HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   International Tournaments (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Olympics: Let's be reality, was US the underdog going into the final? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=744704)

elriz 03-01-2010 04:28 PM

Let's be reality, was US the underdog going into the final?
 
I honestly have no idea when I'm being trolled here anymore. Now that the game is over and the chest pumping from both sides has died down a bit, pick one.

I was under the impression that the USA team was playing great hockey and wasn't an underdog at all -- and I thought the game reflected that. Maybe I'm wrong!

Reality Check 03-01-2010 04:30 PM

Is this a serious question?

Grabovski 03-01-2010 04:30 PM

They were undefeated going into the game and had already beaten Canada! How does that make them the underdogs? Canada was the underdog imo.

Ironslave 03-01-2010 04:32 PM

They were the underdog for sure, no doubt about it. But, like their first win against Canada, it wouldn't have been a shock or "miracle" if they won. The game was actually a lot more evenly matched game than the first game against Canada in which Miller was outstanding and Brodeur was lousy.

NyQuil 03-01-2010 04:32 PM

I'd say the US was the underdog going into the Final.

If it had been played in the States, like in Salt Lake, maybe you'd see the opposite.

But the big turnaround was the Canada-Russia game. A very confident Canadian team manhandled the opposition.

And while Slovakia kept things excruciatingly close, I'd say the general perception was that Canada underestimated the Slovakian team. They did not underestimate the Russians nor would they the Americans in the gold medal final.

If Canada had eked by Germany, Russia and Slovakia, barely holding it together, you may have seen people expect Canada to lose given the US result against Finland.

But the fact that Canada was at home, and had achieved a couple of fairly one-sided results, meant that the US would be the underdog for sure.

The Joker* 03-01-2010 04:33 PM

Let's be reality, for real.

IRON JELLY* 03-01-2010 04:35 PM

They weren't underdogs, but if it marginalizes Canada's win and makes them feel a little better about the loss, then sure, why not.

It's just nice to know that they can't label themselves underdogs from now on. They'll be expected to perform well in future tournaments. If I were an American, I wouldn't be happy with anything less than a Silver :D

karnige 03-01-2010 04:37 PM

They were underdogs but not severely. They definitely got Canada off their game when the score hit 2-1

weems 03-01-2010 04:37 PM

USA was forsure underdogs.

All you have to do is look at what Vegas thought of the game.

Canada was a -250 favorite or so going into the game.

TOML 03-01-2010 04:38 PM

Let's see...

The US was an underdog on paper heading into the Olympics.

They did better than most thought.

The came within a goal of winning.

But lost.


Classic underdog story.

NyQuil 03-01-2010 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weems (Post 24206820)
USA was forsure underdogs.

All you have to do is look at what Vegas thought of the game.

Canada was a -250 favorite or so going into the game.

Actually, you have to be a little more careful of that kind of interpretation.

The word is that Vegas skewed the odds because they figured the majority of betters would be Canadian betting on Canada.

It's what happens when they have betting in a niche sport.

More goes into odds-making than simply the teams on the field. They also analyze the likely betting patterns.

elriz 03-01-2010 04:41 PM

the general feeling among people i talk about hockey with was that "holy **** the USA Team is playing great and Miller is in beast mode, if we are to win we need to play insane -- the Slovak game gives me no confidence".

not that we thought Team Canada was the underdog, but i never thought we had an advantage. on hfboards i've run into both arguments that "the Canadian team should have won, they were huge favorites!" and "the US team outplayed the Canadian team all game and all tournament".

i'm just looking for a general consensus on hfboards so i know im not taking crazy pills.

Chemical Dave 03-01-2010 04:41 PM

The way I see it, there was no real underdog. Arguments could be made both ways.
Argument for Canadians being underdogs: America won the first game, and they were a true team, who played better than the sum of their parts for the entire tournament.
Argument for USA being underdogs: Canada was the best on paper, and they were on home ice.
There was maybe a slight edge to Canada, but there was certainly no underdog.

