Canada is by far best International team

[mcphee]

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.

That's what I think the arguement continually gets bogged down at. They are NHL players first who were brought up to play NHL hockey, trying to win tournaments playing a different type of game. Martin Rucinsky will always define the difference.

In the meantime we can still debate Brad Park/Ragulin.

 

[LannysStach]

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...

yes, Canada's won the last 3 teenagers' tournaments, and major congratulations on that! Canada, at the moment, is certainly dominating that age group's competition.

but all the World Championships except the '05 are irrelevant because about half the world's best players are never available each year due to the NHL playoff conflict so it's never really a fair best-on-best by any stretch -- except in '05 when there was no NHL.

again, of the adult men's hockey tournaments (Olympics, Canada/World Cups), Canada has only won 2 since 1991 -- which is almost a generation ago now.

 

[YMB29]

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.

I am questioning your dumb methodology.
Canadian player # 1 > Russian player # 1
Canadian player # 2 > Russian player # 2
Canadian player # 3 > Russian player # 3
...
Anyone can dispute what you wrote and write their own comparisons.

 

[Habs Icing]

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.

WRONG! We're the best at curling and at blaming the Americans for the state of the world.

 

[XploD]

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.

Stupid way to do it.

If you're going to do player-for-player comparison by teams, rate each player from 1-5 and then summarize.

 

[reckoning]

again, of the adult men's hockey tournaments (Olympics, Canada/World Cups), Canada has only won 2 since 1991 --

...which would be more than any other country.

 

[LannysStach]

yeah, except for the 2 Gold medals that Sweden has won.

and the 2 Gold medals the Czechs have won (Olympics and only all-players Worlds),

and the U.S. winning the “Canada†Cup . . .

 

[reckoning]

yeah, except for the 2 Gold medals that Sweden has won.

and the 2 Gold medals the Czechs have won (Olympics and only all-players Worlds),

and the U.S. winning the “Canada†Cup . . .

So any World Championships Canada has won don't count because most of the world`s top players were still in the NHL, but Sweden's Olympic Gold in `94 counts even though most of the world`s top players were still in the NHL?????

By the way, when was the last time Russia won an important adult tournament? If Canada only winning two in 15 years is so horrible, then Russia must be truly pathetic since they haven`t won any.

 

[LannysStach]

just to be clear,
the premise of the thread is that Canada is . . . “by far the best international teamâ€

since ’91, there’s been 8 major tournaments. Canada’s won 2. not quite “by far the bestâ€.

the Olympics were fair to all in both ’92 and ’94 because there was no more professional Soviet Union; and theirs, ours, and every other nation’s best players were fairly equally in the NHL, so those were fair best-of competitions. we didn’t win either of them.

Canada lost one “World Cup†(nay Canada Cup) and won one. so we broke even there.

if you want to only take the 3 all-pro Olympics, Canada won 1 of the 3, and didn’t even medal in the other two.
Sweden equals Canada with 1 Gold, except theirs is more recent, and they also just won Gold in ’94.
the Czechs won a Gold and a Bronze.
the Russians won a Silver and a Bronze.
and Finland won a Silver and a Bronze.

Canada’s a great country, and yes, I stand corrected, we’re better at curling than anyone, but I don’t think we’d even medal in a Bashing America competition. read any news reports out of Europe, the Middle-east, or western Asia lately? we’re still too polite to win The Hatred Challenge.

 

[Chimpradamus]

That about summarizes it. Canada is always a medal candidate in hockey tournaments, but so are Sweden, Finland, Russia, Czech Republic, USA and Slovakia (with Germany and Switzerland gaining on these countries each year). On a good day, any of these teams can beat Canada and vice versa. The competitive level is tight, it's small marginals.

Canada has the greatest depth (and should have), sure, but that doesn't give any bonus when you can only send 23 players or so. So has Brazil in football, but they don't win every year either.

As for Canada always winning the JWC, of course, they have like 50% of all junior players in the world each year to pick from. That's just a too big advantage and it will always make Canada a huge candidate for JWC gold, but not so many care about JWC tournaments anyway (except for Canada of course, because they win them).

The thing with a senior national team is you don't need to develop a bunch of stars each year to be competitive. That's why small countries can compete with the big sharks.

If someone wants to brag about something in history, go ahead, pick your subject. Today is today, looking at the past won't lead anywhere.

And frankly, Canada doesn't collect gold medals in curling on order either.

