View Single Post
02-14-2013, 12:35 PM
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
Cory Trevor's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Waltham
Country: United States
Posts: 8,180
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
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.
Well I understand your point but that gold medal game wasn't dominated by anybody. In fact it was a pretty evenly fought game. Canada was surely the more talented team and made more of their opportunities in the first half however the U.S. team I think outworked them a bit for a while, finishing more checks and forechecking better. That was the thing that made that Canadian all that more impressive to me. They relaxed and let their natural talents take over the game and allowed them to win.

In a one game, you are either on your game or your not. Though I agree a series would be a better way to determine the Gold Medal, you only have one crack at it. It sometimes allow players to perform at a level that maybe won't be seen in a full series.

Maybe something like a two game series with a third game if necessary. The only problem is the argument extends itself, well 2 games?? why not 3!!! why not 5!!! why not the same length of an NHL playoff series. One single game allows for anything to happen and frankly, they are usually more exciting. The World Cup Final, A game 7, the Superbowl.

I get where you are coming from but maybe that last Gold Medal game was a bad example. Both of those teams were two different styles with the U.S. maybe not being as talented but playing workman like and Canada allowing their natural abilities takeover. Each team performed to their strengths however the better team won. Had the U.S. done like you said, would they be considered deserving because they worked just as hard while being slightly not as talented?

Cory Trevor is offline