HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

The 1998 Canadian Olympic Squad

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-21-2012, 06:51 PM
  #26
nutbar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,592
vCash: 500
Thus might be a false memory but didnt Zamuner have a big goal versus the US?? Shorthanded??

nutbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2012, 07:33 PM
  #27
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 40,839
vCash: 500
The most amount of goals any Canadian player scored was 2 goals, scored by 5 players. Here are the player stats:
http://www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php...32/la_id/1.htm

Canada beat Belarus 5-0
Won 3-2 vs. Sweden
Won 4-1 vs. US
Won 4-1 vs. Kazakhstan
Lost 2-1 in a shootout against the Czechs

While they won a couple of games decisively, their offense for the most part was rather flat. The D and goaltending kept the goals to a minimum, so that wasn't a problem. They simply didn't have the firepower to get many goals past Hasek. Then again, the Czechs also shutout the high powered Russian offense in the Gold medal game and won 1-0, and that Russian team scored 7 against Finland and 9 against Kazakhstan.

Ziggy Stardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2012, 08:23 PM
  #28
nutbar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutbar View Post
This might be a false memory but didnt Zamuner have a big goal versus the US?? Shorthanded??
Ok he did score versus the Americans, not shorthanded, but just after he stepped out of the box, after the US had a long 5 on 3.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...s/canusa16.htm

nutbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2012, 08:58 PM
  #29
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Perhaps they could have used the final round format that had taken place in every Olympic prior to 1992?
In which a team can clinch Gold before the final game, like in 1988?

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2012, 09:11 PM
  #30
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post

Start with defense. A big mistake was leaving off Niedermayer. I have no idea why that happened. He was on the 1996 World Cup team and then when the open ice is used he isn't picked? Another reason to loathe Crawford. It is no accident that every other tournament until his retirement he was picked. The rest was fine, Bourque, MacInnis, Pronger, Blake, Stevens would all be ones everyone would pick. Foote was there for defensive purposes. But Desjardins always left me puzzled. He didn't do anything that stood out and the other 6 defenseman covered everything he could do and then more. So why not go with a fast skating defenseman that can carry the puck? I have no idea. Another reason to loathe Bobby Clarke. But that was the problem, Bourque I guess is the closest to anyone that could skate end to end, but he was getting up there and it isn't as if he had blinding speed either. Niedermayer was sorely missed and I always wondered why that was never brought up at the time.
Eric Desjardins was better than Niedermayer until about 2002.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2012, 09:16 PM
  #31
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
In which a team can clinch Gold before the final game, like in 1988?
Yes, the sensible one in which a team like the Soviet Union does not lose its Gold Medal to Finland because of a 2-1 loss to them at the end of a 7-0 run.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 01:59 AM
  #32
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I'm sure Team Sweden and Team USA would say otherwise after going undefeated in round robin play, including victories over Canada.
So Sweden beating a disorganized Canadian team (still outshooting Sweden) 5-2 when they weren't even familiar with each other makes them the better team than Canada? If Sweden was anywhere near Canada's level they'd have found a way to get past Belarus in the semis. Canada thrashed that team 7-1. Sorry, but there are bad breaks and then there are disasters. A great team finds a way to win even in this format. USA was playing far over their heads in 2010 and still didn't win. The pace of the game was controlled by Canada in both games they played. No doubt, the better team won.

Quote:
I don't even watch football, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that the undefeated New England Patriots that lost the Super Bowl in the final drive were actually the best team in the sport, because it sure looked like they proved it in their first 18 games.

The Giants deserved the Super Bowl, sure, but was a 10-6 team better than the dynasty Patriots? On one Sunday in February.
Well the Pats and Giants played in the regular season. The Patriots won 38-35. In the Super Bowl they were hammered by the Giants defensively. Brady never looked worse in a game that I have seen. So basically you have two games to judge by and each team won by three points. On the biggest stage of the year the Giants were the better team and I thought even before that Super Bowl that if there was a team built to beat the Patriots it was the Giants. They were very well rounded, much like this year's version. As the playoffs wore on the Patriots were getting worn down and looking much more fallible. The Giants exposed that. Yes, they were the better team, they proved it. A 10-6 team doesn't matter once you hit the postseason. The 1971 Canadiens were better than the 1971 Bruins despite 24 points in the standings. It was proven. Like I said, even in a single game elimination it is rare that the best team doesn't win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
Eric Desjardins was better than Niedermayer until about 2002.
Nah, Niedermayer would have been a perfect fit in 1998. Desjardins or anyone else on that team couldn't skate and carry the puck like him. Niedermayer was a 2nd team all-star in 1998. He was missed then just like in 2006. That was another time when we missed his prescence. No other d-man carried the puck up the ice. Maybe if they'd have picked Boyle it would have helped a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nutbar View Post
Thus might be a false memory but didnt Zamuner have a big goal versus the US?? Shorthanded??
He basically scored into the empty net when Gretzky faked a shot that fooled everyone and their mother leaving Zamuner staring at a wide open net. Good for him, but that was the only notable thing he did. Can't imagine Francis having less of an impact on that team.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 10:42 AM
  #33
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,981
vCash: 500
No player on Earth not named "Linden" could score on Hasek in those days. Not Gretzky, not Sakic, not Lemieux, not Fedorov, not Bure, not Kharlamov. He was an absolute God between the pipes. The best goalie performance I've ever seen.

