View Single Post
Old
09-16-2008, 03:50 PM
  #37
le_sean
Registered User
 
le_sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 14,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownman View Post
Nope.

The '98 team did have arguably the best d-corps ever assembled (the weak-point was Desjardins in his prime) but up front they were lacking, even with the likes of Gretz and Lindros (Sakic's groin ) there were just too many role players, not enough finish. And Crawford

'02 was not a fluke, come out of it. They handily defeated a pretty gritty Finnish team (Hurme left everything out there) and would have looked far more up to task against the Swedes than in the opener, ultimately defeating them. If Salo couldn't keep his cool against the Belarussians, what reason is there to think he could cope with a rejuvenated Canadian squad? Then they kicked the **** out of the Americans. Fluke? No sir.

06 was a joke though.

Anyway, all-in-all, Hockey Canada should look to fresher faces.
Also remember in 1998 Kariya was a force and could not play because of that cheap shot by Gary Suter.

2002 was not a fluke, I agree. A great combination of veterans and young players (Iginla's coming out party). They had a poor showing against Sweden and even Germany. When Wayne came out and spoke to the media about how everyone wanted Canada to lose it had a serious effect, no one had ever seen Wayne like that and players began to play like they could.

2006 was just pathetic. Chemistry was ignored and it was thought if you can just put the best group of Canadians together they would win easily, and wow were they proven wrong. It's a good lesson to learn though for trying to win in 2010 at home.

le_sean is online now   Reply With Quote