IIHF World ChampionshipDiscuss International Tournaments like the WJC, Olympics, and World Cup, as they take place, or discuss past tournaments. performances.
How many Canadian teams can you make that would contend for a medal?
Each team I listed is quite a bit better than any Canadian WC team since at least 2008.
It will soon be time to fire of the good old WHC debate skills once again. The WHC always serves as a fun warm up for the most entertaining hockey on the planet, i.e. The Stanley Cup play-offs.
Each team I listed is quite a bit better than any Canadian WC team since at least 2008.
Anything is possible, but it just doesn't seem likely that a B Team or C Team would win a medal. The level of worldwide competition has never been higher!
Anything is possible, but it just doesn't seem likely that a B Team or C Team would win a medal. The level of worldwide competition has never been higher!
It depends what you're talking about. My post wasn't about making B or C teams, just three evenly distributed teams. A Canadian B team would obviously be good enough to contend for a medal. Looking forward to the WC and seeing if the Canadians can finally get some international momentum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krotak
You sure??
These are the players from 2012 WC Canada roster and they lost in quarterfinals to a "weak" team Slovakia
+ Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Ryan O'Reilly, Alexandre Burrows, Luke Schenn, Marc Methot, Ryan Murray...
Yes, they disappointed, but I am certain that each team I listed is stronger than that team. Doesn't mean any of them are guaranteed to medal or anything though.
It depends what you're talking about. My post wasn't about making B or C teams, just three evenly distributed teams. A Canadian B team would obviously be good enough to contend for a medal. Looking forward to the WC and seeing if the Canadians can finally get some international momentum.
Yes, they disappointed, but I am certain that each team I listed is stronger than that team. Doesn't mean any of them are guaranteed to medal or anything though.
I see what you are trying to do, but I don't think it would work, because the star players you insert among the lesser ones still results in a diluted lineup that will have less firepower than a lot of countries that they would face. Of course, this is a just an intellectual exercise anyway, because they will likely load all the best players on the Olympic team.
The shorter the tournament the more random the outcome and there are certainly many more teams that could be created which would have a shot at finishing in the top three. For example player for player I think all the Canadian teams listed above are stronger than Finland, yet no one would say Finland doesn't have a shot at finishing in the top 3.
Compared to Finland, Canada has 7 times the population, 10 times the number of indoor arenas and 13 times the number of kids playing hockey and 22 times the number of NHLers. Finland clearly has the talent to contend for the top 3 so I think it is just common sense that Canada could ice numerous teams that could contend for the top 3 also.
Threads like this--which trumpet Canada's considerable depth--make me chuckle. If Canada is so deep that they can field multiple potential medal winning teams (and Canada is very deep, I'll give that to you), then maybe you can stop playing the "We didn't have our best players" card whenever you lose.
Canada could put up 3 teams that would all contend for a medal, even if they top-loaded the better team. Likely wouldn't happen, but in a REAL GOOD year, would be able to sweep the medals.
Threads like this--which trumpet Canada's considerable depth--make me chuckle. If Canada is so deep that they can field multiple potential medal winning teams (and Canada is very deep, I'll give that to you), then maybe you can stop playing the "We didn't have our best players" card whenever you lose.
They can always play that card, because there is always a great debate over who should/should not be on the team.
With Canada, you probably have about 8-10 players that are absolute locks and nobody would question. The other 12-14 are debatable. With other countries, generally the argument is only over the last 2 or 3 roster spots.
To contend for a medal is not a very high bar. Basically a team just a bit better than Switzerland would do.
This is very true, which is why I think Canada could put up 3 contending teams. In some years, they wouldn't win any medals, and in some years could win multiple.
They can always play that card, because there is always a great debate over who should/should not be on the team.
With Canada, you probably have about 8-10 players that are absolute locks and nobody would question. The other 12-14 are debatable. With other countries, generally the argument is only over the last 2 or 3 roster spots.
It seems to me that the United States, Sweden, Russia, and in many years, Finland, all have enough top performers to compete for a high medal. So having a high percentage of "debatables" doesn't seem to enhance the chances of Canada winning multiple medals.
I agree with Mr Kanadensisk. I think Canada could have 6-7 medal contending teams. I feel that many posters think too much about what the team looks on paper. In a tournament with 6-7 games and single game elimination rounds Canada F could well finish better than Canada A. The difference between NHL top players and NHL regular guys isn't that big on ice.
If Finland can always compete with top teams, so can Canada F. It's not luck. Hockey game isn't a predictable simulation where some hypothetical skill points are summed up to see which team is best. Team with average NHLers can play better than a team with top NHLers, because there are many contributing factors: mental, physical, chemistry, coaching etc.
Teams with top material often fail to succeed even in 82-game regular season, let alone in single games or in short tournaments, where players gather together just before the first game.
I agree with Mr Kanadensisk. I think Canada could have 6-7 medal contending teams. I feel that many posters think too much about what the team looks on paper. In a tournament with 6-7 games and single game elimination rounds Canada F could well finish better than Canada A. The difference between NHL top players and NHL regular guys isn't that big on ice.
If Finland can always compete with top teams, so can Canada F. It's not luck. Hockey game isn't a predictable simulation where some hypothetical skill points are summed up to see which team is best. Team with average NHLers can play better than a team with top NHLers, because there are many contributing factors: mental, physical, chemistry, coaching etc.
Teams with top material often fail to succeed even in 82-game regular season, let alone in single games or in short tournaments, where players gather together just before the first game.
If you expand the field, based on the "mental, physical, chemistry, and coaching" criteria to include "average" and "below average" players, then Canada could easily field as many as 20 medal-contending teams. This estimate is based on the fact that there are more than 500 Canadian players in the NHL.