Czechs thoroughly outplayed Canadians in that game, other than the last ten minutes and the OT.

Shanahan was an odd choice for the SO (a DRW fan speaking), but, like I said, nobody could score on Hasek then. You could just tell.

And now I'll rewatch the highlights of that game again. The best game I've ever seen, period.


Last edited by Sentinel: 01-22-2012 at 10:49 AM.
Sentinel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 12:03 PM
  #34
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
No player on Earth not named "Linden" could score on Hasek in those days. Not Gretzky, not Sakic, not Lemieux, not Fedorov, not Bure, not Kharlamov. He was an absolute God between the pipes. The best goalie performance I've ever seen
And even then, Linden's shot in the final minute went off a Czech stick.

I don't know, we'll never know the impact Sakic and Kariya could have made. If there were two guys who would be good bets at that time to score on Hasek it was them, or maybe it never gets that far. Either way, Hasek was a beast at that time.

I've always wondered one thing, what in the world was Linden doing on the ice in the final minute? I remember Lindros being there because he carried the puck into the zone. Shanahan and MacInnis were also there and MacInnis rifled the puck as hard as he could on Hasek just 5 seconds before Linden scored. While I can't remember the other player on the ice at that time (Roy hadn't left the net yet) I can't remember why Linden was there.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 12:13 PM
  #35
vadim sharifijanov
TRUMP-BENNING 2016
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
vCash: 500
for those mentioning sakic and kariya as what-ifs, absolutely sakic is one of the greatest clutch goal scorers of his generation. but would kariya have even been in the shootout, considering who else was left on crawford's bench? and kariya, let us not forget, was stopped tommy salo in the shootout in '94. this was hasek at the very height of his powers.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 01:13 PM
  #36
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
for those mentioning sakic and kariya as what-ifs, absolutely sakic is one of the greatest clutch goal scorers of his generation. but would kariya have even been in the shootout, considering who else was left on crawford's bench? and kariya, let us not forget, was stopped tommy salo in the shootout in '94. this was hasek at the very height of his powers.
Kariya also scored in that shootout

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 01:22 PM
  #37
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,225
vCash: 500
I don't think Crawford's choices were poor. One can "what if" to the end of the Earth, but in a situation like that, luck has much more influence than a coach. Besides, given that there wasn't info on how the various players might have performed in a shootout, I really don't know why one would say definitively that one player would certainly be a better pick than another.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:12 PM
  #38
tony d
Real Super Mario
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,523
vCash: 500
All due respect to Rob Zamuner and Shayne Corson but if I where picking that team they wouldn't have been included.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 08:36 PM
  #39
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
The 1971 Canadiens were better than the 1971 Bruins despite 24 points in the standings. It was proven. Like I said, even in a single game elimination it is rare that the best team doesn't win.
So your evidence that a single-game elimination format determines the best team is to bring up the 1971 Montreal Canadiens beating the 1971 Boston Bruins in a 7-Game Series in which they lost Game 1?

That is ridiculous, Big Phil. Absolutely ridiculous.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2012, 07:02 AM
  #40
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Yes, the sensible one in which a team like the Soviet Union does not lose its Gold Medal to Finland because of a 2-1 loss to them at the end of a 7-0 run.
But had this format been used in 98, how likely is it that the outcome would have been any different for Canada?

