan Smyth (then with Edmonton, now back with Edmonton)
Chris Pronger (then with St. Louis, now with Philadelphia)
Ed Jovanovski (then with Vancouver, now with Florida)
Eric Brewer (then with Edmonton, now with Tampa Bay)
Martin Brodeur (played entire career with New Jersey)

So yeah, 7 players from Team Canada are still active 10 years later. Brodeur, Iginla, and Smyth are even with the same teams they were with at the time (though Smyth was traded away before returning). Meanwhile, only 2 players from Team USA are still active today.

Canada is like the NY Yankees - we don't rebuild, we reload. We are blessed with at least 2 to 5 players, most years, that would start on just about any other Olympic team. The 2003 Draft thru the first 7 picks of 2010 Draft were exceptional (even) for us as a nation and those drafts will serve us well for the next decade and a half.

Just imagine what the U.S. team would look like withOUT the 2003/2005 draft. They were blessings for Canada (2003 was off the charts) but they really restocked America's top cupboard and saved the international team.

AmericanDream 07-30-2012 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevyD (Post 53086769)
Wow... Good post and memory, buddy. The U.S. really did have a lot of kids bomb during that window of time.
Just shows what a crap shoot the draft is.

its kind of hard to forget this as an avid American hockey fan...

troubling beyond belief considering we were coming off some of the most dominating drafts ever as a country, the 87-91 drafts were loaded with US studs...though the 91 draft wasnt epic, it was the last decent draft for the US for the next 8-9 years...

I can only imagine how strong we truly would have been if the amount of bust players was cut in half over that time period... the 1998 Olympic team, 02 Olympic team, and 04 World Cup team could and should have looked a lot different then it did, though the 02 squad mixed in some young guys to solid results..

I hope we never see that dead era again for highend US kids, as it really was terrible to go through...

PaulieVegas 07-31-2012 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanDream (Post 53085725)
2002 was a bit more of a transition year for Canada then the US. The same "old guard" was the majority of the US team, while team Canada had plenty of young new blood to bring in to play with some of their legends...

USA Hockey was just starting to see the results from the USNDP which was implemented basically 4 years prior to actually start producing solid players. USA Hockey also had so many prospects bust in the prior years that our development from 1992-2000 was horrid and almost crippled our hockey program overall.

When top picks from 92-2000 like Jason Bonsignore, TY Jones, Ryan Sittler, Brad Defauw, Jeff Kealty, Matt Alvery, Rory Fitzpatrick, Peter Ferraro, David Wilkie, Joe Hulbig, Chris O'Sullivan, Peter Roed, Peter Ratchuk, Josh DeWolf, Nikos Tselios, J-M Pelletier, Brian Gaffaney, Bobby Allen, Philip Sauve, Chris Bala, Barrett Heisten, Michael Ryan, Ed Hill, Dan Cavanaugh, Matt Murley, Matt DeMarchi, Kris Vernarsky, all bust, and I mean this was about 80% of our top 2 round picks from that era that busted, we were screwed ...these are pretty much off the top of my head as there are more.

plus a ton of guys like Michael Rupp, Dan Lacouture, Scott Parker, Erik Rasmussen, Jeff Jillson, Doug Janik, Adam Hall, Andrew Hutchinson, Jeff Taffe, Brad Winchester, Andy Hilbert, etc that could be considered busts as well or labeled as players that didnt deliver compared to their draft rankings...and now you can see that probably 90% of all American players drafted in the first 2 rounds of the draft from 92-2000 either busted or underperformed and it is amazing that USA Hockey still got a silver in 02 and a silver in 2010....a miracle perhaps??

Just abysmal numbers when looking at a single nation and the amount of highend draft busts that it did have, simply pathetic and something that I really didnt know how bad it was until I started looking at it closer a few years back..


also, the injury of Bryan Berard just added to the luck that we had to that era as Berard played on the 98 Olympic team and would have been as dynamic of a dman in the league if he stayed healthy. very sad to lose one of the few that was a talent and a NHL player

Crap, thanks for reminding me Jason Bonsignore was American!

