Canada is by far best International team

YogiCanucks

Registered User
Jan 1, 2007
19,658
1
Vancouver BC
Ok here is my thought on this. Sure Canada is great. But if you take the best teams from Russia Sweden Finland Czech and even the US really its fairly even (Tho I'd give Canada the edge cause I'm biased) but I believe if you took the B team from these countries basically 23-45 best players canada would win because there is so much depth in this country. I mean look at some of the names that didn't make the Canadian Olympic team last year Crosby, Staal, Spezza, McCabe, Carter Marleau I mean these are some high caliber players. Just my 2 cents
 

LannysStach

Thou shall
Dec 13, 2004
2,534
55
NYC & Toronto
i hate the “nationalistic chest-thumping†too. between the Americans on Everything and the Canadians on hockey . . . don’t get me started.

but what’s amazing about international competitions is there’s a uniformity in the teams – it’s not just 25 guys from all over the planet who have absolutely NOTHING in common except who signs their checks.

when players come from the same country, there’s a commonality in their approach to the game and style of play to a large extent. plus, they’re playing FOR their country, their home, their Eternal pride – not this season’s. and as you well-read experts know, the international competitions are cited by pretty much every participant as being their most cherished hockey memories. they really play their hearts out, and it’s not for a UFA raise.

that’s why it’s worth the debate and study – and re-watching. it’s so much more than seeing two NHL teams compete during a 1,200 game season – and when half the players will just be pimped off to some other team by next year anyway.

I’ve never understood how fans get so bent out of shape over their particular team, when the players themselves don’t give a damn and would just as soon break one of their current teammates necks next season if some other billionaire or corporation paid them an extra 50 cents. there are exceptions of course, and we’re celebrating one in Detroit tonight.

but that Carolina post-game Cup celebration looked about as exciting as a corporate Christmas party and everybody wanting to get out of there as soon as they could. then look at the faces of the Swedes when they won the Gold and they looked like they were peaking on their first acid trip.

and I’m all for more tripping! that Canadian team in ’06 had about as much joy & unity as a crowded bus at rush hour. but the Finns & the Swedes – you could see the spirit in their eyes, let alone how they played together! imagine those two in a 7 game series?!

and btw, just a shout-out to the civil scholars and international viewpoints that are shared on these boards. I wish this could have started in ‘72. . . . . . . okay, you’re right. we’d still be arguing.

anyway . . . peace, pucks, and one last large frosty toast to a great, passionate & clean competitor any nation could be proud of -- Steve Yzerman!

Lanny
 

Frightened Inmate #2

Registered User
Jun 26, 2003
4,385
1
Calgary
Visit site
1972 Summit Series – the “Bobby Series†doesn’t count cuz Orr and Hull were not there, and Clarke pulled his Tanya Harding.

Well you can't deny that Orr and Hull would have made a difference although on the flip side it is argued that the Soviets didn't send their best with Firsov being the most obvious example - I personally questions this on the part of the Russian argument just due to the nature of the communist system including the dictatorship based coaching methods implemented by the Soviet's and that not allowing for much dissension in the ranks. The Clarke slash is overblown as the impact of Kharlamov was minimized after the first game and it was one of a number of dirty plays on both sides - just the most highlighted example of such.

1974 Summit Series – Hull, Howe & Canada only winning 1 game out of 8 doesn’t count cuz it was just the WHA.

Didn't Marty Howe play as well. The players in the WHA were a step down from what the NHL had to offer and you are talking about a 46 year old Gordie Howe, and he was still able to put up a point per game. What actually amazes me the most was that Canada was as competitive as they were with a 1-4-3 record with the losses against the Soviets being as close as they were.

1976 Olympics don’t count cuz Canada didn’t even send a team.

In a discussion between who was better Canada or the Soviets that would seem like a pretty good reason to omit that tournament.

1976 Canada Cup doesn’t count because the Russians didn’t send their best players in reciprocal protest (and were afraid they’d defect to the WHA who were hiring Europeans like drunken philanthropists) and Canada had to play the Czechs to “winâ€. what was the score in their first game again?

I guess the USSR didn't send their best but I don't understand the less than veiled shot at the Czechoslovakian team which featured many top rate players of their own.

1979 Challenge Cup -- the Soviets won, but it doesn’t count anyway cuz “Canada†also had 3 Swedes playing on their team.

I never paid that much attention to the Challenge Cups or any other exhibition matches, from everything I have read after 72 the battle with the Russians wasn't as great - not that they didn't love representing their country, the luster was lost however.

1980 Olympics – doesn’t count because it’s the Olympics, and if we count the American amateurs winning it blows our whole argument.

