HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > International Tournaments
International Tournaments Discuss international tournaments such as the World Juniors, Olympic hockey, and Ice Hockey World Championships, as they take place; or discuss past tournaments.

2014 - Canada Roster Discussion (Part IV)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-14-2013, 05:11 AM
  #501
TheFatOne
Mr.Negativo
 
TheFatOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehar View Post
Other than that, it is still a battle between Canada, USA and Russia for the top spot.


just like in 1994 and 2006?

TheFatOne is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 06:13 AM
  #502
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehar View Post
Yeah i meant to say Canada will steamroll Norway and Austria and will beat Finland. We happen to disagree, but i think Sweden and Finland are a step below Russia, USA and Canada. I could be wrong, especially since they have terrific goaltenders and i still remember how well Hasek played in 1998, so you can definetly not count them out. Time will tell, but maybe if Finland was still a part of Sweden like 200 years ago, they would definetly be the favourites (LOL). Maybe Czechs and Slovaks can send one team as well in 2014. Other than that, it is still a battle between Canada, USA and Russia for the top spot.
I'm sorry this isn't correct at all. I don't think you've really seen the Swedes play or that team compete for their country. Fin's are a bit similar too.

Those guys will walk through fire covered in gasoline for Olympic gold. Their compete level is higher than the US and Canada in the Olympics. They love playing for their country.

This is Olympics is a crap shoot. Anyone of the top 7 teams wouldn't surprise me at all.

-Canada's not as good as 2010. Possible regression. I'm only saying this because they are the best team. There's no place to go but down from here unless they even keel it out.
-USA's definitely improved exactly as projected. One of the top teams
-Sweden's got an unbelievable mix of responsible forwards, young and veteran, and the best Goaltender in the world
-Russia doesn't have their best team but this Olympics in Russia. Russians playing in Russia on large ice=possibly averaging 5 goals a games

Cory Trevor is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 07:00 AM
  #503
Mr Writer
Registered User
 
Mr Writer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
I'm sorry this isn't correct at all. I don't think you've really seen the Swedes play or that team compete for their country. Fin's are a bit similar too.

Those guys will walk through fire covered in gasoline for Olympic gold. Their compete level is higher than the US and Canada in the Olympics. They love playing for their country.

This is Olympics is a crap shoot. Anyone of the top 7 teams wouldn't surprise me at all.

-Canada's not as good as 2010. Possible regression. I'm only saying this because they are the best team. There's no place to go but down from here unless they even keel it out.
-USA's definitely improved exactly as projected. One of the top teams
-Sweden's got an unbelievable mix of responsible forwards, young and veteran, and the best Goaltender in the world
-Russia doesn't have their best team but this Olympics in Russia. Russians playing in Russia on large ice=possibly averaging 5 goals a games
I don't buy your argument re: Canada and possible regression. When you add players the caliber of Stamkos, Giroux, Tavares, Pietrangelo + a few others to a line-up that includes an even better and more accomplished Bergeron and Towes, then I see this as the best Canadian team since the NHL got involved. Not saying Canada is a lock to win gold, and it's quite possible they'll leave without a medal, single game elimination tournaments are always crap shoot. But your analysis is dead wrong.

The USA I don't see as being any tangibly better than they were in 2010, but still a solid gold medal contending team.

I agree with you on the Russians though. They don't have their best team, but on home-ice, a highly motivated team is always dangerous.

Mr Writer is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 07:31 AM
  #504
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehar View Post
Yeah i meant to say Canada will steamroll Norway and Austria and will beat Finland. We happen to disagree, but i think Sweden and Finland are a step below Russia, USA and Canada. I could be wrong, especially since they have terrific goaltenders and i still remember how well Hasek played in 1998, so you can definetly not count them out. Time will tell, but maybe if Finland was still a part of Sweden like 200 years ago, they would definetly be the favourites (LOL). Maybe Czechs and Slovaks can send one team as well in 2014. Other than that, it is still a battle between Canada, USA and Russia for the top spot.
I see no reason to think that Sweden won't be more dangerous than USA. Big ice favours them obviously, Lundqvist is the best goaltender, if Karlsson is healthy they should have a better defence and they should have a superior top two lines. USA has better depth, but I am skeptical about how some of their forwards will do on big ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by landskronala View Post
just like in 1994 and 2006?
I will never understand Swedes bringing up 1994 as if it was relevant. You do realize that winning the Olympics that year was basically a meaningless hockey accomplishment, right? Canada sent a terrible team and almost managed to win, just about tells you all you need to know with regard to the 1994 Olympics.

