Are there still enough gold medal candidates?

[Eye of Ra]

They've won gold in 25% of the men's WC/OIympics they've played in since 2012, with 3 golds, 2 silvers, and 3 bronzes in their last 12 tournaments.

They fit in just fine with the other top nations in terms of gold medal count over those last 12 tournaments:
Canada 4x golds
Russia 3x golds
Sweden 3x golds
Finland 2x golds


You mean the tournament that Russia didn't play in?

russia is a much larger nation than sweden and have many more active players, they should be able to win more gold than Sweden.

also russia always fails in best on best. sweden gold 2006 and silver 2014, when was last time Russia reached finals in best on best....1987?

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's really amazing how off topic the thread is. My topic was primarily about GOLD MEDALS and not about other medals. This relates to the recent past. The circle of candidates became smaller, partly e.g. because Russia is no longer there. But since Russia is also blocked indefinitely, I'm surprised that it's still an issue. Then the USA is mentioned again and again. Why, they proved they can't. Realistic!

because Post #9 went the full Don Cherry "RUSSIAN HOCKEY STINKS" to derail the topic

It's fair to just say 'Canada is the only real consistent gold medal in hockey stuff and a small handful of other countries are in the mix collectively in a given year'. Russia (when not banned) is certainly "in the mix" and hence, ends up on the podium a lot even if gold only comes here and there.

 

[Zine]

It's a good thing all of the other teams adopted the same philosophy of not having any NHLers at all at those two tournaments.



Russia just needs all of the other teams to not send any of their best players and their accomplishments speak for themselves.

But the issue is NHLers who aren't fully committed.

Russian NHLers are no different than anybody else. They get exhausted, have family issues, have injuries. Many of these guys would decline invitations if their nationality was different.



The difference between winning and losing isn't always talent.... it's predicated on momentum, team concept, cohesion, effort. This is exemplified daily in the Cup Playoffs.
And the last 2 tournaments where Russian coaches had to rely on these team concepts and not hand-off responsibility to tired NHL superstars, we fared very well.

 

[WarriorofTime]

russia is a much larger nation than sweden and have many more active players, they should be able to win more gold than Sweden.

also russia always fails in best on best. sweden gold 2006 and silver 2014, when was last time Russia reached finals in best on best....1987?

There hasn't been "best on best" in 9.5 years. Best on best hockey discussions are not relevant to discussing the current landscape of international hockey because they do not exist. It is left to mere hypotheticals.

 

[Lambo]

You know that teams that win medals are typically thought of as candidates to win the gold, right?

This isn't complicated. The San Jose sharks were legit cup contenders for years but were never able to win it. It doesn't mean they weren't a cup contender.

Then the Sharks aren't a gold candidate for me either, because they just can't do it.

 

[MeHateHe]

It's really amazing how off topic the thread is. My topic was primarily about GOLD MEDALS and not about other medals. This relates to the recent past. The circle of candidates became smaller, partly e.g. because Russia is no longer there. But since Russia is also blocked indefinitely, I'm surprised that it's still an issue. Then the USA is mentioned again and again. Why, they proved they can't. Realistic!

As much as I'm having fun poking holes in the logic of the folks who want to pump Russia's tires, I think the failure by the US (and boy howdy, do they ever fail on a regular basis) to win gold doesn't mean those countries aren't gold medal contenders. That Germany and Latvia were 2 and 3 this year - and close 2 and 3 - means that those teams are gold medal contenders. They were both a couple of bounces away from earning a medal of a different colour.

The games were very close this year. Sure, Canada and the US sent weaker-than-possible teams, which opened the door somewhat to those teams, but the Swiss and Germans and others have all had some success against the big fish at best-on-best tournaments. It means that the margins are tight. The bigger fish (let's call them the halibut) can't take days off against some of those teams. Does that mean Great Britain and Hungary have realistic paths to gold? No, but their participation means that the path gold is accessible to more than just a couple.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Then the Sharks aren't a gold candidate for me either, because they just can't do it.

So nobody is ever a candidate to do anything until they've done it? Brilliant.