 

[XploD]

So any World Championships Canada has won don't count because most of the world`s top players were still in the NHL, but Sweden's Olympic Gold in `94 counts even though most of the world`s top players were still in the NHL?????

By the way, when was the last time Russia won an important adult tournament? If Canada only winning two in 15 years is so horrible, then Russia must be truly pathetic since they haven`t won any.

Haha, why the hate on Russia? He never mentioned Russia and isn't a Russian himself.

 

[reckoning]

just to be clear,
the premise of the thread is that Canada is . . . “by far the best international teamâ€

since ’91, there’s been 8 major tournaments. Canada’s won 2. not quite “by far the bestâ€.

the Olympics were fair to all in both ’92 and ’94 because there was no more professional Soviet Union; and theirs, ours, and every other nation’s best players were fairly equally in the NHL, so those were fair best-of competitions. we didn’t win either of them.

If the best players are in the NHL, than how are the Olympics a best-of competition? And when did this thread become only since `91? So that way you wouldn`t count the 4 Canada Cup victories? Why don`t you go back only 10 years? Wait- that would remove Sweden and Russias Olympic Golds in the 90s.

You talk about how Canada has only won 2 out of 8 of your "legitimate" tournaments as if winning is the only bottom line. Why is it so important to list the second and third place finishers only in the ones Canada didn`t medal in?

Going by the 8 tournaments you consider legitmate:

Canada: 1st place- 2 times; 2nd place- 4 times
Czech Republic: 1st place- 2 times; 2nd place- 0 times
Sweden: 1st place- 2 times; 2nd place- 0 times
Russia: 1st place- 1 time; 2nd place- 1 time
U.S.A.: 1st place- 1 time; 2nd place- 1 time
Finland: 1st place- 0 times; 2nd place- 2 times

So Canada has placed in top 2 of those tournaments three times as much as any other country. That`s a pretty significant edge. Canada doesn`t win every tournament (nobody said they did), but they consistently perform better than any other country.

 

[reckoning]

Haha, why the hate on Russia? He never mentioned Russia and isn't a Russian himself.

Haha, who said I hated Russia? Just choosing another country to compare Canada's record to. If Canada`s not the best hockey nation, then exactly who is?

 

[LannysStach]

“If the best players are in the NHL, than how are the Olympics a best-of competition?â€

in '92 and '94 Olympics all the best non-NHLers were available equally, so it’s fair. in the WC, it’s arbitrary because of who is still in the NHL playoffs and who’s teams aren’t. it’s ridiculous and invalid in terms of a real competition. I don’t know why they don’t just start it 3 or 4 weeks later.

but my point is it’s wrong to try and claim Canada is “by far the best international teamâ€. it just simply isn’t true. and I think the faster Canadians get off this the better. the sooner we realize everybody is as good as we are, we’ll try harder to win. that attitude of awaiting a coronation in Turino was embarrassing. the out-of-touch thug brothers who put that team together, and the unemployed losers who coached it, has turned a once-proud hockey nation into a joke. todd bertuzzi on a national team? shane doan? kris draper? leaving the best hockey player in the world sitting at home? (see top of NHL standings) it’s a really bad joke, and we’re the punch line.

and only by us realizing how Completely out of touch with reality the people who run our major competitions are will we make the changes necessary to actually be a winner, like we should be. (and then the world better look out! ) but as long as the Mind of Canadians is so messed up and living in false engrandizement and nurturing nepotism, we don’t deserve to win anything, and won’t.

 

[XploD]

Haha, who said I hated Russia? Just choosing another country to compare Canada's record to. If Canada`s not the best hockey nation, then exactly who is?

Right now, Sweden. Last 15 years? Don't think there's a winner there. All-time I'd say tie between Soviet and Canada.

 

[Crazyhorse]

Canada doesn`t win every tournament (nobody said they did), but they consistently perform better than any other country.

No they don't.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Stupid way to do it.

If you're going to do player-for-player comparison by teams, rate each player from 1-5 and then summarize.

Agreed, to a certain extent. You don't just look at player A versus player B to determine who's better. If we're talking about results, which is what this thread essentially boils down to, it's all about how those players come together as a team.

Look at Canada at this year's Olympics. We had a much more talented team than what we sent to Salt Lake. But they never came together as a team, and the guys we expected to be our top players and really take their place - Thornton, Lecavalier, Gagne, Iginla and Heatley - were disappointments and even flops. That team really needed guys like Yzerman and Shanahan. If you look at individual talent, we were much better than the Finns. Yet the Finns shocked everyone by reaching the gold medal game.