Old guard or not, and results aside, the Americans were the best team in the 2002 tournament. No we didn't win, but our overall body of work that tournament was much better than Canada's.

OttawaRoughRiderFan 07-31-2012 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulieVegas (Post 53161219)
Old guard or not, and results aside, the Americans were the best team in the 2002 tournament. No we didn't win, but our overall body of work that tournament was much better than Canada's.

I don't know if that is fair, PV...

The U.S. sent a team that had played together many times. As a result, they gelled immediately. However, once Canada came together as a team, they were (far and away) the best team both on paper and on the ice.

espo* 07-31-2012 07:56 PM

Not only was it clear we were the best team far and away by the end of that tournament but "overall body of work" counts for jack all when you get soundly outplayed and beaten 5-2 in the Gold medal game.

And soundly outplayed they clearly were.

Absolutely atrocious reasoning being used by PV there.


Quote:

Originally Posted by KevyD (Post 53162607)
I don't know if that is fair, PV...

The U.S. sent a team that had played together many times. As a result, they gelled immediately. However, once Canada came together as a team, they were (far and away) the best team both on paper and on the ice.


AmericanDream 08-11-2012 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by espo (Post 53164605)
Not only was it clear we were the best team far and away by the end of that tournament but "overall body of work" counts for jack all when you get soundly outplayed and beaten 5-2 in the Gold medal game.

And soundly outplayed they clearly were.

Absolutely atrocious reasoning being used by PV there.

the US was the best team in 2002 throughout the tournament....

Canada got the garbage semi-final game with Belarus for God's sake, while the US had to already play their gold medal game against Russia in the semi's.

It was a complete joke then as it is now that the US which had the best record did not get to play Belarus instead of Russia...

Herb Brooks was pissed then, and I am still pissed now how that all went down...

Canada looked like crap that entire tournament but got bailed out in their semi bs matchup...

the US however was the better team throughout the tournament, and had to play the tougher matchups to get to the Gold...

PV's reasoning is solid and accurate

TonsofPuppies* 08-11-2012 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanDream (Post 53474633)
the US was the best team in 2002 throughout the tournament....

Canada got the garbage semi-final game with Belarus for God's sake, while the US had to already play their gold medal game against Russia in the semi's.

It was a complete joke then as it is now that the US which had the best record did not get to play Belarus instead of Russia...

Herb Brooks was pissed then, and I am still pissed now how that all went down...

Canada looked like crap that entire tournament but got bailed out in their semi bs matchup...

the US however was the better team throughout the tournament, and had to play the tougher matchups to get to the Gold...

PV's reasoning is solid and accurate

It's kind of funny to see Americans using the "your path to gold was easier to gold" excuse. The same Americans that used to whine when Canadians said their path to the final was easier in 2010. :laugh:

espo* 08-11-2012 12:12 PM

The reasoning is solid?

So, I guess we can say that Vancouver was really the Stanley cup Champion 2 years ago and not the Boston Bruins because they had the "best overall body of work" during the course of the whole season?. Try going over to the Boston board and throwing that thesis in a thread and see what the response is.

If the Americans were so good they should have wiped the floor with Canada in that Gold meal game, instead they were the one that got wiped.

You are blaming that on a tougher semi final game against the Russians? they were tired?

Speaking of that Russia game I remember Fetisov saying the Refs basically handed the game to the Americans, who knows?...................maybe you weren't so great and didn't have such a tough semifinal??

But I bet you would disagree with that charge wouldn't you? I bet Herb Brooks did too.After all.....................the U.S won that game. But the tune changes when you don't win doesn't it?

See how that works?...............see what i'm getting at?

It's so easy to manafacture excuses like that such as you are doing here isn't it?

You talk about how the U.S had "tougher matchups' and how Canada looked "atrocious all tournament" when in fact the U.S had one, count em one, tougher matchup then Canada on it's route to gold, not two,or three............just one. That burnt your team out? I guess your team wasn't so good after all........or mentally weak at the least.As far as us being atrocious all tournament long we played good games against the Czechs and Finns that tournament, the czechs were defending champs and the Finns aren't pushovers you know, you have to play well to beat them and no-one should have to tell you that.