You probably didn't think the Caps were a cup contender in 2018.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Then the Sharks aren't a gold candidate for me either, because they just can't do it.

so you're just using 'candidates' to mean 'teams that have already won', the OP frames it as a forward-facing discussion, but if you're just looking in a backwards-facing sense, then I suppose anyone can just look at the results and count the victories over whatever time period they deem personally relevant, themselves

 

[Lambo]

because Post #9 went the full Don Cherry "RUSSIAN HOCKEY STINKS" to derail the topic

It's fair to just say 'Canada is the only real consistent gold medal in hockey stuff and a small handful of other countries are in the mix collectively in a given year'. Russia (when not banned) is certainly "in the mix" and hence, ends up on the podium a lot even if gold only comes here and there.

Okay I got it!

so you're just using 'candidates' to mean 'teams that have already won', the OP frames it as a forward-facing discussion, but if you're just looking in a backwards-facing sense, then I suppose anyone can just look at the results and count the victories over whatever time period they deem personally relevant, themselves

I made that clear in my opening comment. I have described the "candidates" and ask whether they are still gold candidates.

 

[Svedu]

In no universe is Finland's lineup better than Russia's. The only position Finland has the advantage is center.

Goaltending - Russia.
No explanation needed.

Defense - Russia.
Finland is super thin beyond Heiskanen. While Russia lacks a true #1, Finland has nowhere the depth of Sergachev, Orlov, Provorov, etc.

Center - Finland
No explanation needed

Wing - Russia
Finland has nowhere near the top end talent or depth of a Kucherov, Kaprizov, Ovechkin, Svechnikov, Nichushkin, Panarin, Buchnevich, Tarasenko,

Depth? Perhaps not. But you are forgetting that because Finland have so much center depth their still able to play Rantanen, Laine and either Aho or Hintz on the wing if they would want that. Also, a player like Lundell on a top6 wing could be a lot better than some of you stat watchers would believe.
Last but not least, take a player like Laine or Tolvanen, do you honestly believe they would be out of place if they got accompanied by our great centers and Rantanen on the other wing?
And again, which of those Russian wingers would take a low6 or bottom3 role that well? And would they buy their role and be defensively sound while at it? I'm not so sure.

Regarding D's, Finland have a decent crop who could be more than good enough in 2-3 years and yeah, Heiskanen is just that much better than all Russian D's that he makes up a lot for that lack of depth.
It's not like Orlov is that much better than D's like Välimäki nor Lindell. Heck, I would definitely pick a defensive Hakanpää for a bottom pair before Orlov. So yeah, again nothing but made bs without considering balance and team chemistry.

The only things I'll give you is a great netminder and Kucherov, Kaprizov, Svechnikov and perhaps even Panarin being better than the Finnish depth. Better than Rantanen? None of them are that imho. Not even Kucherov anymore. And Ovechkin then? Perhaps the best winger ever
but I just don't see him and his ego making Russia more competitive anymore, quite the opposite.
But yeah, if you want to simplify everything for yourself you go ahead.

Last but not least, how did Russia win against Finland without NHL'ers with that 18/19 roster consisting of your three best goalies? Sergachev, Orlov, Zadorov? Ovechkin, Malkin, Dadonov, Kovalchuk, Gusev, Kaprizov etc? Yeah, they lost against Finland without any stars.
Funny how you then would think Russia would have a bigger chance when Malkin and Ovechkin were a lot better back then. Laughable.

 

[NyQuil]

But the issue is NHLers who aren't fully committed.

Russian NHLers are no different than anybody else. They get exhausted, have family issues, have injuries. Many of these guys would decline invitations if their nationality was different.



The difference between winning and losing isn't always talent.... it's predicated on momentum, team concept, cohesion, effort. This is exemplified daily in the Cup Playoffs.
And the last 2 tournaments where Russian coaches had to rely on these team concepts and not hand-off responsibility to tired NHL superstars, we fared very well.

I completely understand the rationale - you don’t see Canada parachuting guys in mid-tournament anymore.