They played 6 games, winning only 4, against teams who did not beat anyone outside of the games they played between them. Against actual contenders, they were 0-2 (or 0-1-1). At that point they need an unlikely combination of results to top both CZE and RUS.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2012, 12:49 PM
  #41
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 500
While I agree that one game KO's aren't really a great gauge (2010 playoffs, every team lost Game 2 that had one Game 1 in the first round) I think some on here are taking th Czech-Canada game a little far. Yes, it was a shootout, which is dumb. Let's not pretend it was a one-sided Sweden-Belarus, or Canada-Switzerland 2006. Let's give the Czech team some credit. 2 main points: Canada wouldn't have even made a shootout if it wasn't for a bounce off of Linden, and way more importantly, let's take our personal, Canadian view of this away for a second and just look at the Czech's - THEY DID THE SAME THING TO THE STATES AND RUSSIA! 3 games in a row they were slightly outmatched, and Hasek combined with desperate D pulled them through. 3 times in a row isn't Belarus or Switzerland, it's a legit team who lacked in some areas but were very strong in another area.

Canada would be my own pick to win a 7 gamer vs that Czech team, but it's a little arrogant, and maybe childish to take credit away from their win and simply assume that they wouldn't have had a chance against us. They would have. Who knows - maybe Hasek gets deeper in their heads, and they start taking too many chances on Offense, and Jagr starts lighting them up. Maybe Roy has a breakdown because he gets scapegoated for a loss in Game 2. Point is - I don't think it's 'safe to say' that the Czechs were far inferior to Canada.

The guys who are saying that, though - i do agree that a couple of odd picks on the roster would be completely forgotten about if Canada had won, which they easily COULD have.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2012, 01:11 PM
  #42
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
But had this format been used in 98, how likely is it that the outcome would have been any different for Canada?

They played 6 games, winning only 4, against teams who did not beat anyone outside of the games they played between them. Against actual contenders, they were 0-2 (or 0-1-1). At that point they need an unlikely combination of results to top both CZE and RUS.
But would they have had a letdown playing against Finland in a round robin tournament?

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2012, 01:18 PM
  #43
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
But had this format been used in 98, how likely is it that the outcome would have been any different for Canada?

They played 6 games, winning only 4, against teams who did not beat anyone outside of the games they played between them. Against actual contenders, they were 0-2 (or 0-1-1). At that point they need an unlikely combination of results to top both CZE and RUS.
This is the situation: A final round of Canada, Sweden, Russia, and the Czech Republic. Finland doesn't make its run to the Bronze because they were a 1-2 team in the round robin - which was comprised of a smaller number of teams than in 1988 when six teams out of twelve advanced to the final round (in 1998, the round robin had only eight teams).

These results carry over from the round robin: Russia has a victory over the Czech Republic; Canada has a victory over Sweden.

Standings
Canada: 1-0-0
Russia: 1-0-0
Czech Republic: 0-1-0
Sweden: 0-1-0

Let's assume the Canada/Czech Republic game plays out exactly as it did. Without the shootout they added to the elimination rounds in the early 1990s, it gets marked down as a 1-1 tie.

Standings
Canada: 1-0-1, 3 points
Russia: 1-0-0, 2 points
Czech Republic: 0-1-1, 1 point
Sweden: 0-1-0, 0 points

Games to be Played: CAN/RUS, RUS/SWE, CZE/SWE


The format they used in 1998 made the round robin meaningless. Both Belarus and Kazakhstan went 0-3 and still were involved in the elimination round. Why?! It made no sense, and when people look back at Canada in 1998, they forget just how good the team was, because their 3-0 record in the round robin did not assure them a medal like it would have in the system that rewarded teams for their play in the first half of the tournament.

Instead, everyone second guesses the roster and the lines and the shootout because of the same broken format that allowed Canada to win the Gold Medal in 2010 with a 1-1-1 record in the round robin over a 5-0 United States team who had already beaten Canada 5-3 one week earlier.

Again: Single-game elimination medal winners are not always a representation of the best teams. People question the heart of teams for not winning in the elimination round, but honestly, did Canada (2010) and Czech Republic (1998) not play their hardest when they lost to the undefeated USA (2010) and the undefeated Russia (1998) a week before their Gold Medal rematch - or can we allow for the possibility that undefeated teams tend to not stay undefeated for six-games in a row against high-end competition?

The medals are deserved, but it's a bad format for discovering the best team, and you really don't have to look any further than the 0-3 Belarus team in 2002 that should've never had a crack at eliminating 3-0 Sweden in the first place. Sweden finishes the tournament 3-1; Belarus finishes 1-3. Which team got to compete for the Bronze Medal?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2012, 02:04 PM
  #44
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
Canada would be my own pick to win a 7 gamer vs that Czech team, but it's a little arrogant, and maybe childish to take credit away from their win and simply assume that they wouldn't have had a chance against us. They would have. Who knows - maybe Hasek gets deeper in their heads, and they start taking too many chances on Offense, and Jagr starts lighting them up. Maybe Roy has a breakdown because he gets scapegoated for a loss in Game 2. Point is - I don't think it's 'safe to say' that the Czechs were far inferior to Canada.
That's why I always emphasize that they deserved the Gold Medal, because that's how the tournament was structured. But it doesn't mean that they were better - just that they won one game against Canada (in a shootout) and one game against Russia at the right time. It's not enough to convince me that they were the best team - or that those single victories are a better judge of CAN/CZE/RUS than a seven-game series would have been.

One-game series aren't as good at determining the best team as three-game series which aren't as good as five-game series which aren't as good as seven-game series which aren't as good a nine-game series...

Look at the Summit Series: USSR wins Game 1 by a score of 7-3, and at one point led the series 3-1-1. When you have teams as close in ability as CAN/USSR and CAN/CZE/RUS, it helps to increase the sample size.

Do we know who wins a seven-game series between Canada and the Czech Republic? No. But the alternative should not be to assume that the Czech Republic was the best team because of one shootout game. It makes them a medal winner but not the best team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil
and way more importantly, let's take our personal, Canadian view of this away for a second
That's the other thing - I'm not Canadian or Russian!

I just know that they deserved better than a single-game elimination tournament, because nowadays, all we ever hear about those teams are questions about What went wrong? Nothing went wrong; they just can't win every game - and in the case of Russia, they shouldn't have been punished both in the standings and in retrospect on message boards for losing to the Czech Republic six days after beating them. They might have been better - we just don't know, and the format emphasized the rematch so much more than their first meeting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil
The guys who are saying that, though - i do agree that a couple of odd picks on the roster would be completely forgotten about if Canada had won, which they easily COULD have.
Exactly. There's as many questionable picks on 2002 and 2010 as 1998, but which ones do we remember off the top of our heads? Shayne Corson and Rob Zamuner.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2012, 02:30 PM
  #45
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
This is the situation: A final round of Canada, Sweden, Russia, and the Czech Republic. Finland doesn't make its run to the Bronze because they were a 1-2 team in the round robin - which was comprised of a smaller number of teams than in 1988 when six teams out of twelve advanced to the final round (in 1998, the round robin had only eight teams).
But that's not the 1988 format then. The equivalent would be a round-robin with six teams, plus possibly KAZ and BLR (which doesn't really affect the standings).

I guess it's more convenient to disregard Finland, thus automatically stripping Russia and Czechia of 2 well deserved points that Canada could not win

And frankly your format is a lot worse than 98, since the winner is still basically decided by a meager 3 games, that they don't even need to win. At least Czechia actually had to win all three of their elimination games, albeit after a shootout for one of them. It does not really fix anything, all the while making the tournament far less exciting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
The format they used in 1998 made the round robin meaningless. Both Belarus and Kazakhstan went 0-3 and still were involved in the elimination round. Why?!
Why? Because North America insisted on as short a tournament as possible for the 6 teams with NHL players. Yes 6 teams not seven because Slovakia got screwed and could not take advantage of its NHL contingent in the first round

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
It made no sense, and when people look back at Canada in 1998, they forget just how good the team was, because their 3-0 record in the round robin did not assure them a medal like it would have in the system that rewarded teams for their play in the first half of the tournament.
It would not have in a round-robin ŕ la 1988. A defeat against Russia would mean no medal for Canada, as long as Finland could at least draw against an already out of contention US team that was busier trashing hotel rooms. Hardly unlikely.

Really, other than "paper", what exactly is there to suggest than the format had any influence on Canada finishing 4th, or that they would have done any better under another format?

That's a perfectly reasonable argument when applied to 2002 Sweden as you do below. But 1998 Canada?

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Again: Single-game elimination medal winners are not always a representation of the best teams.
Not always but in this case, they were, though one could argue Russia was equally good. Canada on the other hand played two and lost two against contenders. Sure they beat also-rans but then so too did everybody else.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2012, 03:03 PM
  #46
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
Let's give the Czech team some credit. 2 main points: Canada wouldn't have even made a shootout if it wasn't for a bounce off of Linden, and way more importantly, let's take our personal, Canadian view of this away for a second and just look at the Czech's - THEY DID THE SAME THING TO THE STATES AND RUSSIA! 3 games in a row they were slightly outmatched, and Hasek combined with desperate D pulled them through.
I'm not sure that's giving Czechia credit to say that they were outmatched by Canada. As someone said earlier they outplayed Canada most of the game and Roy, not Hašek, kept his team in the game at all.

They also comprehensively beat the USA scoring 4 goals along the way, so their success was not all down to D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
The guys who are saying that, though - i do agree that a couple of odd picks on the roster would be completely forgotten about if Canada had won, which they easily COULD have.
Plus did the "odd picks" really play any worse than the alleged go-to guys anyway?

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2012, 03:14 PM
  #47
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 500
I would love a World Cup with a best of 3 at the end, again. Take the top 8 Nations (we all know who 7 of them are, and the Swiss, Germans, Latvians, etc. could play off for the final spot) and have them play a round robin with the top 2 playing a best of 3. That's the 1976 formula (6 teams), and it's a beauty. It will likely never happen, but it would be very hard to argue with the top 2 making it to the Final, and also hard to argue over a 3 game series. If you get all the bad breaks 2/3 times... well, it proves at least that you weren't superior enough to overcome obstacles.

I wish for the day.

Loved that Czech-Canada game, by the way. One of my top 2 ever.


Last edited by tombombadil: 01-23-2012 at 03:42 PM.
tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2012, 03:27 PM
  #48
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
But that's not the 1988 format then. The equivalent would be a round-robin with six teams, plus possibly KAZ and BLR (which doesn't really affect the standings).

I guess it's more convenient to disregard Finland, thus automatically stripping Russia and Czechia of 2 well deserved points that Canada could not win
That's because in 1988, there were 12 teams in the round robin; in 1998, there were only 8 teams because of the extensive qualification round. In 1980 and 1984, only four teams advanced to the final round as well. I'm disregarding Finland and the United States because it makes sense that they would not make a final round with only 8 teams (75% of the round robin qualifying?); they were sub-.500, and no sub-.500 team made the final round in the 1980s because it was 50% or less of the round robin qualifying for it each time - not the 75% that would allow Finland into a final round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh
And frankly your format is a lot worse than 98, since the winner is still basically decided by a meager 3 games, that they don't even need to win. At least Czechia actually had to win all three of their elimination games, albeit after a shootout for one of them. It does not really fix anything, all the while making the tournament far less exciting.
What a final round does is prevent good teams from dropping out of medal contention as a result of one bad game. Canada was prevented from competing for a Gold Medal because of a shootout loss. Russia left with a Silver Medal after winning every game in regulation because they split two games with the Czech Republic - a team that did not win every game in regulation. Sweden in 2002 went 3-1 without a medal while the Gold Medalist - who they beat - went 4-1-1 and the Bronze Medalist went 3-2-1.

Single-game eliminations in Games 4, 5, and 6 of a six-game tournament put unnecessary pressure on an undefeated team to continue to not have a bad day. Every team that has played in the Olympics since 1984 has had a bad day; they've all lost at least once. If the tournament must be short, final rounds protect good teams from losing everything for having those bad days at the worst possible moment.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2012, 04:33 PM
  #49
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
That's because in 1988, there were 12 teams in the round robin; in 1998, there were only 8 teams because of the extensive qualification round. In 1980 and 1984, only four teams advanced to the final round as well. I'm disregarding Finland and the United States because it makes sense that they would not make a final round with only 8 teams (75% of the round robin qualifying?);
Why would you need a final round?

You needed one in 80, 84 and 88 because you had 12 teams in the 1st round. With only 8 teams, you play a full round robin (and that's only 1 additional game from the actual Nagano format). Otherwise the team with the best record does not necessarily win gold either, which is what you aimed at avoiding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
If the tournament must be short, final rounds protect good teams from losing everything for having those bad days at the worst possible moment.
It probably makes it less likely but it does not actually prevent it.

Just look at 88: had Finland not drawn against Sweden in the 1st round, they would have won gold despite a worse record than the USSR.


Last edited by jekoh: 01-23-2012 at 04:43 PM.
jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2012, 01:26 AM
  #50
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
The format they used in 1998 made the round robin meaningless. Both Belarus and Kazakhstan went 0-3 and still were involved in the elimination round. Why?! It made no sense...
Side note on that system you suggest for 1998: In 2002, neither Canada nor Russia would have made the final round. With the small sample size the round-robin tournament itself provides, I'd rather have a final round with 6 teams than one with 4, if I'd want to have a final round at all.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:36 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.