IIHF World ChampionshipDiscuss International Tournaments like the WJC, Olympics, and World Cup, as they take place, or discuss past tournaments. performances.
Being small or big isn't a defense or argument for not being the best, it is just the reason you aren't. It is not a bad thing Canada is the best because of their numbers, thats just the way things work. If/when the USA and Russia cat p in numbers they will be much closer to Canada and make for some even better hockey.
Good thing about hockey is the best team doesn't always win in a single game. Thats what makes it exciting.
It all depends on what your definition of "best" is.
You and I have a different opinion.
Best to me is "who can throw out the best hockey team with the fewest restrictions on who is available".
Both the WHC and the WJC have inherent restrictions on who countries are able to put into the line-up.
To me it is who inconstantly in international play wins the most often + who has the most players at the top of the game.
Well, Canada doesn't win the most often.
We have one gold in all competitions since 2010.
Or do you mean, it's an all-time measure? Meaning that, Sweden can never be #1 until they win another 15 golds or whatever to catch up to Soviet Union/Russia and Canada?
Who has the most players at the top of the game? How do you measure that?
Or do you mean, it's an all-time measure? Meaning that, Sweden can never be #1 until they win another 15 golds or whatever to catch up to Soviet Union/Russia and Canada?
Who has the most players at the top of the game? How do you measure that?
Consistently, over a period of time. I don't mean since the beginning of time, but when a person thinks of who wins the most often, who who is the team to beat. More often then not it is Canada.
Or do you mean, it's an all-time measure? Meaning that, Sweden can never be #1 until they win another 15 golds or whatever to catch up to Soviet Union/Russia and Canada?
Who has the most players at the top of the game? How do you measure that?
You really seem to need numbers associated to everything to understand. Are you an accountant? not an insult or anything, just a question.
No, not an accountant. I don't even like numbers all that much.
I just think you need criteria, and that those criteria should be as objective as possible.
For example:
I imagine you might get a different answer in Etobicoke compared with Vladivostok or Helsinki.
I feel, even on HF, that most people feel Canada is normally the team to beat. This thread alone, with person after person saying that Canada is still #1, shows that.
Or do you mean, it's an all-time measure? Meaning that, Sweden can never be #1 until they win another 15 golds or whatever to catch up to Soviet Union/Russia and Canada?
Who has the most players at the top of the game? How do you measure that?
In your opinion there has only been one competition of value since 2010. So, yes, we do win the most often.
It all depends on what your definition of "best" is.
You and I have a different opinion.
Best to me is "who can throw out the best hockey team with the fewest restrictions on who is available".
Both the WHC and the WJC have inherent restrictions on who countries are able to put into the line-up.
Do you think that Canada does not have the same depth in the senior ranks as it does in any given WJC? I would say Canada has the same depth in the restricted, junior ranks as the open, senior ranks. The proof is that Canada has won at both levels (disregarding the WHC's) at roughly the same % over the past 30 years.
I feel, even on HF, that most people feel Canada is normally the team to beat. This thread alone, with person after person saying that Canada is still #1, shows that.
Are you surprised thats the feel on an NHL forum, dominated by people from NA?
Ask people in Sweden, 80% of them will say Finland. Ask people in Finland, they'll say Sweden.
In your opinion there has only been one competition of value since 2010. So, yes, we do win the most often.
You're exactly right.
This also invalidates any other result until 2014, at which point the #1 ranking is up for grabs.
This is why I've always said that Canada is #1, due to being the Olympic champion.
The issue I have is with Canadians stating that, if the Russians win in 2014, it doesn't automatically make them #1.
Either it does make them #1, because the Olympics is the decider, or it doesn't, because they haven't won consistently enough.
BUT, if they haven't won consistently enough, that criteria should probably invalidate our current status as #1.
In other words, either you believe the Olympics is the be-all and end-all, and Canada is #1, or it isn't, in which case Canada isn't, given our lack of success in other tournaments in the last 3 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daver
Do you think that Canada does not have the same depth in the senior ranks as it does in any given WJC? I would say Canada has the same depth in the restricted, junior ranks as the open, senior ranks. The proof is that Canada has won at both levels (disregarding the WHC's) at roughly the same % over the past 30 years.
Just because we have won at both levels doesn't mean that the competitions are equivalent IMO.
Using Canada as the only example to show that the tournaments are equivalent isn't enough.
You'd have to look at how the other countries fare in both competitions. If the positioning is the same, then maybe you'd have a point.
I have the feeling that smaller countries are under-represented at the Junior ranks relative to the Senior ranks in terms of their relative success.
And again, "best" to me isn't about depth, it's about fielding the highest quality hockey team.
For the 2nd time in this thread Sochi is in 2014, 2016 is Rio.
Sorry about that, you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kessly Snipes
BTW I completely disagree.
Oh well.
Based on what you've said in this thread, I suspect that Canada will never relinquish their hold on #1 over your entire lifetime.
I think Canada is the most "important" hockey country, but that's because of our national obsession, our history, our huge hockey infrastructure and the fact that we don't have any major competition among other sports.
That to me, is something different, and unlikely to change any time soon.
Based on what you've said in this thread, I suspect that Canada will never relinquish their hold on #1 over your entire lifetime.
I think Canada is the most "important" hockey country, but that's because of our national obsession, our history, our huge hockey infrastructure and the fact that we don't have any major competition among other sports.
That to me, is something different, and unlikely to change any time soon.
If Russia, USA or Sweden place ahead of us in the next few World Jrs and Sochi then we will not be on top. If we win all 3 and get silver in Sochi I would still put us on top. If we get bumped early in Sochi then we are not the best.
Someone needs to pass us, and one win by any of them does not do that, but a few will.
If Russia, USA or Sweden place ahead of us in the next few World Jrs and Sochi then we will not be on top. If we win all 3 and get silver in Sochi I would still put us on top. If we get bumped early in Sochi then we are not the best.
Someone needs to pass us, and one win by any of them does not do that, but a few will.
Well, I disagree, but I appreciate the specificity.
They might still be, but they're far from being there easily. The Swiss don't have stars as big as the Slovaks, but their team performances have lately been on par with Slovakia. Their home league, NLA, is also much better than the Slovakian Extraliga, even prior to Slovan and last year Poprad playing in the KHL.
They might still be, but they're far from being there easily. The Swiss don't have stars as big as the Slovaks, but their team performances have lately been on par with Slovakia. Their home league, NLA, is also much better than the Slovakian Extraliga, even prior to Slovan and last year Poprad playing in the KHL.
The level of the home league doesn't matter. Results do, and even though the Slovaks have had some bad results lately, you can't be so quick to count them out. It is likely just a low point in development. But recent results haven't been all bad. Barely lose in the Olympic semi-finals, and a silver in the WC.