That being said, I’m not sure the last two Olympics provide much of a body of evidence in favour of anything.

Those tournaments were Russia’s to lose.

 

[Lambo]

So nobody is ever a candidate to do anything until they've done it? Brilliant.

You probably didn't think the Caps were a cup contender in 2018.

Well the NHL is really a bad comparison now. In world ice hockey things are more concrete and clearer. The NHL would be a topic in itself again.

 

[Zine]

Respectfully, these are excuses.

To misquote Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you have. Canada has sent a coalition of the willing for several years, sometimes with a few stars and sometimes with a handful of AHLers or Europe-based players, and they've managed to be in the final seven of the past eight years.

If your complaint is that the addition of Evgeni Malkin or other NHL stars makes Russia's team less capable of winning gold against teams filled with non-NHLers and 3rd liners, I'll just be kind and say that's a problem 15 other countries would like to have. If those stars can't put their egos in check and play the same system as everyone else, then that says more about their commitment to the program, and that's nobody else's problem. I'll say it again, the games are played on the ice and the teams who are there have to perform, or they go home without a gold medal.

These are not excuses, they are explanations.
Interesting how you bring up Donald Rumsfeld. His foolish decisions are some of the main reasons and explanations as to why the USA's invasion of Iraq was such a disaster. And that's not meant as a political statement, but rather an analogy to the topic at hand.

 

[NyQuil]

Depth? Perhaps not. But you are forgetting that because Finland have so much center depth their still able to play Rantanen, Laine and either Aho or Hintz on the wing if they would want that. Also, a player like Lundell on a top6 wing could be a lot better than some of you stat watchers would believe.
Last but not least, take a player like Laine or Tolvanen, do you honestly believe they would be out of place if they got accompanied by our great centers and Rantanen on the other wing?
And again, which of those wingers would take a low6 or bottom3 role that well? And would they buy they be defensively sound while at it? I'm not so sure.

Regarding D's, Finland have a decent crop who could be more than good enough in 2-3 years and yeah, Heiskanen is just that much better than all Russian D's that he makes up a lot for that lack of depth.
It's not like Orlov is that much better than D's like Välimäki nor Lindell. Heck, I would definitely pick a defensive Hakanpää for a bottom pair before Orlov. So yeah, again nothing but made bs without considering balance and team chemistry.

The only things I'll give you is a great netminder and Kucherov, Kaprizov, Svechnikov and perhaps even Panarin being better than the Finnish depth. Better than Rantanen? None of them are that imho. Not even Kucherov anymore. And Ovechkin then? Perhaps the best winger ever but I just don't see him and his ego making Russia more competitive anymore, quite the opposite.
But yeah, if you wanna make it simplify everything for yourself you go ahead.

Russia is a bit funny because their stars perform big roles on their NHL teams but in general they have great supporting casts around them.

Kucherov, Panarin, Ovechkin, Kaprisov all represent the top offensive talents on their teams.

All of those teams only seem to have one Russian star like that with some complementary pieces around them.

What Russia seems to lack is the ability to integrate them together.

On paper, I think their talent exceeds Finland but I would be surprised if they were able to ice a better overall team.

 

[MeHateHe]

These are not excuses, they are explanations.

Nah, they're excuses. Every country has its issues with sending a good roster. Canadian fans usually pre-deploy these excuses when the roster is named, when they start talking about this is our F team or whatever. Shut up and drop the puck. Whoever is still standing on the last Sunday gets bragging rights. Everyone else needs to do better.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Well the NHL is really a bad comparison now. In world ice hockey things are more concrete and clearer. The NHL would be a topic in itself again.

It's a fine comparison.

Just admit you used the word candidate wrong. It's nothing to be ashamed of, especially if English isn't your first language.

 

[Zine]

I completely understand the rationale - you don’t see Canada parachuting guys in mid-tournament anymore.

That being said, I’m not sure the last two Olympics provide much of a body of evidence in favour of anything.

Those tournaments were Russia’s to lose.

