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

A couple of questions about Team Canada from 1998-2010

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-20-2013, 01:41 AM
  #1
Stars and Bolts
Registered User
 
Stars and Bolts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 298
vCash: 500
A couple of questions about Team Canada from 1998-2010

With the Olympics approaching, I have a couple of questions for all you Canadians out there. It's about the 4 Team Canada teams that have existed since NHL players were allowed to participate in 1998.

1. Which Gold Medal winning team did you think was better, 2002 or 2010?
2. Of the other two teams, who disappointed you more, 1998 or 2006?

I personally (as an American) thought the 2002 team was better than the 2010 one. And if you care which Gold Medal game was a tougher loss for me, I'd have to go 2002. Even though we had a far better chance at winning in 2010, the 2002 game was the last hurrah for a great generation of American players, while 2010 was just the beginning of a new generation.

Stars and Bolts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 02:01 AM
  #2
Sprague Cleghorn
User Registered
 
Sprague Cleghorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Edmonton, KY
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 1,529
vCash: 214
06 was more disappointing. The team really underachieved in 06 whereas in 98 they ran into
a flaming Hasek who was delivering one of the greatest goaltending performances in the history of the game.

Sprague Cleghorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 02:42 AM
  #3
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Hendrix View Post
.....a flaming Hasek who was delivering one of the greatest goaltending performances in the history of the game.
Ya, and you know what? That is total BS. You do not get beaten by a Goalie alone unless your mentally weak.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 03:22 AM
  #4
LeBlondeDemon10
BlindLemon Haystacks
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,169
vCash: 500
98 was the most disappointing by far. First of all it was the first time NHL players participated in the Olympics, Lindros was named captain with Gretzky not even an assistant, Clarke made many questionable selections and Crawford doesn't let Gretzky participate in the shootout. Just a farce from the word go really. Gretzky should have been given the reins to lead that team. Jean Beliveau was still the captain even when he was no longer the best player on the team. Naming "generation me" man as captain was a huge mistake. This team had no identity, no chemistry and no leadership.

For 2006, I believe Gretzky could have made some better choices in players, but overall I believe these Olympics occurred during a gap in generational Canadian talent. No Lemieux, no Crosby and no one to take their place. Still good players on the team, but missing crucial pieces.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 03:51 AM
  #5
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,031
vCash: 500
Nagano was a tournament of century, that says a lot about potential dissapointment.

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 08:22 AM
  #6
tony d
ATD 2015
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,546
vCash: 500
2002 was the team I thought was better while I was more disappointed by 2006.

__________________
tony d is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 09:12 AM
  #7
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,890
vCash: 500
1. 2002
2. 1998

BraveCanadian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 09:22 AM
  #8
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,302
vCash: 500
I would probably say 2010 team was better and in fact played the most dominant game I have ever seen Canada play: against Russia. They unleashed an absolute hurricane.

2006 team was really bad. Really.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 11:33 AM
  #9
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
I would probably say 2010 team was better and in fact played the most dominant game I have ever seen Canada play: against Russia. They unleashed an absolute hurricane.

2006 team was really bad. Really.
Best game (or maybe first period) I saw team canada play also (in the 1998-2010 era) and was maybe the best team, at least during that game they were certainly.

2002 Goaltending was much better thought, and better experience wise, but the depth player of 2010 (Doughty, Toews, etc...) had better moment in 2010 imo.

2006 was the most disappointing to me, loosing to Swiss and everything, that was just bad, they get out to a good russian team, but never felt they were strong in that tournament. Niedermayer not being there was huge for that team. (Not using Crosby could be seen as an error now, maybe)

1998 had a very good tournament and lost to the gold champion (and a very good team), disappointing for sure but nothing like 2006 to me.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 01:21 PM
  #10
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,037
vCash: 500
1998 was the most disappointing in terms of outcome, but it was understandable. It was Dominik Hasek beating them, when he was in his no-way-no-how-anyone-scores-on-me phase (which ran for several years).

