IIHF World ChampionshipDiscuss International Tournaments like the WJC, Olympics, and World Cup, as they take place, or discuss past tournaments. performances.
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.
Who has done better than us? Who is near the top as often. And what makes 3 years the cut off? I would think 5 or so would be give a better sample, but I guess there is no set period, unless there is an agenda to a post.
canada loses world jr's cause their best players are in the nhl. in the olympics russia has no chance
This.
When Canada's best went up against Russia's best at the 2010 Olympics, the Russian team was run out of the building. It wasn't close, and I can't justify any other country ahead of Canada.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
When Canada's best went up against Russia's best at the 2010 Olympics, the Russian team was run out of the building. It wasn't close, and I can't justify any other country ahead of Canada.
No doubt that this is a really dumb thread. No doubt this is a troll thread, protestations to the contrary. I'm a Russian fan, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support the proposition that Russia is currently #1. But it really seems moronic to keep bringing up that one single solitary unique only game in Vancouver, 2010. Yes, Canada won 7-3, thanks to an emotional effort spurred on by the flag-waving crowd, and, from the perspective of Russians, a supreme let-down of his team by Nabokov in goal. But it was just one game, and in other games, Canada was lucky to squeak by Slovakia and the United States. If the '72 series was just one game, then Russia's 7-3 victory, by Canadian standards, would have earned them the crown as hockey's superior nation. This same argument, repeated ad nauseum, is not subtlely retarded - it is blatantly, in your face retarded.
well its based on results. there is no better method of measurement
Well u got the hfboard method. Look at the roster and make a conclusion like
1 Canada (Allways the best, no mather what)
2 USA (We got like 300 nhl third liners. We rock)
3 Sweden (Detroit red wings + a little extra)
4 Russia (Kovy, Ovi, Malkin, Dats and Semin)
5 Finland (Goalies)
6 Czech rep (Old, but good players)
7 Slovakia (Gabby and Hossa)
8 Switzerland (Hiller and 3 d pairings)
9 Germany (Seidenberg, Seidenberg, Seidenberg)
10 Denmark (6 Nhlrs)
11 Belarus (3 NHLrs)
12 Austria (3 NHLrs)
13 Latvia (1 NHLr)
14 Norway (0 NHL)
15 Ukraine (2 NHLrs, but nothing more)
16 Slovenia (Only Kopitar)
Who cares about the results. Just count the number of NHL players. Then u make a list. U dnt need a ranking. Ranking is stupid, just read a wikipedia article about the subject hockey and make a conclusion. And remember no mather what happens Canada will allways be number 1 and Switzerland will never be among the big 7
well its based on results. there is no better method of measurement
Really?
You mean if Russian played Canada, outshot us 67-13, had 4 goals disallowed, hit 5 posts, dominated the game in every area but lost on a fluky bounce you'd declare Canada #1 because the IIHF says so?
There are not nearly enough results to give the IIHF rankings a squirt of merit.
No doubt that this is a really dumb thread. No doubt this is a troll thread, protestations to the contrary. I'm a Russian fan, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support the proposition that Russia is currently #1.
This is not a dumb nor a troll thread. The opinion voiced is based on actual results shown by the national teams on different levels and not on hypothetical things proposed over and over again in this thread.
And the results show that Canada has not won ANYTHING since 2010 Olympics. Something that is hard to imagine, but Canada hasn't even won a WJHC or an U18 WJHC. And that's considering all of the WJHC were held in North America.
I understand you all keep bringing the Olympics result from almost 3 years ago, the draft numbers, the number of NHLers, but on the ice, Canada is not winning. Plain and simple.
You mean if Russian played Canada, outshot us 67-13, had 4 goals disallowed, hit 5 posts, dominated the game in every area but lost on a fluky bounce you'd declare Canada #1 because the IIHF says so?
There are not nearly enough results to give the IIHF rankings a squirt of merit.
who will remember your shots count or goal post hit counts when everyone will only remember the outcome?
perhaps you could show us some other rating that is meaningful.