Based on talent, a significant amount of World Championships were Russia's to lose also. We've fared better when team concept is the focal point.
This is something Finland does very well.

 

[Lambo]

It's a fine comparison.

Just admit you used the word candidate wrong. It's nothing to be ashamed of, especially if English isn't your first language.

As I said, you can respond to my initial comment or understand it correctly. And of course you can't compare the conditions in the NHL with those in IIHF world ice hockey at all.

 

[Zine]

Nah, they're excuses. Every country has its issues with sending a good roster. Canadian fans usually pre-deploy these excuses when the roster is named, when they start talking about this is our F team or whatever. Shut up and drop the puck. Whoever is still standing on the last Sunday gets bragging rights. Everyone else needs to do better.

You'd make a horrible coach and/or GM. Self reflection on why you lose is a fundamental cornerstone of a successful program, or any in-depth hockey person..

Only in the land of fandom do people say "Shut up and drop the puck. Whoever is still standing wins! Bragging Rights!! AAAGGGHHH!!!"

 

[WarriorofTime]

Depth? Perhaps not. But you are forgetting that because Finland have so much center depth their still able to play Rantanen, Laine and either Aho or Hintz on the wing if they would want that. Also, a player like Lundell on a top6 wing could be a lot better than some of you stat watchers would believe.
Last but not least, take a player like Laine or Tolvanen, do you honestly believe they would be out of place if they got accompanied by our great centers and Rantanen on the other wing?
And again, which of those wingers would take a low6 or bottom3 role that well? And would they buy they be defensively sound while at it? I'm not so sure.

Forward Depth is pretty obvious. Despite having a similar number of NHL Forwards (35 vs. 32), Russians produced over 200 more NHL points in 2022-23. Man to a man, 1 vs. 1 on down, Russia has a better forward than Finland... faceoffs present a bit of an issue to work around I suppose for a fictional "best-on-best" competition.

Regarding D's, Finland have a decent crop who could be more than good enough in 2-3 years and yeah, Heiskanen is just that much better than all Russian D's that he makes up a lot for that lack of depth.
It's not like Orlov is that much better than D's like Välimäki nor Lindell. Heck, I would definitely pick a defensive Hakanpää for a bottom pair before Orlov. So yeah, again nothing but made bs without considering balance and team chemistry.

Finland's defense could plausibly get bandaided for a singular best-on-best competition assuming Heiskanen is ready to take on the big role. On an overall player production level, it is quite bad at the moment with how much it craters off after him. It's not like the theoretical #1 Best-on-Best DMan that Russia would have in Sergachev is bad or anything.

The only things I'll give you is a great netminder and Kucherov, Kaprizov, Svechnikov and perhaps even Panarin being better than the Finnish depth. Better than Rantanen? None of them are that imho. Not even Kucherov anymore.

Kucherov is at worst a peer with Rantanen, certainly not "worse"

 

[Svedu]

Forward Depth is pretty obvious. Despite having a similar number of NHL Forwards (35 vs. 32), Russians produced over 200 more NHL points in 2022-23. Man to a man, 1 vs. 1 on down, Russia has a better forward than Finland... faceoffs present a bit of an issue to work around I suppose for a fictional "best-on-best" competition.


Finland's defense could plausibly get bandaided for a singular best-on-best competition assuming Heiskanen is ready to take on the big role. On an overall player production level, it is quite bad at the moment with how much it craters off after him. It's not like the theoretical #1 Best-on-Best DMan that Russia would have in Sergachev is bad or anything.


Kucherov is at worst a peer with Rantanen, certainly not "worse"

Regarding your first point? Okay... Who needs 35 forwards? Finland will have more well balanced and overall four better lines in a best-on-best. That's what counts. Not your completely irrelevant and stubborn argument.

Second point? Yeah, and it's not like Orlov would be that much better than Välimäki neither, if at all.

Yeah, and he's by far your best winger and it's not certain that he's better than the best Finnish one and that makes it quite funny considering the wingers are Russias strongest weapon...