2006 was the most disappointing in terms of performance. That team never got its act together.

optimus2861 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 01:43 PM
  #11
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
1998 was the most disappointing in terms of outcome, but it was understandable. It was Dominik Hasek beating them, when he was in his no-way-no-how-anyone-scores-on-me phase (which ran for several years).
Czech Republic team beat them, goaltending was almost the same for the 2 teams (98 olympics Patrick Roy was not a bad goaltender option )

Canada was outshoot that game:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/oly..._republic.html

Roy just let one goal in (like Hasek during the game) and just 1 goal in 5 shots during the shootout (almost like Hasek on Lindros post).

The understandable part is for some reason hard to excuse because it was lack of/bad preparation (things that you can control) like shootout planing, taking Messier with you, etc...

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 06:07 PM
  #12
Stars and Bolts
Registered User
 
Stars and Bolts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 298
vCash: 500
Another question I have is how much was the 1998 Team Canada built to beat Team USA? When I took a look at the thread about why you guys didn't medal in 1998, many people were saying that. Did us beating you in the 1996 World Cup cause you guys to have that much of a knee jerk reaction when picking the 1998 Olympic team?

Stars and Bolts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2013, 09:33 PM
  #13
Sprague Cleghorn
User Registered
 
Sprague Cleghorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Edmonton, KY
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 1,529
vCash: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya, and you know what? That is total BS. You do not get beaten by a Goalie alone unless your mentally weak.
Maybe they were mentally weak.

Sprague Cleghorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2013, 03:27 PM
  #14
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars and Bolts View Post
Another question I have is how much was the 1998 Team Canada built to beat Team USA? When I took a look at the thread about why you guys didn't medal in 1998, many people were saying that. Did us beating you in the 1996 World Cup cause you guys to have that much of a knee jerk reaction when picking the 1998 Olympic team?
Again, that was the ignorance of picking this team. We lost to the Americans in 1996. We built the team around beating them in 1998. We forgot that other nations play the game pretty good too. I have never been a big fan of knee jerk reactions in sports. This was one of them. They always look bad in hindsight. 1998 was also a transition time for Canada. The old guard was older and the Thorntons and Iginlas weren't ready yet. Lemieux being retired hurt, as did Kariya's absence and Sakic's.

2002 went back to normal. We picked our best players. We picked the kind of team that could win in any way. We had skill, youth, toughness, size, speed, loads of experience and winners, captains. One thing people forget about 2002, there was a goalie controversy then too. Roy pulled out and that left Brodeur, Joseph and Belfour. Honestly, there was a bit of fear as to whether or not the goalies would step up. Brodeur won two Cups but he was wrongly thought to be a product of the Devils at this time. Belfour won a Cup but his temper was always present. Joseph never seemed to bring his "A" game when the chips were down. Egos were checked at the door and after Joseph had a bad game Brodeur came in and saved the day.

It's funny, because 2002 and 2010 are similar. While 1998 and 2006 are too.

2002 and 2010 both featured hand wringing losses in the round robin, a blow out in the quarter final or semi-final with a tight teeth clenching win in the other. Each team was pretty much the best we could ice with the odd player that in hindsight could have been there (Thornton in 2002, Stamkos in 2010). Both featured the Americans in the Gold medal game and both were fantastic games.

2006 was poorly chosen. Gretzky and Lowe had won the 2002 Olympics and 2004 World Cup and I got the feeling that they went in there a little cocky. 2006 like 1998 had some injury issues although not as bad as 1998. Niedermayer couldn't play in 2006, which hurt. But Bertuzzi being selected was bad news. Draper being selected was ugly too. This left Crosby sitting at home. Look, I know the kid had played 35 games or so when this team was selected, but there is no question in my mind he was ready to play. His speed on the big ice would have helped.

For whatever reason the 2006 team was easily the best on paper in the tournament but just couldn't get it together and worse off, couldn't score. We got shutout by Switzerland. That is an embarassment I will never forget. But this team was just lost out there. The Bertuzzi inclusion and that whole thing with Gretzky's wife being in a gambling ring before hand left this whole team with a bad taste and I felt it.

For the record, 2002 and 2010 are pretty close and in a best of 7 it would go 6 or 7 games. I guess I would take 2002 though. Somehow the experience of Mario, Sakic and Yzerman wins out I think. But the youthfulness of 2010 definitely wins some games.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2013, 09:00 PM
  #15
Stars and Bolts
Registered User
 
Stars and Bolts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Again, that was the ignorance of picking this team. We lost to the Americans in 1996. We built the team around beating them in 1998. We forgot that other nations play the game pretty good too. I have never been a big fan of knee jerk reactions in sports. This was one of them. They always look bad in hindsight. 1998 was also a transition time for Canada. The old guard was older and the Thorntons and Iginlas weren't ready yet. Lemieux being retired hurt, as did Kariya's absence and Sakic's.

2002 went back to normal. We picked our best players. We picked the kind of team that could win in any way. We had skill, youth, toughness, size, speed, loads of experience and winners, captains. One thing people forget about 2002, there was a goalie controversy then too. Roy pulled out and that left Brodeur, Joseph and Belfour. Honestly, there was a bit of fear as to whether or not the goalies would step up. Brodeur won two Cups but he was wrongly thought to be a product of the Devils at this time. Belfour won a Cup but his temper was always present. Joseph never seemed to bring his "A" game when the chips were down. Egos were checked at the door and after Joseph had a bad game Brodeur came in and saved the day.

It's funny, because 2002 and 2010 are similar. While 1998 and 2006 are too.

2002 and 2010 both featured hand wringing losses in the round robin, a blow out in the quarter final or semi-final with a tight teeth clenching win in the other. Each team was pretty much the best we could ice with the odd player that in hindsight could have been there (Thornton in 2002, Stamkos in 2010). Both featured the Americans in the Gold medal game and both were fantastic games.

2006 was poorly chosen. Gretzky and Lowe had won the 2002 Olympics and 2004 World Cup and I got the feeling that they went in there a little cocky. 2006 like 1998 had some injury issues although not as bad as 1998. Niedermayer couldn't play in 2006, which hurt. But Bertuzzi being selected was bad news. Draper being selected was ugly too. This left Crosby sitting at home. Look, I know the kid had played 35 games or so when this team was selected, but there is no question in my mind he was ready to play. His speed on the big ice would have helped.

For whatever reason the 2006 team was easily the best on paper in the tournament but just couldn't get it together and worse off, couldn't score. We got shutout by Switzerland. That is an embarassment I will never forget. But this team was just lost out there. The Bertuzzi inclusion and that whole thing with Gretzky's wife being in a gambling ring before hand left this whole team with a bad taste and I felt it.

For the record, 2002 and 2010 are pretty close and in a best of 7 it would go 6 or 7 games. I guess I would take 2002 though. Somehow the experience of Mario, Sakic and Yzerman wins out I think. But the youthfulness of 2010 definitely wins some games.
Thanks Big Phil, I was specifically waiting for you. Heck, this knee-jerk reaction probably looked dumb not only in hindsight, but at the time too. I wasn't old enough to see the 96 WC and vaguely remember the 98 Olympics (02 is the first one I vividly remember), but it does seem stupid that you guys build your team around beating us, especially since the bigger Olympic rinks put both of us at a disadvantage. And of course, we didn't play well in those Olympics, and of the 4 Team USA's during this span the 1998 team was the one I was most disappointed with by far.

From what I've heard, we were the favorites going into the 98 games (another reason this team was the most disappointing). Did that also play a huge role in you guys picking your team to beat us, in addition to us beating you at the 96 WC?