This is a new one, titles awarded on "overall body of work" Since when are championships in team sports like Hockey given Gold medals or trophies on "overall body of work"

When did this start?

That's just so weak.


You had all your best players, momentum and the home crowd.............................you had every opportunity and edge possible you needed to win and instead you got thumped.



You and certainly Herb Brooks have absolutely no reason to whine and be a baby.You and herb wanna blame your loss on someone or something..................a good look in the mirror by herb and his players is the place to start and end.


Canada won the Gold and were the champs and earned every inch of it.

Just classic sore loser stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanDream (Post 53474633)
the US was the best team in 2002 throughout the tournament....

Canada got the garbage semi-final game with Belarus for God's sake, while the US had to already play their gold medal game against Russia in the semi's.

It was a complete joke then as it is now that the US which had the best record did not get to play Belarus instead of Russia...

Herb Brooks was pissed then, and I am still pissed now how that all went down...

Canada looked like crap that entire tournament but got bailed out in their semi bs matchup...

the US however was the better team throughout the tournament, and had to play the tougher matchups to get to the Gold...

PV's reasoning is solid and accurate


OttawaRoughRiderFan 08-11-2012 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanDream (Post 53474633)
the US was the best team in 2002 throughout the tournament....

Canada got the garbage semi-final game with Belarus for God's sake, while the US had to already play their gold medal game against Russia in the semi's.

It was a complete joke then as it is now that the US which had the best record did not get to play Belarus instead of Russia...

Herb Brooks was pissed then, and I am still pissed now how that all went down...

Canada looked like crap that entire tournament but got bailed out in their semi bs matchup...

the US however was the better team throughout the tournament, and had to play the tougher matchups to get to the Gold...

PV's reasoning is solid and accurate

I agree that the U.S. had the better overall tournament (they were solid from start to finish while Canada was piss-poor at the start), but on paper and on the ice in the Gold Medal game, Team Canada was superior.

I believe if those teams played a best of 7 series, Canada would win 4-1.

PaulieVegas 01-03-2013 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by espo* (Post 53164605)
Not only was it clear we were the best team far and away by the end of that tournament but "overall body of work" counts for jack all when you get soundly outplayed and beaten 5-2 in the Gold medal game.

And soundly outplayed they clearly were.

Absolutely atrocious reasoning being used by PV there.

Tell me, why is it that it's okay for Canadians to play the "we were the better team despite the outcome" card when they lose, but when an American like me does it, he gets flamed? Can you say "double standard?"

We were the best team in the 2002 tournament. You were the best team in the gold medal game. Prior to that we had not lost a game (you got clobbered in Game 1 by Sweden), we came into the semis with a +18 goal differential versus your -1 (that's MINUS 1), we played a real team in the semis (and beat them) rather than get a undeserved gift game against Belarus, and we outscored Finland and Germany by a combined 11-0, while you outscored them only 6-4.

Yes, you were better in the gold medal game. Congrats for being better for three hours of a two-week tournament. But stop patting yourself on the back with your "soundly outplayed" garbage. If I recall, shots on goal were pretty close (about 36-32 or something) and the game was tight until you scored a couple of late goals on the counterattack towards the end of the game when we were pressing all 5 guys forward to try and get that tying goal. You were better, but you did not "soundly outplay" us. You're just thumping your Canadian chest by saying that.

tmlms13 01-03-2013 06:36 PM

I might be mistaken but in a hockey tournament right now, there is a team with two loses that eliminated an undefeated team because of the timing of the game.

This, you won only because you were better for just one game argument is all crap. On both sides. Welcome to round robin tournament sports. If you don't like it don't play. Would you prefer the old, one big round robin with the winner? or a single KO bracket like the NCAA tournaments?

The Zetterberg Era 01-03-2013 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevyD (Post 53484437)
I agree that the U.S. had the better overall tournament (they were solid from start to finish while Canada was piss-poor at the start), but on paper and on the ice in the Gold Medal game, Team Canada was superior.

I believe if those teams played a best of 7 series, Canada would win 4-1.

I agree, that is about where I would put that series if I was being totally honest and not just seeing things with USA homer glasses.

RooneyConnSmythe12 01-03-2013 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonsofPuppies (Post 53478837)
It's kind of funny to see Americans using the "your path to gold was easier to gold" excuse. The same Americans that used to whine when Canadians said their path to the final was easier in 2010. :laugh:

We had to play the Swedes (a team Canadians originally said would smoke us) in the semis in 2010. Not the same as playing Belarus.

PaulieVegas 01-03-2013 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmlms13 (Post 57077705)
I might be mistaken but in a hockey tournament right now, there is a team with two loses that eliminated an undefeated team because of the timing of the game.

This, you won only because you were better for just one game argument is all crap. On both sides. Welcome to round robin tournament sports. If you don't like it don't play. Would you prefer the old, one big round robin with the winner? or a single KO bracket like the NCAA tournaments?

I actually liked the old round-robin format from the amateur days. That way, every game is important and the winner is usually the team that had the best overall body of work and not the team that was better on one day but not necessarily better overall.

And I agree, I'm aware of the "timing of the game" issue and understand the undefeated team lost to a team with two losses. And that one of those losses was to the very team they beat today. Just like USA beat Canada in the prelimins in Vancouver but lost the gold medal game. I don't necessarily like that, I prefer older formats that had two large groups and a four-team round robin medal round.

Hammer Time 01-04-2013 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulieVegas (Post 57074365)
Tell me, why is it that it's okay for Canadians to play the "we were the better team despite the outcome" card when they lose, but when an American like me does it, he gets flamed? Can you say "double standard?"

We were the best team in the 2002 tournament. You were the best team in the gold medal game. Prior to that we had not lost a game (you got clobbered in Game 1 by Sweden), we came into the semis with a +18 goal differential versus your -1 (that's MINUS 1), we played a real team in the semis (and beat them) rather than get a undeserved gift game against Belarus, and we outscored Finland and Germany by a combined 11-0, while you outscored them only 6-4.

Yes, you were better in the gold medal game. Congrats for being better for three hours of a two-week tournament. But stop patting yourself on the back with your "soundly outplayed" garbage. If I recall, shots on goal were pretty close (about 36-32 or something) and the game was tight until you scored a couple of late goals on the counterattack towards the end of the game when we were pressing all 5 guys forward to try and get that tying goal. You were better, but you did not "soundly outplay" us. You're just thumping your Canadian chest by saying that.

If I decided to use the "better overall team" card for 2011, I'd be flamed to hell and back. I mean, Boston was only better than Vancouver for two weeks of an eight-month season! Undeserving of being called champions. Am I doing this right? :sarcasm:

WarriorofTime 01-04-2013 01:17 AM

2002 was the last great hurrah of the "old guard" the generation of great USA hockey players who grew into the game as kids following the 1980 Olympics. They notably lead the US to its only best on best championship in the 1996 World Cup. After a disappointing performance in the 1998 Olympics they rebounded nicely in 2002 but were all veterans by that point.

The group that followed of players who came up in the 1990s was pretty disappointing. The new generation however looks much more promising and World Juniors results in recent times reflect an improved group of Americans that are entering the NHL and will compete for Olympic rosters from this point on. 2010 had a ton of youth and there's lots of new competition emerging.

WarriorofTime 01-04-2013 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by espo* (Post 53480033)
The reasoning is solid?

So, I guess we can say that Vancouver was really the Stanley cup Champion 2 years ago and not the Boston Bruins because they had the "best overall body of work" during the course of the whole season?. Try going over to the Boston board and throwing that thesis in a thread and see what the response is.

If the Americans were so good they should have wiped the floor with Canada in that Gold meal game, instead they were the one that got wiped.

You are blaming that on a tougher semi final game against the Russians? they were tired?