NyQuil 03-01-2010 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elriz (Post 24206915)
the general feeling among people i talk about hockey with was that "holy **** the USA Team is playing great and Miller is in beast mode, if we are to win we need to play insane -- the Slovak game gives me no confidence".

not that we thought Team Canada was the underdog, but i never thought we had an advantage. on hfboards i've run into both arguments that "the Canadian team should have won, they were huge favorites!" and "the US team outplayed the Canadian team all game and all tournament".

i'm just looking for a general consensus on hfboards so i know im not taking crazy pills.

Most people I spoke with thought that Canada had the better overall team but that the US had the better goalie and were playing well as a team.

For the record, virtually everyone I spoke with thought it would be close, and it was.

However, the general thinking was that Miller would have to make a lot of big stops, much as he did in the first USA-Canada game.

elriz 03-01-2010 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chemical Dave (Post 24206922)
The way I see it, there was no real underdog. Arguments could be made both ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NyQuil (Post 24206945)
Most people I spoke with thought that Canada had the better overall team but that the US had the better goalie and were playing well as a team.

For the record, virtually everyone I spoke with thought it would be close, and it was.

this is kinda where my head was at, but i'm wondering if its a uniquely Canadian perspective.

Psycho Papa Joe 03-01-2010 04:45 PM

Somewhere between option 3 and 4

Marns 03-01-2010 04:56 PM

Let's be reality, this saying is getting old quicker than all of the epic epicness in the epic internet.

elriz 03-01-2010 04:57 PM

to be devil's advocate here: i think it could be easily argued that the team who is undefeated and has beaten their rival previously would be considered the favorite to win the subsequent game.

qwertyaas 03-01-2010 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elriz (Post 24207357)
to be devil's advocate here: i think it could be easily argued that the team who is undefeated and has beaten their rival previously would be considered the favorite to win the subsequent game.

Were you not on the forums after the win? Noone gave the USA any credit for the win. They were underdogs from the start - before the rosters were picked up until the start of the game. Every accomplishment this tourney was discredited for various reasons.

If anything changed it was both teams were viewed as having an equal chance of winning the gold game. But if anyone had the edge, it was still Canada. But make no mistake - with a ridiculous roster like Canada (especially after they finally started to click), there is no way they weren't favored to win.

Dan-o16 03-01-2010 05:14 PM

Nearly any idiot who could read the names on the back of the sweaters knows who the underdogs were.

I'm glad to know that the US hasn't cornered the market on idiots.

But this much is true: this US has proven that they're no longer even with the Czechs, the Finns, and the Slovaks... They're up there with the Swedes, and the Canadians.

The stories going into the next Olympics, if NHL players are involved, will be (i) whether the Russians can reconstitute their team to be competitive, and (ii) how, not whether, the veteran US team led by Captain Zach Parise challenges for gold.

Cheers,

Dan-o

elriz 03-01-2010 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwertyaas (Post 24207559)
Were you not on the forums after the win? Noone gave the USA any credit for the win.

it was just a hypothetical standpoint. i agree, in my head if this series got run 10 times i think it would end up 5-5 or maybe 6-4 advantage Canada.

awesomo 03-01-2010 05:16 PM

Everyone playing Canada was an underdog (except MAYBE russia)

Tombernack 03-01-2010 05:18 PM

I think USA was the underdog?

qwertyaas 03-01-2010 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elriz (Post 24207832)
it was just a hypothetical standpoint. i agree, in my head if this series got run 10 times i think it would end up 5-5 or maybe 6-4 advantage Canada.

Oh I understand what you meant. Just that your question echos what's being said here as well (after-the-fact at least) :)

foxfang 03-01-2010 05:22 PM

just wanted to put my 2 cents. Im in Australia now and a few americans have been making it seem as if the US was Latvia coming into this tournament. Along with "it isn't our sport"

1- Hockey is a shared north american sport. both countries have a considerable amount of tradition in it.
2- the US also beats Mexico in soccer on a consistent basis, and it that definitely isn't "their sport"


They can't play down with a serious face the fact that they have over 300 million people an investment potential that can only be described as being surreal. I'd say even that the US were slight favorites to win last night. :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.