 

[God Bless Canada]

There is only one true annual best-on-best tournament, and that's the WJC. Since 1982, when the Canadian Program of Excellence began, it's been a best on best. Before 1982, Canada sent the defending Memorial Cup champions, with a few ringers. While there are a few eligible players in the NHL each year, the number of players who miss the WJC is generally about the same as those who miss the Canada/World Cup or the Olympics due to injury.

The Worlds are not a best-on-best. There are too many players still in the Stanley Cup playoffs. To be honest, the Worlds have never been a best-on-best. Even the tournament in 2005 had a lot of talent missing from all sides. The WU18 is not a best-on-best, as there are a lot of players who are absent due to Memorial Cup playoffs or NCAA playoffs. The Junior World Cup, held in August each year, is not a best-on-best, either, as Canada is the only country that generally sends its best.

You can't call the pre-1998 Olys a best-on-best tournament. The Olys in 1992 and 1994 were even less of a best-on-best than their predecessors. At least the pre-1992 Olys gave you a chance to watch the best Soviet players. By the time 1992 and 1994 rolled around, the vast majority of Europe's best were in the NHL by the time the Olympics rolled around.

There are only three tournaments that have the claim to be a best-on-best: the WJC (starting in 1982), the last three Olympics and the Canada/World Cup. That's it. Canada has done extremely well in those tournaments, but they've had plenty of disappointments, too. Are we the best? Yeah. Do we win more than anyone else? Yeah. Is victory a given? No. The last Olympics showed that if you can't come together as a team, you will lose, no matter how much individual talent you might have, and less talented teams (Switzerland and Finland) can beat you.

 

[Larionov]

So according to you, Koharski was fair in his refereeing and did not help Canada win the last game (I am not even talking about the other two)?

The whining about Koharski in those games is pretty humorous given that the Russians themselves chose Koharski. They had the option to have one of the international officials handle the game, but instead chose to go with an NHL official, even though he was Canadian.

 

[Zine]

The whining about Koharski in those games is pretty humorous given that the Russians themselves chose Koharski. They had the option to have one of the international officials handle the game, but instead chose to go with an NHL official, even though he was Canadian.

Nope. The other option given to them was an American ref. From the Soviet's perspective, they were in a no win situation and opted for the lesser of two 'evils'.

 

[Crazyhorse]

There is only one true annual best-on-best tournament, and that's the WJC. Since 1982, when the Canadian Program of Excellence began, it's been a best on best. Before 1982, Canada sent the defending Memorial Cup champions, with a few ringers. While there are a few eligible players in the NHL each year, the number of players who miss the WJC is generally about the same as those who miss the Canada/World Cup or the Olympics due to injury.

The Worlds are not a best-on-best. There are too many players still in the Stanley Cup playoffs. To be honest, the Worlds have never been a best-on-best. Even the tournament in 2005 had a lot of talent missing from all sides. The WU18 is not a best-on-best, as there are a lot of players who are absent due to Memorial Cup playoffs or NCAA playoffs. The Junior World Cup, held in August each year, is not a best-on-best, either, as Canada is the only country that generally sends its best.

You can't call the pre-1998 Olys a best-on-best tournament. The Olys in 1992 and 1994 were even less of a best-on-best than their predecessors. At least the pre-1992 Olys gave you a chance to watch the best Soviet players. By the time 1992 and 1994 rolled around, the vast majority of Europe's best were in the NHL by the time the Olympics rolled around.

There are only three tournaments that have the claim to be a best-on-best: the WJC (starting in 1982), the last three Olympics and the Canada/World Cup. That's it. Canada has done extremely well in those tournaments, but they've had plenty of disappointments, too. Are we the best? Yeah. Do we win more than anyone else? Yeah. Is victory a given? No. The last Olympics showed that if you can't come together as a team, you will lose, no matter how much individual talent you might have, and less talented teams (Switzerland and Finland) can beat you.

I am sorry, but i disagree.

Does the fact that neither Federov, Mogilny or Khabibulin played the 2004 World Cup, make the tournament less valid? There won't ever be a best-of-the-best tournament, based on your criteria.
If you wan't to talk about the best-of-the-best players gathered to play in a tournament, then we will have to look back, to the Netherlands in the early 19th century, IMO.