JackSlater is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 07:38 AM
  #505
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Writer View Post
I don't buy your argument re: Canada and possible regression. When you add players the caliber of Stamkos, Giroux, Tavares, Pietrangelo + a few others to a line-up that includes an even better and more accomplished Bergeron and Towes, then I see this as the best Canadian team since the NHL got involved. Not saying Canada is a lock to win gold, and it's quite possible they'll leave without a medal, single game elimination tournaments are always crap shoot. But your analysis is dead wrong.

The USA I don't see as being any tangibly better than they were in 2010, but still a solid gold medal contending team.

I agree with you on the Russians though. They don't have their best team, but on home-ice, a highly motivated team is always dangerous.
I'm sorry, Canadians coming off a gold medal and not playing in Canada any more. can only go down. Don't get me wrong Grioux Tavares and Stamkos will get their gold medals but it won't be this one. Maybe 2018. Their quality is good, but the last Olympics it just seemed as like it was destiny for Canada to win and that team was so well built. I'd rather take Iginla in 2010, Nieds, Pronger all a bunch of ridiculous respected veterans all pushing. You need this. For example, see 2002 Sakic and Yzerman. I don't see that with this Canada team. Once you reach the top of the pyramid, the only place to go is back down.

The USA team will be better. They brought more young talent than ever before in the last Olympics and all those players have developed. With the goaltending of the US trumping that of anyone else with the exception of Lundqvist going on a run, they are more devloped, have a core that's coming into or in its prime: Brown, Backes, Oshie, Kane, Kesler, Ryan, Callahan, Yandle, Kessel, Parise. All of these guys have a minimum of five years in the NHL and mostly all have been to the Olympics before.

Cory Trevor is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 07:45 AM
  #506
Mr Writer
Registered User
 
Mr Writer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
I'm sorry, Canadians coming off a gold medal and not playing in Canada any more. can only go down. Don't get me wrong Grioux Tavares and Stamkos will get their gold medals but it won't be this one. Maybe 2018. Their quality is good, but the last Olympics it just seemed as like it was destiny for Canada to win and that team was so well built. I'd rather take Iginla in 2010, Nieds, Pronger all a bunch of ridiculous respected veterans all pushing. You need this. For example, see 2002 Sakic and Yzerman. I don't see that with this Canada team. Once you reach the top of the pyramid, the only place to go is back down.

The USA team will be better. They brought more young talent than ever before in the last Olympics and all those players have developed. With the goaltending of the US trumping that of anyone else with the exception of Lundqvist going on a run, they are more devloped, have a core that's coming into or in its prime: Brown, Backes, Oshie, Kane, Kesler, Ryan, Callahan, Yandle, Kessel, Parise. All of these guys have a minimum of five years in the NHL and mostly all have been to the Olympics before.
You make a decent argument, but I don't buy it. Again, Canada 2014 will be a better team than 2010, but that doesn't guarantee squat. Neidermyer is loss. minus Pronger or Iginla on big ice? No. They meant little to a veteran heavy team in 2006. In fact if Pronger were still playing today and at the top of his game, I wouldn't include him going to Sochi.

Mr Writer is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 07:53 AM
  #507
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Writer View Post
You make a decent argument, but I don't buy it. Again, Canada 2014 will be a better team than 2010, but that doesn't guarantee squat. Neidermyer is loss. minus Pronger or Iginla on big ice? No. They meant little to a veteran heavy team in 2006. In fact if Pronger were still playing today and at the top of his game, I wouldn't include him going to Sochi.
More talented team? Yes. Better team? No. I was just putting it in the context at the state of things in 2010 and not comparing it to today. Veteran presence is a huge part of the Olympics in my opinion. In a short tournament everything is fresh in the players' minds. I don't think it can be understated. And I would not consider that team too veteran heavy. You guys won the Gold Medal, there is not platinum so that's the standard.

The only argument I have for Canada possibly being better is about the larger ice surface. It changes the game and give players like Grioux or Pietrangelo mores space and it really helps them. The good thing is with players like Tavares and Pietrangelo having been awesome WJC players helps.

Then again Tavares on the big ice doesn't necessarily play into his style of game.

Cory Trevor is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 07:58 AM
  #508
Mr Writer
Registered User
 
Mr Writer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
More talented team? Yes. Better team? No. I was just putting it in the context at the state of things in 2010 and not comparing it to today.

The only argument I have for Canada possibly being better is about the larger ice surface. It changes the game and give players like Grioux or Pietrangelo and it really helps them. The good thing is with players like Tavares and Pietrangelo having been awesome WJC players helps.

Then again Tavares on the big ice doesn't necessarily play into his style of game.
That can only be determined once we see them in action. No doubt, Tavares skating isn't his greatest strength, but it's vastly improved over the past few years, and being 1 of Canada's top centers, you can't exclude him based on average skating. I've seen Tavares play on big ice in Europe, I don't think it's an issue.

Mr Writer is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 08:22 AM
  #509
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
I'm sorry, Canadians coming off a gold medal and not playing in Canada any more. can only go down. Don't get me wrong Grioux Tavares and Stamkos will get their gold medals but it won't be this one. Maybe 2018. Their quality is good, but the last Olympics it just seemed as like it was destiny for Canada to win and that team was so well built. I'd rather take Iginla in 2010, Nieds, Pronger all a bunch of ridiculous respected veterans all pushing. You need this. For example, see 2002 Sakic and Yzerman. I don't see that with this Canada team. Once you reach the top of the pyramid, the only place to go is back down.
This makes no sense. You are basically implying that once you win, you can't win again. Canada only had two lines playing well in 2010, and was carried by three defencemen until Niedermayer emerged late in the tournament. Goaltending was in no way special. There is obviously much room for improvement.The small ice was beneficial in 2010, but I'm not convinced the home crowd helped. I doubt Canada sits back as much in the knockout games if they are playing in front of a non-Canadian crowd and not feeling tons of pressure from the whole country.

Keep in mind, Canada's best players in the last Olympics were the new guys like Weber, Doughty, Keith and Toews. Does that mean that it will happen this time? No, but it is ridiculous to suggest that Canada can only be worse due to missing out on some veterans types who weren't even valuable in the last tournament.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
The USA team will be better. They brought more young talent than ever before in the last Olympics and all those players have developed. With the goaltending of the US trumping that of anyone else with the exception of Lundqvist going on a run, they are more devloped, have a core that's coming into or in its prime: Brown, Backes, Oshie, Kane, Kesler, Ryan, Callahan, Yandle, Kessel, Parise. All of these guys have a minimum of five years in the NHL and mostly all have been to the Olympics before.
The USA team should be slightly more talented, but the reasons for their success in 2010 were gelling quickly and great goaltending, not really talent. There is no guarantee that they gel as quickly this time, and in fact it's unlikely. They also probably do not get goaltending as good as Miller provided in 2010.

JackSlater is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 08:47 AM
  #510
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
This makes no sense. You are basically implying that once you win, you can't win again. Canada only had two lines playing well in 2010, and was carried by three defencemen until Niedermayer emerged late in the tournament. Goaltending was in no way special. There is obviously much room for improvement.The small ice was beneficial in 2010, but I'm not convinced the home crowd helped. I doubt Canada sits back as much in the knockout games if they are playing in front of a non-Canadian crowd and not feeling tons of pressure from the whole country.

Keep in mind, Canada's best players in the last Olympics were the new guys like Weber, Doughty, Keith and Toews. Does that mean that it will happen this time? No, but it is ridiculous to suggest that Canada can only be worse due to missing out on some veterans types who weren't even valuable in the last tournament.



The USA team should be slightly more talented, but the reasons for their success in 2010 were gelling quickly and great goaltending, not really talent. There is no guarantee that they gel as quickly this time, and in fact it's unlikely. They also probably do not get goaltending as good as Miller provided in 2010.
Personally I see your point and agree with you about USA not getting better goaltending. I think that's quite a lofty and illogical goal however it would be nice.

In terms of value on the Canadian team, I guess my point was basically that the argument that better talent means a better team. Personally I think players like Iggy, Nieds and Pronger in that example were an important part. Iggy's was undeniable as his great assist for the game winner was spectacular. However I was merely pointing out that Canada is looking to challenge, they are looking to defend the Gold which to me, is much more difficult. Don't get me wrong though, I think Tavares, Stamkos, and the like are going to become amazing players in the next Olympics because at that point, they will be awesome veterans. Classy players that are young usually continue that trend. I guess what I'm saying here is we don't know what to expect out of them in Olympic hockey and they are both still pretty young. In 2018 and probably 2022 I think their chances are better.

