So because I am Canadian you won't try to prove my arguement wrong? I am not saying which nation is better at hockey, between the Soviet Union or Canada, all I am trying to say is that the home ice advantage you claim the Canadians had, I think is not a valid arguement. I backed up my arguement by saying that the Soviets never won on their home soil from what I recall. You still haven't given me one fact to prove that my arguement is false.
All-time top 10: National teams
- Thread starter statistics
- Start date
So because I am Canadian you won't try to prove my arguement wrong? I am not saying which nation is better at hockey, between the Soviet Union or Canada, all I am trying to say is that the home ice advantage you claim the Canadians had, I think is not a valid arguement. I backed up my arguement by saying that the Soviets never won on their home soil from what I recall. You still haven't given me one fact to prove that my arguement is false.
Why we fight, because I don't want to fight. Like I said a small sample size. You don't have a large sample size to judge how Soviets did on their home ice. Games played in North America. It was Canada's advantage not Soviets period.
We aren't fighting we are debating. If you don't want to debate that's fine. Like I said though, it is a smaller sample but out of that small sample the Soviets played a lot better on the road than they did on home ice.
I just thought I'd question the claim that Canada had home ice advantage because I feel it wasn't as big of an advantage as some people claim.
76 is irrelavant since Soviets didn't send their best and 79 (Challenge Cup) goes to Soviets as well.
Therefore:
Soviets: 79, 81
Canadians: 72, 84, 87
Last edited:
Yes, Soviets performed better in Canada in 1972. But in 1974 (Summit against WHA) they did much better in Moscow.
Two World Championships came to my mind immediately as well: 1979 and 1986. Soviets were unstoppable at home ice! They beat their usual rivalry of the 70-ties (Czechs) 11:1 in 1979. They easily won all games (including preliminary round) in 1986.
Last edited:
How are you obviously right? I gave examples you haven't yet. All you have said is that since I am Canadian I am wrong and since your are Finnish you are right.
I won't disagree that they did better on home ice in 74'.
The World Championships the Soviets dominated. I am talking about tournaments that are close in which case, the Soviets did better on the road than home ice.
Sorry to piss on your parade, comrade, but you are wrong. It was a tie actually.
See the below link:
http://www.geocities.com/canadavsrussia/stats.html
Look at World 78 in Prague. Soviets almost lost to Czechs ... though finally got gold.
Look at World 85. Soviets got only bronze though they didn't loose any game ...
P.S. In my previous post I missed 1985 and 1986. World 1986 was in Moscow and Soviets easily won all games; they got bronze in 1985 in Prague.
Last edited:
OK, I'll admit to homerism...but seems pretty straightforward to me Canada = #1.
Without doing the stats, I'm pretty sure Canada has a better record than the USSR when both teams had the opportunity to send their best.
72 Summit Series epitomizes why: Fat Juicy completely unprepared Canadian Team ripe for the picking by a USSR team which had been training for months. Without ever coming close to reaching their true potential, Team Canada wins on heart and desire.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that in Canada hockey is more important than in any other country. We live and breath it, and pour our heart and soul into it. In the end, when the game is on the line, that heart usually shines through.
Without doing the stats, I'm pretty sure Canada has a better record than the USSR when both teams had the opportunity to send their best.
72 Summit Series epitomizes why: Fat Juicy completely unprepared Canadian Team ripe for the picking by a USSR team which had been training for months. Without ever coming close to reaching their true potential, Team Canada wins on heart and desire.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that in Canada hockey is more important than in any other country. We live and breath it, and pour our heart and soul into it. In the end, when the game is on the line, that heart usually shines through.
Do I need to rinse and repeat? Yes. So here we go again:
Sorry to piss on your parade, comrade, but you are wrong. It was a tie actually.
See the below link:
http://www.geocities.com/canadavsrussia/stats.html
This site seems to confirm the Benjamin Disraeli adage: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted from link provided by Boucicaut:
"* The 1991 Canada Cup is not included because the Soviets could only field a second rate team that year, and Canada's new rival arose from below the border in the USA. In the Round Robin game, however, Canada and the USSR (for a while known as the Unified Team) tied 3-3."
Quoted from link provided by Boucicaut:
"Series Meetings Between Each Team and Who Won
1974 Summit Series- Soviet Union (4 wins, 1 loss, 3 ties)"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. So...it doesn't count if the USSR sends a scrub team (1991), but it does count if Canada sends a scrub (WHA) team (1974)?
2. Canada won 4 (5 if including 1991...6 if including 2002 olympics) series to 3 for the Soviet Union. What possible difference does it make how many games were won and lost along the way to winning the tournament championship, unless you are trying to manipulate an arguement with statistics.
3. He uses World Championships to "decide" who is better. Canada never sends a first-rate team to that tournament ... yet it counts against us (see #1)?
The above clearly shows a definite bias on the part of the site's author, and hence makes the site worthless for proving any kind of arguement.
You also might want to include the results of the three olympics where Canada was able to send its best. We won the tournament in 2002. During that time Russia won how many times?
Why do you call me comrade? Clearly a derogatory term, at least when speaking to a Canadian. Why is it that people who don't have any facts to back up their arguements always resort to name calling?
In the end, if we ignore the obvious bias of the site author, Canada beats Russia 6 series to 3, and maintains its status as the undisputed champion of Hockey.