Speaking of that Russia game I remember Fetisov saying the Refs basically handed the game to the Americans, who knows?...................maybe you weren't so great and didn't have such a tough semifinal??

But I bet you would disagree with that charge wouldn't you? I bet Herb Brooks did too.After all.....................the U.S won that game. But the tune changes when you don't win doesn't it?

See how that works?...............see what i'm getting at?

It's so easy to manafacture excuses like that such as you are doing here isn't it?

You talk about how the U.S had "tougher matchups' and how Canada looked "atrocious all tournament" when in fact the U.S had one, count em one, tougher matchup then Canada on it's route to gold, not two,or three............just one. That burnt your team out? I guess your team wasn't so good after all........or mentally weak at the least.As far as us being atrocious all tournament long we played good games against the Czechs and Finns that tournament, the czechs were defending champs and the Finns aren't pushovers you know, you have to play well to beat them and no-one should have to tell you that.


This is a new one, titles awarded on "overall body of work" Since when are championships in team sports like Hockey given Gold medals or trophies on "overall body of work"

When did this start?

That's just so weak.


You had all your best players, momentum and the home crowd.............................you had every opportunity and edge possible you needed to win and instead you got thumped.



You and certainly Herb Brooks have absolutely no reason to whine and be a baby.You and herb wanna blame your loss on someone or something..................a good look in the mirror by herb and his players is the place to start and end.


Canada won the Gold and were the champs and earned every inch of it.

Just classic sore loser stuff.

I think you're overreacting a bit. The 2002 Canada roster looked not nearly as good as the 1998 one that didn't win. Certainly they were still one of the best teams and I'm not surprised they won.

Random Bruins Fan 01-04-2013 01:32 AM

These international tournaments always favor the team that peaks at the right time. Canada ran the table in round robin play the last 2 or 3 WJ tournaments and it got them **** all and nobody is trying to say they had the best body of work. In 2002 Canada soundly beat the US in the gold medal game. lol, not sure why we are arguing about a tournament 10 years ago. Americans did have a very good team team/tournament though and their hockey future looks bright.

Machinehead 01-04-2013 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Systemfel (Post 50779165)
Poti is basically retired.

Poti was essentially retired his whole career

Big Phil 01-04-2013 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanDream (Post 53474633)
the US was the best team in 2002 throughout the tournament....

Canada got the garbage semi-final game with Belarus for God's sake, while the US had to already play their gold medal game against Russia in the semi's.

It was a complete joke then as it is now that the US which had the best record did not get to play Belarus instead of Russia...

Herb Brooks was pissed then, and I am still pissed now how that all went down...

Canada looked like crap that entire tournament but got bailed out in their semi bs matchup...

the US however was the better team throughout the tournament, and had to play the tougher matchups to get to the Gold...

PV's reasoning is solid and accurate

Oh come on really? Canada just got soundly beaten yesterday in the semis at the World Juniors. They lost, they deserved to lose and I am embarassed of their performance. The US was better.

That being said, as a Canadian who watched the 2002 Olympics it was clear to me that there were certain countries that peaked early (US, Sweden) and other ones who sort of took a steady incline to victory like Canada. This was a brand new Canadian team compared to 1996 or 1998. Lots of new players and they didn't have the luxury like the USA of being together for almost a decade. The USA had the same team more or less from 1996 that they had in 2002. THey knew each other well and it showed early on. With Canada it didn't but this was a team who got better as the tournament progressed.

In the Gold medal game the Americans were outclassed. We won 5-2 and hit three posts, one of which was Mario's famous "how did that not go in" shot. At the end of the second period the score was 3-2 and to anyone who watched it you'd have sworn it was 6-2. Canada really did beat the Americans soundly in that game.

As for the tournament format. No big deal. Yes Canada played Belarus in the semis, however they faced Finland in the quarterfinals and WOULD have faced Sweden in the semis had Tommy Salo not blown it. That means Canada has a Finland, Sweden and USA route to the Gold. I don't know about you, but that is hardly an easy route. Sweden just made it easier for Canada, but by then it hardly mattered. No one was beating this team anymore.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.