IIHF World ChampionshipDiscuss International Tournaments like the WJC, Olympics, and World Cup, as they take place, or discuss past tournaments. performances.
You would be more credible if you did not generalize a whole country.
This debate should start and end with what happened on the ice but if you want to play the "what if" game....
The 04 US team was your A team. There were no players that were not eligible to play because of commitments to their club team. The fact that a few players who developed into better NHL players is irrelevant. If you want to get into the "what if" game, there are plenty of other versions of Team Canada that would have been better than the 04 US team based simply on the fact that players who did not play were "too good" for the team, not because they were borderline like the four you mentioned were missing from the 04 team.
Canadians do it relentlessly when they lose. You just can't accept there are other
"what if " circumstances. In fact you lost to the US team that had at least 5-6
2nd teamers.
So lets hear your 2004 versions.
Its laughable that you say the difference between Buff and Likens or Pavelski, Callahan, and Backes over Moore, Wiener, Dowell or Fritsch were borderline. The difference was not borderline. USA Hockey picked the wrong players, period.
My memeory isn't the greatest, but I think Ladd played with Carter & Getzlaf, Bergeron centred Crosby & Perry.
That post you quoted my friend was an updated version of the team, showing that it would still be an incredible team if assembled again today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowline
Canadians do it relentlessly when they lose. You just can't accept there are other
"what if " circumstances. In fact you lost to the US team that had at least 5-6
2nd teamers.
So lets hear your 2004 versions.
Its laughable that you say the difference between Buff and Likens or Pavelski, Callahan, and Backes over Moore, Wiener, Dowell or Fritsch were borderline. The difference was not borderline. USA Hockey picked the wrong players, period.
What are you even trying to say? The tournament was played in 2005, not 2012. It's a pointless exercise to complain about players who were selected in 2005 based on what they developed into. I'm sure Dave Bolland looks better on paper than Stephen Dixon, as does Travis Zajac with Jeremy Colliton while Mike Green and Brent Burns look nicer than Danny Syvret and Shawn Belle. Big whoop.
Canadians do it relentlessly when they lose. You just can't accept there are other
"what if " circumstances. In fact you lost to the US team that had at least 5-6
2nd teamers.
So lets hear your 2004 versions.
Its laughable that you say the difference between Buff and Likens or Pavelski, Callahan, and Backes over Moore, Wiener, Dowell or Fritsch were borderline. The difference was not borderline. USA Hockey picked the wrong players, period.
I'm not the one throwing out "what if" and hypothetical scenarios. I am pointing out the difference between players who didn't play because they were deemed at the time not good enough versus players who didn't play because they were in the NHL.
The fact that the 04 US team beat the 04 version of Team Canada 2005 is meaningless. A year's worth of development and experience at that age is significant.
Why did USA hockey pick the "wrong" players? Were they part of the development program?
You can 't have it both ways. When the US or Russia wins Canadians always play the what if we had card. When I do it in this thread by assembling a team (essentially contains the top 9 2010 US Olympic Team forwards) you start saying you cant use the what if arguments. Sorry but we both know now that
US team I put together would be competitive in a 7 game series with Team Canada.
You make it sound as if this is a uniquely Canadian trait. LOL
No offence, but you haven't been around here long enough to make that kind of assumption.
Everyone on here does that. For national teams, for club teams, you name it.
That is what makes the message boards so fun. A bunch of armchair coaches who get to spout off about how lousy the people in charge are, and how we could obviously do a better job if it wasn't for our kid's soccer game or the community tard sale meeting we had to go to that somehow made us miss getting chosen as GM.
Canadians do it relentlessly when they lose. You just can't accept there are other
"what if " circumstances. In fact you lost to the US team that had at least 5-6
2nd teamers.
So lets hear your 2004 versions.
A Canadian team without Rick Nash, Eric Staal, Patrice Bergeron, Nathan Horton, Brent Burns, Pierre-Marc Bouchard
Kazakhstan beat Thailand 52-1 in 2007 Asian Games, so no, it's not the most one sided ever.
What's more interesting for me is that the greatest team ever still had 8 players (more than 1/3) who didn't make it into the NHL.
How do you score 52 goals in 60 minutes and not be embarassed for running up the score? Jeez that's almost a goal a minute. 2004 US team deserves an HM.
Here are some interesting stats. Career NHL point totals by year of birth & nationality:
1982-Top 20: Canada 15, USA 1
1983-Top 20: Canada 10, USA 3
1984-Top 20: Canada 3, USA 7
1985-Top 20: Canada 13, USA 4 (11 of the first 14 are Canadian)
1986-Top 20: Canada 9, USA 4
There are more Canadians born in 1985 who have reached 200 career points (13) than in every year from 1977 to 1984 with the exception of 1980 (14).
Here are some interesting stats. Career NHL point totals by year of birth & nationality:
1982-Top 20: Canada 15, USA 1
1983-Top 20: Canada 10, USA 3
1984-Top 20: Canada 3, USA 7
1985-Top 20: Canada 13, USA 4 (11 of the first 14 are Canadian)
1986-Top 20: Canada 9, USA 4
There are more Canadians born in 1985 who have reached 200 career points (13) than in every year from 1977 to 1984 with the exception of 1980 (14).
Interesting. Thanks. The numbers may be too low for non-Canadian countries to be of statistical significance, but is it easy to see what percentage of players by nationality were taken each year? For example, if 60% of draftees in a given year are Canadian, are they under-performing career scoring-wise if only 55% of the list for top-20 scorers ends up being Canadian? Or, would it need a cut-off since high-impact forwards generally are drafted closer to the top? Idk. I suck at stats
Why is this even a debate. 2005 Canada was the most dominate team period. Destroyed every opponent didn't have any slip ups no if this player made or if they won that game. No they ran through the tournament men against boys. delete this thread
Why is this even a debate. 2005 Canada was the most dominate team period. Destroyed every opponent didn't have any slip ups no if this player made or if they won that game. No they ran through the tournament men against boys. delete this thread
100%.
Look at the lineup. Crosby, Perry, Getzlaf, Carter, Richards, Phaneuf, Weber, Seabrook, Coburn, Ladd, Bergeron, etc.
No doubt the 2005 Team Canada was the Strongest team ever. If you take a look at the list of players eligible for 2015, I think it comes close to matching the 2005 team, but won't get the chance as there won't be a lockout, but look at the potential players born in 1995 and later...