Since you said Team Canada in 1998 and 2006 were similar, was it only the fact that they were both picked bad? Based on what you said, both were picked bad but in quite different ways. I sort of disagree that you guys were chosen poorly in 2006, but agree 100% that they never had any chemistry together. I was stunned by how much that team struggled to score. A question I have about that team was how much of their poor chemistry (especially their struggle to score) based on how the team was chosen? If that part is significant then you definitely have a point about it being chosen poorly.

I agree that the 2002 team would beat the 2010 one. Interestingly, 5 players were on both teams, and they were all better in 2002 (for some perspective for how much older Team USA was in 2002, Chris Drury was the only player on both the 2002 and 2010 teams). I think the 02 team definitely had the edge in net. One thing I noticed Team Canada had in common between the 2002 and 2010 teams was a good balance between youth and veterans.

Stars and Bolts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2013, 12:47 PM
  #16
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars and Bolts View Post
quite different ways. I sort of disagree that you guys were chosen poorly in 2006, but agree 100% that they never had any chemistry together.
2006 missing Niedermayer because of injury was the biggest "thing" missing for Canada imo. He could have changed a lot of thing that year.


That team did not score much goal and Crosby, Staal (could have take Gagné place), Spezza, Marc Savard and Cheechoo (could have played with Thornton) were not there.

They are 4 player in the top 10 scorer of the nhl in that list. And good chemistry too (Heatley/Spezza/Nash could have been a nice line) Thorthon-Cheechoo, etc...

Bertuzzi, Lecavalier, Nash, Smyth with 0 goal were not expected.

Some are hindsight there (Lecavalier was not much discuted here after is 2004 world cup, but Bertuzzi, Smyth, Draper, Doan were, and having Pronger-Regehr-Foote on the big ice a bit too. Also Crosby was not at the pace for a 100 points season at the moment if I remember correctly.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2013, 01:16 PM
  #17
Hanji
Registered User
 
Hanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 907
vCash: 500
Despite the result, holy cow was the 1998 team stacked on defense and goal. Roy, Brodeur, Blake, Bourque, Desjardins, Foote, MacInnis, Pronger, Stevens.

Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2013, 01:25 PM
  #18
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanji View Post
Despite the result, holy cow was the 1998 team stacked on defense and goal. Roy, Brodeur, Blake, Bourque, Desjardins, Foote, MacInnis, Pronger, Stevens.
Boyle-Dougthy-Keith-Niedermayer-Pronger-Weber-Seabrook of 2010 is not bad either.

Foote-Desjardins is not that high history wise, and some of them were starting to be out of their prime or not yet 100% in it (Bourque-Pronger).

But yeah, when you factor goaltending, that was the best defence/goaltending of the 4 teams (but playing small ice/big ice is a factor here for some of those).

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2013, 03:22 PM
  #19
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars and Bolts View Post
From what I've heard, we were the favorites going into the 98 games (another reason this team was the most disappointing). Did that also play a huge role in you guys picking your team to beat us, in addition to us beating you at the 96 WC?
Looking back, that American team from the years of 1996 to 2002 were excellent on paper. I would say Canada was favoured in 1996 with a nervous glance towards the Americans line up. In 1998 I'd say USA and Canada were 1a) 1b) anyway you'd want to slice it as far as who was favoured. No doubt about it the Americans were favoured by many, and that team was a very, very fast team on the big ice. By 2002 that American core had their last hurrah and they were getting older. They didn't match up as well against Canada that year. But I do agree that beating the Americans was how the team was built in 1998. We beat the Americans, but man that team just did not know how to play on the big ice. We went for size over speed. This is why Niedermayer was left at home, I think.