I'm just saying that using the IIHF rankings as a measure of which nation is best is a flawed approach to take, considering that their rankings are designed to punish success.
perhaps you could show us some other rating that is meaningful.
Sure, Canada is ranked 5th in terms of points, but are you telling me that they're the 5th best in international hockey?
The rankings are heavily influenced by World Championships...a tournament that Canadian players and fans (unfortunately) do not care about. Yeah, they deserve to be 5th on that table, but let's be real here...
perhaps you could show us some other rating that is meaningful.
If he says the IIHF essentially means nothing then pretty much anything would be more meaningful. Google any word and read the 5th result. That has the exact same or more meaning.
who will remember your shots count or goal post hit counts when everyone will only remember the outcome?
I think most people with a clue about hockey will remember the game.
==
Let's make it even more clear. We'll say Canada made the finals by beating Denmark, Italy and China. The Russians beat Sweden, Czech and the US. Now it really doesn't matter what you think you may or may not remember, we are discussing the ratings after the result. Would this scenario make Canada the better team when they clearly were not?
If he says the IIHF essentially means nothing then pretty much anything would be more meaningful. Google any word and read the 5th result. That has the exact same or more meaning.
so that's the comeback? Thanks, I'll stick with the IIHF rating, rating compiled by a federation that organizes all the national tournaments.
You mean if Russian played Canada, outshot us 67-13, had 4 goals disallowed, hit 5 posts, dominated the game in every area but lost on a fluky bounce you'd declare Canada #1 because the IIHF says so?
There are not nearly enough results to give the IIHF rankings a squirt of merit.
what are you talking about not enough results, theres a tournament every year and two tournaments every 4 years. thats more than enough to make a ranking off of. and your hypothetical scenario makes no sense why would canada move up in the rankings if they lose?
Sure, Canada is ranked 5th in terms of points, but are you telling me that they're the 5th best in international hockey?
The rankings are heavily influenced by World Championships...a tournament that Canadian players and fans (unfortunately) do not care about. Yeah, they deserve to be 5th on that table, but let's be real here...
Ok so its like this. You dnt care about the world championship, but you want to be ranked as number 1. U know that u have to win a few tournaments to gain that 1st place, but u dnt bother. When the IIHF then releases the new world ranking u are furious that u are not on the top. To me it just sound stupid. U have to work hard to be number one and the fact is that the canadian national team dosent play with heart.
Its like the student that dosent do the homework. "Im the best, I dnt need to read. Reading is stupid, because we all know that im the smartest and best in class. I dnt care if mr X got an A and i got a D, because im still better than mr X. We all know it."
so that's the comeback? Thanks, I'll stick with the IIHF rating, rating compiled by a federation that organizes all the national tournaments.
Well, if you want to base your opinion on a ranking that primarily uses a tournament that usually doesn't have the best players from Canada then have at it. It makes perfect sense.
I think most people with a clue about hockey will remember the game.
==
Let's make it even more clear. We'll say Canada made the finals by beating Denmark, Italy and China. The Russians beat Sweden, Czech and the US. Now it really doesn't matter what you think you may or may not remember, we are discussing the ratings after the result. Would this scenario make Canada the better team when they clearly were not?
the outcome is all that matters. as a caps fan i understand this well, especially after watching the caps dominate the habs in the playoffs but we lost because of halak and our "bad luck". its nice to outshoot and look better than your opponent but in the end goaltending, post hits, and flukes are a part of the game they shouldn't be ignored.
what are you talking about not enough results, theres a tournament every year and two tournaments every 4 years. thats more than enough to make a ranking off of. and your hypothetical scenario makes no sense why would canada move up in the rankings if they lose?
I think you need to reread my post. It is a preposterous hypothetical situation, but according to the IIHF it would make Canada #1.
The IIHF's ranking are the random musings of another Euro-centred sports body.
Soon we will be nr 1. Number 9 in 2011, number 8 in 2012, number 7 in 2013, number 6 in 2014 and so on. This is math 