Like you stated, there's always room for improvement but I LOATHE the argument that many Canadians(not necessarily yourself but...) argue that the last Canadian team wasn't very good or that they were undertalented. They won the freakin gold man so I hate that argument. I hated then and I hate it now. A team wins the gold and as far as I'm concerned they were the best team and for all intents and purposes shouldn't be give negative marks for winning the gold which was the point I was making.

I guess the real point here is unless Canada wins the gold again, there's no way you can say this next team will be better. You can't get better than that. You can be equal to or greater than but only if you win the Gold.


And I'm sorry if this is being construed as me trolling the Canadian thread. I just knew before that the Canadians were going to win the last Olympics when I saw the team Stevie Y put together. Maybe I'm just a bit jealous and really proud of my boys' finish last time. I'd love to see us play against each other again. Our matchups are either complete blowouts or I have a heart attack.

Cory Trevor is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 08:48 AM
  #511
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Writer View Post
That can only be determined once we see them in action. No doubt, Tavares skating isn't his greatest strength, but it's vastly improved over the past few years, and being 1 of Canada's top centers, you can't exclude him based on average skating. I've seen Tavares play on big ice in Europe, I don't think it's an issue.
Watching him in the World Juniors when he was an absolute treat. Respect him more than most players. Up there with Bergy and St. Louis for me.

Cory Trevor is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 09:26 AM
  #512
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
Personally I see your point and agree with you about USA not getting better goaltending. I think that's quite a lofty and illogical goal however it would be nice.

In terms of value on the Canadian team, I guess my point was basically that the argument that better talent means a better team. Personally I think players like Iggy, Nieds and Pronger in that example were an important part. Iggy's was undeniable as his great assist for the game winner was spectacular. However I was merely pointing out that Canada is looking to challenge, they are looking to defend the Gold which to me, is much more difficult. Don't get me wrong though, I think Tavares, Stamkos, and the like are going to become amazing players in the next Olympics because at that point, they will be awesome veterans. Classy players that are young usually continue that trend. I guess what I'm saying here is we don't know what to expect out of them in Olympic hockey and they are both still pretty young. In 2018 and probably 2022 I think their chances are better.
I'm sure that the vets has an important role in 2010, but my belief is that the guys that won last time, Crosby, Weber, Staal, Nash and others can provide enough leadership and experience. St. Louis may even be included as another veteran presence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
Like you stated, there's always room for improvement but I LOATHE the argument that many Canadians(not necessarily yourself but...) argue that the last Canadian team wasn't very good or that they were undertalented. They won the freakin gold man so I hate that argument. I hated then and I hate it now. A team wins the gold and as far as I'm concerned they were the best team and for all intents and purposes shouldn't be give negative marks for winning the gold which was the point I was making.
I am not arguing that the last team was bad, and it certainly wasn't lacking in talent. For whatever reason, they did not gel particularly well last time. Crosby was pretty poor, as was his line in general, and the Sharks line seemingly regressed. Pronger was pretty poor, Seabrook was useless and Boyle was hit or miss. Brodeur sucked and Luongo was only adequate. The 2014 team should be similarly talented, and if gelling and goaltender are somewhat random in a short tournament I see plenty of reason to think this team has a good chance of being better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
I guess the real point here is unless Canada wins the gold again, there's no way you can say this next team will be better. You can't get better than that. You can be equal to or greater than but only if you win the Gold.
I disagree completely. There is far too much randomness in hockey, and especially a one game elimination tournament, to say that the results always indicate the best team. There is also the issue of the 2014 tournament featuring vastly different teams than 2010, so comparisons are skewed there as well. Canada can't achieve a better result than 2010, but they can definitely be better. Even if they lose, they can still be a better team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
And I'm sorry if this is being construed as me trolling the Canadian thread. I just knew before that the Canadians were going to win the last Olympics when I saw the team Stevie Y put together. Maybe I'm just a bit jealous and really proud of my boys' finish last time. I'd love to see us play against each other again. Our matchups are either complete blowouts or I have a heart attack.
You're clearly not trolling. Dissenting opinions are valuable and clearly you have put a fair amount of thought into yours. It would be awesome to see another showdown between NA in Russia. Hopefully the gold medal game once again.