Quote:
Since you said Team Canada in 1998 and 2006 were similar, was it only the fact that they were both picked bad? Based on what you said, both were picked bad but in quite different ways. I sort of disagree that you guys were chosen poorly in 2006, but agree 100% that they never had any chemistry together. I was stunned by how much that team struggled to score. A question I have about that team was how much of their poor chemistry (especially their struggle to score) based on how the team was chosen? If that part is significant then you definitely have a point about it being chosen poorly.
I don't know about chemistry so much because the 2006 team had so many of the 2004 World Cup veterans there. But it almost came down to blind loyalty by Gretzky. They had won two straight major tournaments. I almost felt like there was a mood around that team that we could pick anyone we wanted and still win. Going back to 2004, people forget this but Lecavalier wasn't picked for the team until Yzerman had to bow out. Then Vinny was picked. It was crazy and I could see the cracks of overconfidence at this time. Nothing against Stevie Y, but this was 2004, he had just been hit in the eye with an errant shot and his knees were shot. Yzerman was a fine pick in 2002, and played a key role, but after the Olympics and then the 2002 playoffs he was done as an elite player because of his knee surgery. But Gretzky waited until he told him he wasn't going to play. Not the other way around.

I saw much of this in 2006. Doan and Draper didn't belong on that ice. If you have someone like Smyth you don't need Doan as well. Plus, there are plenty of guys you can use as checkers that can also be a threat offensively rather than Draper. The 1987 Canada Cup had Messier and Hawerchuk for example as checkers at times. 100 point men. Again, Gretzky had a hard time when it came to being smart over loyal. Both Mario and Yzerman had to specifically say they wouldn't be on the team. If they hadn't, I guarantee you Gretzky puts these old battered guys on here with players half their age.

Bertuzzi being picked was a waste. They didn't need size on that big ice, they needed speed. Crosby at 18 years old could have provided that. Or if you want someone who isn't a teenager, Spezza, or Staal.

The defense was strange as well. Losing Niedermayer hurt. But the rest were: Blake, Pronger, Redden, McCabe, Bouwmeester, Regehr, Foote. Look, there is nothing wrong with these guys, but it was the big ice. Foote and Regehr are not built for that. Blake was ancient at this time, Pronger just really had a bad tournament and Redden, McCabe and Bouwmeester are either accident prone (Redden, McCabe) or underacheivers (Bouwmeester). What I really realized with that team was that they didn't have a guy rushing the puck. Boyle was picked as a reserve in case of injury. He may have been the best bet to replace Niedermayer. Boyle is not afraid to rush the puck and we've seen him do it very well for a decade. He played great in 2010 as well. Or Brian Campbell at that time. But I would have chosen Boyle.

This team was just too knee jerk. McCabe was scoring a lot of one-timer power play goals and he made the team. Bertuzzi got hot just before the team was picked. I think a true quarterback on the power play killed us the most.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2013, 04:55 AM
  #20
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars and Bolts View Post
I agree that the 2002 team would beat the 2010 one. Interestingly, 5 players were on both teams, and they were all better in 2002 (for some perspective for how much older Team USA was in 2002, Chris Drury was the only player on both the 2002 and 2010 teams). I think the 02 team definitely had the edge in net. One thing I noticed Team Canada had in common between the 2002 and 2010 teams was a good balance between youth and veterans.
The 2002 Canadian team was pretty old, it had 6 players over 35, 7 between 30 and 35, while only 3 were 25 or below. Definitely the oldest of the 4 Canadian teams discussed here.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2013, 01:23 PM
  #21
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 37,643
vCash: 500
The amount of hindsight bias that goes into these evaluations is staggering.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2013, 02:31 PM
  #22
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
The amount of hindsight bias that goes into these evaluations is staggering.
Meh. I was confused at the time Draper & Bertuzzi were picked for the 2006 team. What was Draper even supposed to do in Torino? Grind against the Swiss second line?

But yeah, 1998 is blown out of proportions from a Canadian perspective. Canada had a generational switch and went toe to toe with the Czechs. That's nothing to be embarrassed about. There's was no fiasco. Only sports. All the european teams were real good, and Sweden with prime Lidström, Forsberg, Sundin & Alfredsson didn't even make it out of the Quarter Finals. Sweden's belly flop against Belarus in 2002 are also "better" than Canada's in 2006.

the edler is offline   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 12:03 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.