It's easy to twist and turn things. Rantanen? He would be considered as your first center. Barkov would be your first center as well. Aho would be your first center as well. Hintz likewise. Lundell would probably be top6 and perhaps even Luostarinen or Kotkaniemi in the future...
That there is a lot more telling in my world.

 

[Peiskos]

Yup...

* World Champions
* World Cup Champions
* Last Olympic Best On Best Champs
* U20's Champs
* Hlinka Champs
* Women's Olympics Champs
* Vegas vs Florida Stanley Cup Final – 2 teams with a LOT of Canadian players.
* A TON of young uber talented prospects on the horizon.

We're doing... "okay".

It feels like there was a relatively short period there from 2010-2014 at least at the WC where Canada just wasn't very good for some reason, not a single medal whatsoever those years at the Skoda, it was similar for those same years at the World Juniors where Canada took just 2 silvers and a bronze from 2010-2014.

Then it felt like Canada just reloaded or something and it's been a rejuvenation looking at what they've done since at this tournament, like a flip was switched at both the junior and senior levels.

 

[MeHateHe]

You'd make a horrible coach and/or GM. Self reflection on why you lose is a fundamental cornerstone of a successful program, or any in-depth hockey person..

Only in the land of fandom do people say "Shut up and drop the puck. Whoever is still standing wins! Bragging Rights!! AAAGGGHHH!!!"

A) this isn't a discussion among coaches. It is a discussion among fans.
B) Notwithstanding A), there's a great clip from former NFL coach Herm Edwards (maybe he's still an NFL coach? Dunno: who cares about the NFL) where he says "that's the great thing about sports: you play to win the game."



Sure, you want to look back and learn from your mistakes, but any coach worth his salt will mostly ask their GM to give them the tools to do the job. Good goaltending. Good defence. Guys who can put the puck in the net. If you have those things and you can't get it done, man, that's on you. There's nothing more excuse-y than saying that you brought in some NHL all stars and it upset the team balance or something. C'mon. When Canada lost in 1998 we held a summit to figure it out, but as a member of Hockey Canada at the time, I never would have accepted the association saying other than 'we pooped right there on the bed.'

 

[WarriorofTime]

Russia's.on the decline?

They have the best goalies in the world. A an improving NHL D core and they always have elite wingers.

I'm not touch the politics but Russian hockey is rising not decking to my eye. Only flaw is lack of younger centres that are elite.

yes, national team stuff aside, Russia had a period where their goaltenders were a terrible (there was a time when Khabibulin was basically the only guy, then Khabibulin and Nabokov then eventually Bryzgalov until others like Varlamov and Bobrovsky came), then a period with just awful Defensemen where it was like an old Sergei Gonchar, Andrei Markov, Fedor Tyutin, and like... Anton Volchenkov and Denis Grebeshkov and that was all you had, and now it's a pretty well-balanced collective performing well in the NHL level... and Ovechkin, Malkin, Kucherov, Vasilevskiy, Kuznetsov, Tarasenko, Sergachev, Nichushkin.. all of those players are ones who are world champion Stanley Cup winning performers that played monster roles on their teams that won in the last five or so years. This year, Barbashev (1st line forward) or Bobrovsky (presumptive Conn Smythe favorite Goaltender) will join that list as well. It's a fairly strong era for Russian-based NHL players.

 

[WarriorofTime]

All of those teams only seem to have one Russian star like that with some complementary pieces around them.

What Russia seems to lack is the ability to integrate them together.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, as they by and large play on separate NHL teams as you'd expect with 30-32 NHL teams and Russians accounting for about 6 % of NHL players and the 'stars' only a smaller portion of that, so you'd expect them to be pretty spread out from each other.

But as far as integrating them together, there was obviously the 'Russian 5' (going back a ways) but the Capitals won a Cup with 2 Russian Forwards leading in scoring (Conn Smythe winner) and a #3 Russian D, while the Lightning won 2 Cups with a Russian Conn Smythe Goaltender, a Russian leading scorer (x2) and a Russian #3 D.

So I'm not sure you're "there can only be 1" theory is accurate.