Right you are. Sorry, I don't know how to separate USSR Hockey from Russian Hockey. Any tips would be appreciated.
P.S.
Sorry for double post...how do I edit out 1? Doh! Wasn't logged in...hence no Edit button.
OK, now you have me confused statistics. The Finns I know in Canada have a serious hatred for Russia (and Sweden because they didn't come to help) because Russia invaded Finland.
Now, I see a Finn supporting Russia?
Why in the world would a Finn find it neccessary to put an exclamation point at the end of "Russia is not Soviet Union!"?
Sorry, this is the internet, please don't try to tell us you are unbiased because you aren't from some country. We are all aware of how easy it is to play make believe.
1. Americans and canadians are much more patriotic, than europeans on average.
2. Most finns don't really hate Sweden. Hundreds of thousand of finns moved to sweden 50s, 60s, and 70s. In Sweden they offered jobs and better salaries. If finns have to choose one other country where to live, most would pick Sweden.
3. I hate Soviet Union/Russia, Not the people, but the government.
4. This is hockey history board, not politics board. Here we talk about hockey.
Please, go read this thread first post. I listed Soviet Union, Russia and CIS seperately.
And making this totally clear. Finns and swedes agreed allmost all things. Finland's and Sweden's government are very close together. Sweden is a good country and most finns agree with me.
Crazyhorse
Registered User
It wasn't practically possible to field an army to aid Finland, but thats another story. Like you said, this is an hockey board, not politics board.
I like Finland to. Many nice cheerleading girls.
This site seems to confirm the Benjamin Disraeli adage: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. So...it doesn't count if the USSR sends a scrub team (1991), but it does count if Canada sends a scrub (WHA) team (1974)?
2. Canada won 4 (5 if including 1991...6 if including 2002 olympics) series to 3 for the Soviet Union. What possible difference does it make how many games were won and lost along the way to winning the tournament championship, unless you are trying to manipulate an arguement with statistics.
3. He uses World Championships to "decide" who is better. Canada never sends a first-rate team to that tournament ... yet it counts against us (see #1)?
The above clearly shows a definite bias on the part of the site's author, and hence makes the site worthless for proving any kind of arguement.
You also might want to include the results of the three olympics where Canada was able to send its best. We won the tournament in 2002. During that time Russia won how many times?
Why do you call me comrade? Clearly a derogatory term, at least when speaking to a Canadian. Why is it that people who don't have any facts to back up their arguements always resort to name calling?
In the end, if we ignore the obvious bias of the site author, Canada beats Russia 6 series to 3, and maintains its status as the undisputed champion of Hockey.
Your point number 1: A rather ridiculous point you have here. How old are you and are you aware of the fact that the Soviet empire was collapsing at this time? Given that you seem to have trouble separating Russia and Soviet Union, I'm guessing you're not aware. Read a good history book and be enlightened.
Point 2. Soviet Union didn't exist in 2002 and was in shambles in 1991. You can't just count tourney wins and be done with it. They're obviously an important part but you need to look at individual games too to get a more complete picture. This is what the author has done. You are blatantly biased in ignoring the fact that Canada had a home ice advantage in the majority of games. That counts, like it or not.
Point 3. My point was that it is a tie which is the conclusion on the authors final page (the text on read background). The world championship games were not considered for that part of the conclusions but later (the text on blue background) where he gives a slight edge to Soviet Union. That's not the part that I agreed with though. Remember, I said IT WAS A TIE, not that Soviets were superior. Truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it.
Olympics 1998, 2002 and 2006 mean nothing here because we're talking about Soviet Union, not Russia. That's a whole other discussion right there.
And if you find 'comrade' to be derogatory in this context where we are talking about Soviet Union, then I'm sorry for your lack of sense of humor. Also, as we can see, you're pretty sadly lacking in the fact department yourself.
Last edited:
It wasn't practically possible to field an army to aid Finland, but thats another story. Like you said, this is an hockey board, not politics board.
I like Finland to. Many nice cheerleading girls.
Crazyhorse: I don't much appreciate how the Swedish government handled the situation back then -I think it's a very dark moment in Sweden's history of foreign policy- but that's definitely not enough for me to start hating Sweden. Government of the day is one thing and the nation and it's people are another thing. And kudos to those circa 10 000 volunteer Swedes who did come over to help.
notmynhl: I don't see any problem with someone loving Soviet hockey and yet disliking the Soviet empire. I'm that way myself.
Anyways, if people like to continue this discussion, the politics board is here (I'm a regular there):
http://hfboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=160
/end politics
Crazyhorse
Registered User
Yeah, good that you are looking at it that way. There are alot of immature finnish kids that never consider the circumstances surrounding the war.
The fact that it would have taken 4 months for the swedish army to mobilize a force of say 150 000 men, and getting them and the supplies over the sea to Finland, just in time the war ended(started november 30, ended March 13th), is just striking. It was as i mentioned earlier, practically impossible. I think the government handled the situation very well, but we can agree to disagree there.
Actually, the voluntery force Sweden sent was the biggest ever involved in a war, to this date.
Ah, i love history, but lets call the quits in this thread shall we?
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Game 3 Florida Panthers @ Tampa Bay Lightning - Florida Panthers leads series 2-0Wagers: 1Staked: $100.00Event closes- Updated: