International TournamentsDiscuss International Tournaments like the WJC, Olympics, and World Cup, as they take place, or discuss past tournaments. performances.
If they had all four, their team would have been much stronger on paper, but who knows what would have happened in real life. Canada was insane on paper, stacked with guys who would have had a great shot to make their NHL teams if it wasn't for the lockout (RNH, Huberdeau, Strome, Schiefele, Hamilton, etc.), and we didn't even win a medal. It's really impossible to say what would happen if you changed players.
Indeed. If draft pick # matters, they would have made a huge difference. But as reality matters... they did not play at all.
If Galchenyuk played no one would've beaten the US
There's some people who risk talking, based on what they're seeing and there's others who wait till everything happens to have an opinion. Guess which side you're in. US gained momentum has the tournament went on. Thank god Gaudreau became Gaudreau. Thank god Gibson was Gibson. But I don't see how using Gally with anybody else but Kuraly would have been detrimental. Not sure why Trocheck wasn't used with him. Yet, they won. All that matters. But winning doesn't mean that mistakes weren't made. Just means that the pros upset the cons. Congrats to the USA who in the end peaked when needed.
If they had all four, their team would have been much stronger on paper, but who knows what would have happened in real life. Canada was insane on paper, stacked with guys who would have had a great shot to make their NHL teams if it wasn't for the lockout (RNH, Huberdeau, Strome, Schiefele, Hamilton, etc.), and we didn't even win a medal. It's really impossible to say what would happen if you changed players.
Well I think it is quite easy to conclude that..... if you exchange this teams weakest players with some of our strongest keyplayers.....the team will be stronger. A comparison to Canada doesn't hold. In Swedens case, all you would do is add strong keyplayers to a team that was ready for the finals.
That being said, it cannot be used as an excuse . This is the team Sweden put up for the fight. It wasn't enough to go all the way against a good American side.
Well I think it is quite easy to conclude that..... if you exchange this teams weakest players with some of our strongest keyplayers.....the team will be stronger. A comparison to Canada doesn't hold. In Swedens case, all you would do is add strong keyplayers to a team that was ready for the finals.
That being said, it cannot be used as an excuse . This is the team Sweden put up for the fight. It wasn't enough to go all the way against a good American side.
plus the US was without their top 6 stud Stefan Noesen... though not as tough of a loss compared to what Sweden lost, it still was a significant blow for USA to not have him and they still won without him.
who is to say Sweden would have made it to the Gold medal game with all those guys, sometimes strange things happen and teams bond and play better with different players. It is easy to say they would have been better with those guys, and logic would say so, but you just never know if they would have had the same team chemistry or gotten those bounces.
plus the US was without their top 6 stud Stefan Noesen... though not as tough of a loss compared to what Sweden lost, it still was a significant blow for USA to not have him and they still won without him.
who is to say Sweden would have made it to the Gold medal game with all those guys, sometimes strange things happen and teams bond and play better with different players. It is easy to say they would have been better with those guys, and logic would say so, but you just never know if they would have had the same team chemistry or gotten those bounces.
I don't think you understand just how much Sweden had been decimated on the defensive side. To compare, I couldn't give a crapula about the guy that scored us the GWG the last time...Zibanejad. Missing the top defensemen, 1,2,3 is where the team suffered and it showed. Against Russia and against the US.
If Sweden would have had a much stronger side..who is to say Sweden would even have made it that far you say.
No come on.I'm not buying that and neither should anyone. Sweden would have been a much stronger side plain and simple. That doesn't translate to winning the gold. It just means the team would've been stronger.
Thats the last post I will make on the subject of Sweden missing players. Its just surprising that it went from "Sweden would've destroyed everyone with a full team" to this post where Sweden might not even have made it to the final had the team been stronger on paper.
Congrats to the U.S., well deserved victory and going into the tournament I had a good feeling about this team, better than Canada in fact (was never faithful in Spott).
Good for Grimaldi too to have a solid game
Anyone feel bad for Stefan Noesen though? Poor guy Then again who knows, maybe with him in the line-up USA doesn't win gold.
Congrats to the U.S., well deserved victory and going into the tournament I had a good feeling about this team, better than Canada in fact (was never faithful in Spott).
Good for Grimaldi too to have a solid game
Anyone feel bad for Stefan Noesen though? Poor guy Then again who knows, maybe with him in the line-up USA doesn't win gold.
After the 1960 USA Olympic team won gold, Herb Brooks told the head coach something along the lines of, "You made the right move," because he was cut.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
So happy the team claimed gold. Amazing tournament for Gibson, Trouba, Gaudreau and Grimaldi. Small hockey players definitely proved their worth for team USA. Congrats to Sweden and Russia for medaling as well. Tough break for the Canadians, that team was stacked. Just goes to show you never know until you play the game.