Do you really think that the Americans would win every single game against the Soviet team? Past that does this mean that American amateurs are better than anything that Canada could have assembled?

1981 Canada Cup -- Soviets winning 8—1 doesn’t count because . . . it was only one game? and besides, we didn’t give them the damn trophy anyway! “ha! gotcha!â€

1. The Soviets won the tournament in impressive fashion.
2. Eagleson was an idiot and didn't represent the majority of Canadians.
3. One game series really mean nothing - for another example see above.

1984 Olympics simply don’t count, even though we sent Kirk Muller, Russ Courtnall, Kevin Dineen, Pat Flatley, Dave Gagner, Dave Tippett, James Patrick, J.J. Daigneault, Bruce Driver, Doug Lidster and so on.

And while all those players were all stars in their own right, sending 18 year old players to play against Soviet professionals really doesn't seem like a fair matchup to myself. I fail to see what your point is here? Canada couldn't send their best players to the Olympics prior to 1998.

1984 Canada Cup -- doesn’t count because Peter Stastny actually played for Canada, and the Soviets didn’t send Tretiak even tho he’d only let in all of 1 goal in the 3 final medal games at the Olympics just a few months earlier. (shutting-out both the Czechs and that great Canadian team, then beating the Swedes 10-1)

so the Soviets send a weakened team and that is an excuse now, and yet the Olympics victories are valid? I don't see any logic behind what you are spewing.

1987 the Rendez-Vous Series was a tie, so we don’t count this.

I prefer not to count these because they were primarly exhibition matches and the Soviets were able to send weighted teams in the Red Army something that wouldn't be able to occur in the NHL due to the draft system, although that is much easier to ignore as then it would fit nicely into your logic.

1987 Canada Cup -- doesn’t count because Koharski handed the deciding game to Canada.

Okay - this is where a poor arguement became a stupid arguement. In that video there would be a cross check that would get called and then the video would play a hook that occured at the same time saying that was the call. A slewfoot from the Russians becomes a dive by the Canadians, etc, etc. Did the Canadians dive, yes they did, but the Russians did the exact same thing.

1988 Olympics in Calgary – doesn’t count cuz we were so busy hosting.

And yet still couldn't send our best players.

1991 Canada Cup – doesn’t count because the Soviet Union was collapsing and they barely fielded a team.

Well I would say it would be more due to the top soviet talent was playing in the NHL and as such wasn't selected for the Soviet team so it becomes another tournament which is pretty crap to judge the two nations.

1992 Olympics – these should almost count cuz Canada won the Silver! Sean Burke returned from the Devils, Joe Juneau rocked the ice with 14 points, and some big kid name Lindros was poppin’ a few.

So both teams were weak due to the NHL taking the majority of the top players.

1994 Olympics – the Swedes won but again Canada came second, so if you count both these Silvers it sorta makes one Gold.

And yet the Russians couldn't even make it onto the podium. Also Canada's performance was nothing to be mocked at the 1994 Olympics as they were not expected to win anything and yet it came down to a shootout (which is a horrible way to decide a game that means something).

1996 “World Cup†(formerly Canada Cup) -- clearly doesn’t count because the Americans won.
How did the Russians do in that tournament. My memory is sketchy on these things.

1998 Olympics – doesn’t count cuz Gretzky wasn’t in the shoot-out.

See comments regarding the shoot-out. Horrible way to decide a game that means something. Still the worst part of it was the horrible showing in the bronze metal game, no effort at all.

2002 Olympics and 2004 “World Cup†-- now THESE we count!

Well these were free tournaments that the hockey powers could all participate in, so ignoring these is pretty foolish.

2005 World Championship (the NHL lock-out year and only true best-of W.C.) – Czechs beat Canada 3-zip but it doesn’t count cuz . . . it’s just the World Championships (see also; 1980).

The world championships mean nothing to myself and I didn't watch a second of them. But I fail to see what this had to do with the 1980 Olympics especially when you mention how it was the only true best of WC - something the olympics were not until 1998.

2006 Olympics -- obviously don’t count because . . . Gretzky didn’t pick the right players? bertuzzi’s karma?

Canada lost - the team didn't play well. Simple as that.

Overall I think Canada is the best hockey nation - not as huge of a degree that some people here think it is though.
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
Here is the decision I've reached...player for player Canada is the best...when you start looking at the best teams it gets very very shady and you can't make a definitive statement.
 

LannysStach

Thou shall
Dec 13, 2004
2,534
55
NYC & Toronto
hey Elvis!