 

[The Legend]

Agreed, to a certain extent. You don't just look at player A versus player B to determine who's better. If we're talking about results, which is what this thread essentially boils down to, it's all about how those players come together as a team.

Look at Canada at this year's Olympics. We had a much more talented team than what we sent to Salt Lake. But they never came together as a team, and the guys we expected to be our top players and really take their place - Thornton, Lecavalier, Gagne, Iginla and Heatley - were disappointments and even flops. That team really needed guys like Yzerman and Shanahan. If you look at individual talent, we were much better than the Finns. Yet the Finns shocked everyone by reaching the gold medal game.

That was my original point almost word for word. Player for player we're better, but team by team its extremely close and almost too hard to call. Some very patriotic Russian Posters don't exactly like to concede anything to another country, much less a western one.

 

[AD]

Always favorites: Canada, Sweden, Russia, Check Republic

Always contenders: USA, Finland (these two countries will join the top 4 soon)

Can win: Slovakia

Getting there: Switzerland, Germany

Can play: Belarus, Kazakhstan

Outsiders: Others

 

[therealdeal]

yes, Canada's won the last 3 teenagers' tournaments, and major congratulations on that! Canada, at the moment, is certainly dominating that age group's competition.

but all the World Championships except the '05 are irrelevant because about half the world's best players are never available each year due to the NHL playoff conflict so it's never really a fair best-on-best by any stretch -- except in '05 when there was no NHL.

again, of the adult men's hockey tournaments (Olympics, Canada/World Cups), Canada has only won 2 since 1991 -- which is almost a generation ago now.

Its very difficult to win a short tournament, for any country. Since 1991, there has been 5 best on best tournaments, and you're right, Canada has only won 2 of them, however, no other country has won more than 2, in fact, Canada is the only country to have won more than one of them.

So speaking in those terms, Canada has been the most consistent country.

 

[LannysStach]

The Finnish Dynasty

overall, I’m just jazzed by how great hockey’s become with all these different nations contributing talent to the global pool.

“Its very difficult to win a short tournament, for any country.â€

one thing that’s come clear from this & related threads is global parity, at least among the 5 “superpowers.â€
I was thinking about how many deciding games were by a single goal.
for all our jabbering, but for one red light in both the ’06 Olympics and the ’04 World Cup, we would be talking about a Finnish dynasty. (Finns losing both the Gold games 3-2)

and in ‘04, Canada only got into the finals by an Overtime goal against the Czechs.
if Jagr would have potted that and they beat the Finns, 3 of the last 5 tournies would be Czech titles, and we’d have an undisputed Czech dynasty.
or . . . in ’98 – a freakin shootout decided who went to the Gold medal. if Sakic hadn’t pulled a groin, or if Hasek had – the Czechs would never have won any major tournament and they’d be a Slovakia.

or the ’87 series being three 6-5 games.
or the month-long ’72 Summit being decided by one goal, also a final 6-5er.
in those four live-or-die games, that’s 21 goals against, 23 goals for.
but by one goal in each series, Canada could be looking pretty Leaf-like and the Russians fairly Habby.

so, even this idea of counting up tourney wins, whatever ones you want to count, is no barometer, really. Koivu’s stick breaking on the face-off. Henderson calling Mahovlich off the ice for that final shift. Hasek’s blind glove swat on Lindros’s shootout. the final game in ’76 going to overtime. Hull’s goal a half-second after the buzzer in ’74. the 2nd game in ’87 going to Double overtime, and if Le Magnifique hadn’t lived up to his name, it would have been a straight sweep for the Soviets.

it’s an angel’s breath between won and lost.
but for kismet, or karma, or bounces, or Jack Fate . . . the Finns could reign supreme and Canada be a global hockey afterthought.

and please don’t anybody get bent out of shape or take these postulates literally, I’m simply making the point, as others have in different ways, that any of these 5 ‘superpowers’ and a handful of contenders could win (or lose) on Any given night. and that’s a constant, running back to Saskatoon ‘72.

there was a time (1924) when Canada won Olympic hockey games by scores of 33-0, 30-0, 22-0, and 19-2. (yes, those were hockey scores.) THEN you could say “Canada’s by far the best international teamâ€! but the cat’s out of the bag now. we went and showed everybody the damn game, and now the whole world can skate. but man, does it make for better competition than 33-0.