View Single Post
02-14-2013, 10:55 AM
Registered User
JackSlater's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,343
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
I guess we are getting at the fundamental point which I've argued in several different facets in not only hockey, but also in other sports on what exactly constitute the BEST team. The real argument is how to define the best team. My personal opinion on the matter is the best team wins. You could be more suited, talented, or tooled for a particular competition however that doesn't mean you were better. For instance a couple of years ago when UCONN won the national championship in basketball the final was horrible because both teams played terribly and the game was bad. However they had won all their conference games to get to that point and the only way to get to Carnegie Hall is practice.

The real meat of the argument comes down to if Canada doesn't win gold, they weren't the best team. Just like the US wasn't the better team in Vancouver three years ago. It would be merely a comparison of two teams that win the Olympic Gold Medal. Realistically Canada's obviously one of the odds on favorites again as they usually are. The point that I was making that if Canada doesn't win, there is no way they can be considered as better. It's necessary to view both teams in terms of results as they are the real things that matter. If Canada wins Silver, Bronze or doesn't medal, I personally wouldn't say they are as good as the 2010 team. Each tournament or season is different in whatever way you compare them so the result is what I look at because they are all so independent of each other. You can be the better prepared and more talented team which increases your opportunity to succeed, however ultimately the result is what matters and determines how good you were.

Maybe I'm a bit off base, it's definitely possible. Maybe it should be argued that the winning team was the more deserving of teams. This could be a solid argument. Personally I think it helps to define who was the best team and the only thing you can do to say that you could possibly have been a better team this time around is to take the whole effing thing for yourself and come home with gold. Then, and only then can we compare the two teams.
Best doesn't simply equate to winner. To me, the best team is the team that would win more often than not against all of the other teams. A single game is basically irrelevant in proving which team is better. If the Olympics was structured like the Stanley Cup playoffs I would be much more comfortable accepting the winner as the best team. That still would not prove what the best team was however, as it's possible that results could have been different had each series gone on longer, and thus been a more accurate representation.

The Olympics are a fun experience for all fans, but the results aren't indicative of a whole lot. If Miller had saved Crosby's shot in overtime and some American player took the rebound and fired a shot past Luongo, would that magically reverse things and make USA a better team than Canada? That sounds absurd to me.

JackSlater is offline