I was really just addressing the absurdity of picking one series to “count†and others to “not countâ€. anybody can pick at any tournament and find reasons either way.

real uick -- re: the 1980 and ’84 Olympics – when people dismiss all Olympics prior to ’98 because of “pros vs. amateurs†it doesn’t seem to take into account that a bunch of college kids were somehow able to beat the mighty Russian all-stars. so, if those kids could do it, why couldn’t the all-powerful hockey gods of Canada ever do the same thing? especially the next year when they had a dozen future Stanley Cup winning players?

but then you get back into the excuses thing.
 

LannysStach

Thou shall
Dec 13, 2004
2,534
55
NYC & Toronto
also, re: this overall discussion – Stevie said something quite illustrative tonight – that under Scotty Bowman, although his personal stats went down, he became a better hockey player.

that’s why using stats (numbers) to compare different players or countries or anything in hockey is a much over-rated barometer. a player can not show up at all on the stats sheet and be the most dominant player on the ice. Bob Gainey comes to mind. a lotta night of watching Mark Messier. the Penguins were a better team last year than their numbers showed. Bobby Hull was one of or The most dominant player on the ice in ’76, but he only got 8 points in the series. Brett Hull has higher numbers than Bobby Hull, but he was certainly not a better player.

so it’s all really more of an intangible than a hard numbers thing.
 

Joretus

Guest
And how did you come to that conclusion?

I would come to it as well, if you mean most top players by nation. Then again Canada should have that position since they are only nation besides Finland which have hockey their most popular sport.
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
And how did you come to that conclusion?


I just go player for player on each team...its not so hard. Do you want me to go through it actually, because university isn't back till Monday and I do have some time.
 

Chief Jokinen

Registered User
Dec 4, 2006
199
0
HELSINKI, FINLAND
USSR is far better than Canada. Talent and resultwise. Kinda offtopic but guys like Harlamov, Petrov, Firsov and Ragulin are comparable to Orr, Bobby Hull, Mario, Esposito etc.
 

mcphee

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
19,101
8
Visit site
also, re: this overall discussion – Stevie said something quite illustrative tonight – that under Scotty Bowman, although his personal stats went down, he became a better hockey player.

that’s why using stats (numbers) to compare different players or countries or anything in hockey is a much over-rated barometer. a player can not show up at all on the stats sheet and be the most dominant player on the ice. Bob Gainey comes to mind. a lotta night of watching Mark Messier. the Penguins were a better team last year than their numbers showed. Bobby Hull was one of or The most dominant player on the ice in ’76, but he only got 8 points in the series. Brett Hull has higher numbers than Bobby Hull, but he was certainly not a better player.

so it’s all really more of an intangible than a hard numbers thing.
That's how I look at it. Many players did the job that their team needed done. If Guy Lafleur doesn't play for the 70's Habs, Gainey would've scored more. He wouldn't of put up Lafleur like numbers, he had nowhere near the same offensive talent, but he would have played a different game if his team needs were different.

Sometimes a specialized skill is so dominant, it makes you a great player, Brett Hull. Watch film of his Dad in his prime and there's no comparison.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
That's how I look at it. Many players did the job that their team needed done. If Guy Lafleur doesn't play for the 70's Habs, Gainey would've scored more. He wouldn't of put up Lafleur like numbers, he had nowhere near the same offensive talent, but he would have played a different game if his team needs were different.

Sometimes a specialized skill is so dominant, it makes you a great player, Brett Hull. Watch film of his Dad in his prime and there's no comparison.
Certain players for certain roles. That is certainly true for the habs. In the late 50's they had so much talent that great offensive players were relrgated to the 3rd line or penalty killing. Provost & goyette were 3rd liners but later in their careers when they were given more free rein had some great offensive seasons. Marshall was basically a utility/penalty killer even though he scored 20 goals in that role. Later on he made the 2nd all star team with NY. The hawks in the late 50's used Skov & Earl Balfour strictly as penalty killers which may have been the first time this was done.
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
Yes, go through it.

Ok well I will use the original rosters from the last best on best tournament...note that Crosby, Federov, etc are not there for not being chosen/withdrawing...The order is in the order I got from this roster website...feel free to change anything around

Goalies

Brodeur>Nabakov
Turco>Bryzgalov
Luongo=Khabibulin

Defense

Rob Blake>Andre Markov
Chris Pronger>Darius Kasparitis
Wade Redden>Fedor Tyutin
Robyn Regehr>Daniil Markov
Adam Foote>Anton Volchenkov
Ed Jovonovski<Sergein Gonchar
Scott Niedermayer>Alexei Zhitnik

Forwards

Simon Gagne<Ilya Kovalchuk
Dany Heatley=Pavel Datsyuk
Jarome Iginla>Alexei Kovalev
Vincent Lecavalier<Alexander Ovechkin
Joe Sakic>Alexei Yashin
Brad Richards>Viktor Kozlov
Joe Thornton>Alexander Frolov
Todd Bertuzzi<Evgeni Malkin
Shane Doan=Maxim Afinogenov
Kris Draper>Alex Kharitanov
Rick Nash>Alexander Korolyuk
Martin St. Louis>Maxim Sushinsky
Ryan Smyth>Dmitri Bykov(defenseman)


Any disagreements let me know, but I think I've been more than fair...final results? Canada 16, Russia 4, 3 ties.
 