JackSlater is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 09:32 AM
  #513
86Habs
Registered User
 
86Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
Personally I see your point and agree with you about USA not getting better goaltending. I think that's quite a lofty and illogical goal however it would be nice.

In terms of value on the Canadian team, I guess my point was basically that the argument that better talent means a better team. Personally I think players like Iggy, Nieds and Pronger in that example were an important part. Iggy's was undeniable as his great assist for the game winner was spectacular. However I was merely pointing out that Canada is looking to challenge, they are looking to defend the Gold which to me, is much more difficult. Don't get me wrong though, I think Tavares, Stamkos, and the like are going to become amazing players in the next Olympics because at that point, they will be awesome veterans. Classy players that are young usually continue that trend. I guess what I'm saying here is we don't know what to expect out of them in Olympic hockey and they are both still pretty young. In 2018 and probably 2022 I think their chances are better.

Like you stated, there's always room for improvement but I LOATHE the argument that many Canadians(not necessarily yourself but...) argue that the last Canadian team wasn't very good or that they were undertalented. They won the freakin gold man so I hate that argument. I hated then and I hate it now. A team wins the gold and as far as I'm concerned they were the best team and for all intents and purposes shouldn't be give negative marks for winning the gold which was the point I was making.

I guess the real point here is unless Canada wins the gold again, there's no way you can say this next team will be better. You can't get better than that. You can be equal to or greater than but only if you win the Gold.


And I'm sorry if this is being construed as me trolling the Canadian thread. I just knew before that the Canadians were going to win the last Olympics when I saw the team Stevie Y put together. Maybe I'm just a bit jealous and really proud of my boys' finish last time. I'd love to see us play against each other again. Our matchups are either complete blowouts or I have a heart attack.
No one is arguing that the 2010 was under-talented or "not very good"; its just that guys that looked good on paper (Iginla, Niedermayer, Pronger) either weren't very effective overall (Iggy, in my books), or only played up to expectations in the playoff / medal round (Niedermayer and Pronger). Nieds and Pronger were, in particular, pretty poor in the round robin.

86Habs is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 10:21 AM
  #514
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
I disagree completely. There is far too much randomness in hockey, and especially a one game elimination tournament, to say that the results always indicate the best team. There is also the issue of the 2014 tournament featuring vastly different teams than 2010, so comparisons are skewed there as well. Canada can't achieve a better result than 2010, but they can definitely be better. Even if they lose, they can still be a better team.
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.

Cory Trevor is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 10:27 AM
  #515
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Habs View Post
No one is arguing that the 2010 was under-talented or "not very good"; its just that guys that looked good on paper (Iginla, Niedermayer, Pronger) either weren't very effective overall (Iggy, in my books), or only played up to expectations in the playoff / medal round (Niedermayer and Pronger). Nieds and Pronger were, in particular, pretty poor in the round robin.
Just because they played poorly for a little bit doesn't mean you can fault them for winning the gold. We were arguing which team is better and I personally think it needs to be proven first and then can we have discussion. Right now, you can only hope your team is ready and better prepared/suited this time around because as you said, several of the veterans played poor.

It's possible its just fresh in my mind how many Canadians were dissing the last team. Ultimately its how you play the game that really matters. I can understand you want to improve, however what can't I can't understand is how some people want the Canadian national team to be the far away and best team and bring back the gold. Winning for all arguments made otherwise, is all that matters. We all know that Canada is going to get out of the round robin and pretty effectively. That's almost fact. At that point you can only hope that the team that was chosen is enough to get you gold. It's like NFL playoffs: all you can hope is to get in and anything that happens after that point is all up to how you perform, luck, and matchups.

Cory Trevor is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 10:55 AM
  #516
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
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  
Old
02-14-2013, 12:35 PM
  #517
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
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 online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 12:49 PM
  #518
Mehar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
I'm sorry this isn't correct at all. I don't think you've really seen the Swedes play or that team compete for their country. Fin's are a bit similar too.

Those guys will walk through fire covered in gasoline for Olympic gold. Their compete level is higher than the US and Canada in the Olympics. They love playing for their country.

This is Olympics is a crap shoot. Anyone of the top 7 teams wouldn't surprise me at all.

-Canada's not as good as 2010. Possible regression. I'm only saying this because they are the best team. There's no place to go but down from here unless they even keel it out.
-USA's definitely improved exactly as projected. One of the top teams
-Sweden's got an unbelievable mix of responsible forwards, young and veteran, and the best Goaltender in the world
-Russia doesn't have their best team but this Olympics in Russia. Russians playing in Russia on large ice=possibly averaging 5 goals a games
We agree to disagree. I get your point that it is a crapshoot, but i think Canada will be better in 2014 than 2010, and not regress. Time will tell, and i also understand how Canada has had its struggles on the big ice. I was disappointed in many of the Canadian Forwards in 2010, and for 2014, the forwards will be a lot better. Only question is goaltending. As for Sweden, i might be a little harsh on them because they got bounced out early in 2010. Like i said, time will tell, but i think you are mistaken if you think Canada will not be better in 2014. Gold is not guaranteed, but on a whole, Canada will be more quicker and talented than 2010 from top to bottom. Same could be said for USA. Russians playing on home ice also means that they will have a very good team.

Mehar is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 12:50 PM
  #519
Mehar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by landskronala View Post
just like in 1994 and 2006?
Last Olympics was 2010, how did Sweden do?

Mehar is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 12:58 PM
  #520
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehar View Post
We agree to disagree. I get your point that it is a crapshoot, but i think Canada will be better in 2014 than 2010, and not regress. Time will tell, and i also understand how Canada has had its struggles on the big ice. I was disappointed in many of the Canadian Forwards in 2010, and for 2014, the forwards will be a lot better. Only question is goaltending. As for Sweden, i might be a little harsh on them because they got bounced out early in 2010. Like i said, time will tell, but i think you are mistaken if you think Canada will not be better in 2014. Gold is not guaranteed, but on a whole, Canada will be more quicker and talented than 2010 from top to bottom. Same could be said for USA. Russians playing on home ice also means that they will have a very good team.
The great equalizer now for Canada is their front office is excellent at team building. A different ice surface makes some different selection choices this time around but I have no doubt that Stevie Y will make sure Canada is poised for another run at a gold medal.

Cory Trevor is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 03:50 PM
  #521
hitmen19
Registered User
 
hitmen19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by landskronala View Post
just like in 1994 and 2006?
like 2006? does that mean you're going to be throwing games again to play lessor talented teams? There will always be an asterik with that win, no matter what you say. I don't consider that a legitimate win.


Last edited by hitmen19: 02-14-2013 at 04:03 PM.
hitmen19 is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 04:24 PM
  #522
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmen19 View Post
like 2006? does that mean you're going to be throwing games again to play lessor talented teams? There will always be an asterik with that win, no matter what you say. I don't consider that a legitimate win.
Think you are alone in this. There's no rules against it and they still rattled off enough wins to get it done.

Cory Trevor is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 05:18 PM
  #523
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
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 agree that it's not feasible, and I never expect it to actually happen. You're probably right that it's more exciting in the current format, but I am mainly talking about the search for the best team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
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?
Of course they would be a deserving winner in that scenario. As long as you didn't cheat, the winner is deserving of the win. That does not mean the winning team is necessarily the best team though. Tournaments are mainly the search for a winner, not the search for the best team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmen19 View Post
like 2006? does that mean you're going to be throwing games again to play lessor talented teams? There will always be an asterik with that win, no matter what you say. I don't consider that a legitimate win.
Embarrassing for Sweden, but still a legitimate win.

JackSlater is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 05:28 PM
  #524
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 6,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
I agree that it's not feasible, and I never expect it to actually happen. You're probably right that it's more exciting in the current format, but I am mainly talking about the search for the best team.



Of course they would be a deserving winner in that scenario. As long as you didn't cheat, the winner is deserving of the win. That does not mean the winning team is necessarily the best team though. Tournaments are mainly the search for a winner, not the search for the best team.



Embarrassing for Sweden, but still a legitimate win.
Kudos to you Jack. Thanks for the discussion. Sometimes its difficult to find good debate on hockey, even here.

Looking forward to hearing from you next January and Feb!

Cory Trevor is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 05:34 PM
  #525
hitmen19
Registered User
 
hitmen19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
Think you are alone in this. There's no rules against it and they still rattled off enough wins to get it done.
yeah there is no rules against it, but if you have to throw games because you don't want to play better talented teams, don't be going around puffing your chest out and proclaiming you're the best. They were the best just like armstrong, and bonds. Asterik 2006 gold medal - sweden **********

Im not alone

hitmen19 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.