YMB29

Registered User
Sep 25, 2006
422
2
You are just comparing random pairs of players based on your opinion. What are those "best on best" trounaments? Also I thought we were talking about Soviet players.
 

Rather Gingerly 1*

Guest
18-0 in World Junior games...how many can we go before somebody can beat us?
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
You are just comparing random pairs of players based on your opinion. What are those "best on best" trounaments? Also I thought we were talking about Soviet players.

I think you stated yourself that Soviet players and Russian players are one in the same...unless you're saying that Canadian players have gotten better since the fall of communism in the early nineties....

And like I said, mix up the players any way you want, its still not even close. There are still way more Canadian guys that aren't even on that list(Crosby, Staal, Marleau, Cheechoo, etc...)
 

YMB29

Registered User
Sep 25, 2006
422
2
What? You are just making yourself look ridiculous with your empty claims. Anyone could put a comparison sign between two things like they want.
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
What? You are just making yourself look ridiculous with your empty claims. Anyone could put a comparison sign between two things like they want.

At this point I don't even think you are reading what I say.

I said Player for Player Canada is better.
You disagreed.
I brought the 2006 olympics roster and compared it.
You said I compared them wrong.


And now I'm telling you to tell me where I'm wrong. You can't dispute that player for player Canada is better than your beloved Russkies. What you can do is ask a lot of off topic questions.
 

LannysStach

Thou shall
Dec 13, 2004
2,534
55
NYC & Toronto
devoted Canadian hockey fans have to hold onto this belief that we're the best at hockey cuz we certainly aren't the best at anything else.

not only does Canada not win period, we don't even win on a per-capita basis since the entire country of Finland is about the population of the Greater Toronto Area, and yet they missed winning last year’s Gold medal by only one 3rd period goal, whereas Canada (with 6 times the population -- and oh yeah, right, better players) was eliminated the very first game they could be.

until the '02 Olympics Canada hadn't won any major tournament in over a decade, and even that '91 "Canada Cup" had no Russian team to speak of since their country was imploding. since 1991, Canada's won all of 2 major tournaments. whooie! party on, wayne.

with no actual reality upon which to base the "we are the greatest" claim, the folks who brought you the illusion of the Leafs as "Canada's Team", have to resort to an arbitrary "yeah, well, we're still better player-for-player -- just watch me say so."

if Canadians got off their high horse of disillusion – and don’t let gretzky, tambollini or quinn anywhere near our future Team Canadas – then by accepting there’s a problem and working harder to solve it, maybe Canada can once again reclaim some sort of global stature. but as long as we keep coming up with more and more absurd rationalizations, we’re going to continue to live in a land of dreams and not hardware reality.
 

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,958
1,774
Rostov-on-Don
At this point I don't even think you are reading what I say.

I said Player for Player Canada is better.
You disagreed.
I brought the 2006 olympics roster and compared it.
You said I compared them wrong.


And now I'm telling you to tell me where I'm wrong. You can't dispute that player for player Canada is better than your beloved Russkies. What you can do is ask a lot of off topic questions.

From an NHL perspective your point is cetainly legitimate. However, for an international style game, player for player its pretty close. From the '06 roster, guys like Healtey, Iginla, Bertuzzi, Regehr, Jovanovski, Lecavalier, Doan, Foote, etc. have never been too impressive (nor even looked comfortable) on the big ice. By that same token, practically everyone on the Russian side's style of game is more suited for the big ice.

Canada certainly has more depth than any other country......their WJC success is a reflection of this. However, I'd say their top end talent may be slightly behind some other countries when playing in a non-NHL setting.
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
if Canadians got off their high horse of disillusion – and don’t let gretzky, tambollini or quinn anywhere near our future Team Canadas – then by accepting there’s a problem and working harder to solve it, maybe Canada can once again reclaim some sort of global stature. but as long as we keep coming up with more and more absurd rationalizations, we’re going to continue to live in a land of dreams and not hardware reality.


We've won the last three World Junior Championships, with a smattering of World Cup, Olympic, and MEns Senior Titles lumped in. I don't really know what you're talking about right now...
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->