Olympics: Is Russia over rated as a hockey power

[The Bad Guy*]

Not sure how the format is much different than 2004 when Finland finished 2nd and the Czechs finished 3rd.

Let me put it this way, Canada made the final of a hockey tournament, now just how could that possibly happen if they didn't get some advantages? same for the U.S.

You know us North Americans, we like to stick together.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Let me put it this way, Canada made the final of a hockey tournament, now just how could that possibly happen if they didn't get some advantages? same for the U.S.

You know us North Americans, we like to stick together.

I didn't realize you were being sarcastic.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I didn't realize you were being sarcastic.

I'm the bad guy.

 

[Xokkeu]

I didn't realize you were being sarcastic.

Thanks for taking one for the team.

 

[Yakushev72]

Let me put it this way, Canada made the final of a hockey tournament, now just how could that possibly happen if they didn't get some advantages? same for the U.S.

You know us North Americans, we like to stick together.

The fact is that the North Americans have a huge advantage in the World Cup, regardless of how good their teams are. Home soil, hometown crowds, select native son referees for medal round games. Whether the hometown teams are or are not good enough to win anyway is irrelevant to the issue of equal competition. Because most of the players are in the NHL, regardless of country, there is less need than there was during the Canada Cup era for management to intervene to change the competitive balance, but still, it is a huge advantage to be playing at home with all the conditions most advantageous to the home countries.

It would seem that Finland and Sweden have surpassed the United States lately, so its no big shock for European teams to beat them even under ideal conditions, but still, the advantage for the Americans is real.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

The fact is that the North Americans have a huge advantage in the World Cup, regardless of how good their teams are. Home soil, hometown crowds, select native son referees for medal round games. Whether the hometown teams are or are not good enough to win anyway is irrelevant to the issue of equal competition. Because most of the players are in the NHL, regardless of country, there is less need than there was during the Canada Cup era for management to intervene to change the competitive balance, but still, it is a huge advantage to be playing at home with all the conditions most advantageous to the home countries.

I realize you have zero interest in facts or evidence but as we have shown you many times in the past being the home team in international hockey is actually a statistical disadvantage.

 

[JackSlater]

I realize you have zero interest in facts or evidence but as we have shown you many times in the past being the home team in international hockey is actually a statistical disadvantage.

Yeah I haven't seen any convincing evidence that playing at home is an advantage in international hockey. I can see the case for ice surface or even for the style of refereeing, but not the home crowd. It looked to me like both Canada and Russia were somewhat rattled by their home crowds in the last two Olympics.

It would seem that Finland and Sweden have surpassed the United States lately

Based on?

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

The fact is that the North Americans have a huge advantage in the World Cup, regardless of how good their teams are. Home soil, hometown crowds, select native son referees for medal round games. Whether the hometown teams are or are not good enough to win anyway is irrelevant to the issue of equal competition. Because most of the players are in the NHL, regardless of country, there is less need than there was during the Canada Cup era for management to intervene to change the competitive balance, but still, it is a huge advantage to be playing at home with all the conditions most advantageous to the home countries.

It would seem that Finland and Sweden have surpassed the United States lately, so its no big shock for European teams to beat them even under ideal conditions, but still, the advantage for the Americans is real.

Sweden maybe, Finland no

 

[Urbanskog]

Based on?

The results.

 

[JackSlater]

The results.

Of what? Sweden and USA not playing in the Olympics and Finland beating USA in a single game that they were most likely more motivated to win? Sweden and USA have rosters of a similar quality so I can definitely see Sweden ahead of them (and I do) but the disparity between American players and Finnish players is very large. Finland beating USA in a single bronze medal game changes very little.

 

[Beau Knows]

They still have some great players in the NHL, and some other pretty good players in the KHL. But they never seem to have enough these days to win the big tournaments, or even win medals in the last 3 Olympics or the World Cup. Coaching, defence and goaltending have usually let them down.

 

[Yakushev72]

I realize you have zero interest in facts or evidence but as we have shown you many times in the past being the home team in international hockey is actually a statistical disadvantage.

I've never seen anything other than anecdotal, superficial analyses that have pointed out occasions when the home team didn't win. Never any analysis that shows why the home team was the best team, but didn't win because they had the misfortune of playing at home. It sounds like you are arguing that, for example, Russia was clearly the best team with the best players at Sochi, but the home ice jinx beat them. That is incredibly ridiculous, and I think you know it. You're just trying to come up with some kind of whacky spin that suggests that it isn't a huge advantage to play at home, so you won't have to admit that Canada and the US have a massive advantage playing at home under only the most favorable conditions. Do you think people don't see through the absurdness of that premise?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Yeah I haven't seen any convincing evidence that playing at home is an advantage in international hockey. I can see the case for ice surface or even for the style of refereeing, but not the home crowd. It looked to me like both Canada and Russia were somewhat rattled by their home crowds in the last two Olympics.

If you look at the last 25 years of the WC it shows that the host country on average does better the year before and the year after than the year they actually host. In International tournaments the host team is usually not any more familiar with the specifics of the rink than anyone else, they have travelled no less, and most importantly they don't get the rules advantage (last change, etc) that home teams get in league teams. This has all been explained to Yak many times but let's face it, the truth is not his primary concern.

 

[Yakushev72]

Of what? Sweden and USA not playing in the Olympics and Finland beating USA in a single game that they were most likely more motivated to win? Sweden and USA have rosters of a similar quality so I can definitely see Sweden ahead of them (and I do) but the disparity between American players and Finnish players is very large. Finland beating USA in a single bronze medal game changes very little.

It is true that some of the American players were crying and hugging teddy bears on the bench! Seriously though, an Olympic medal was at stake, and the USA gave full effort to win it. They just got blown out by an opponent that was superior defensively, and who outplayed them by a huge margin offensively. Finland is that good! Ask Canada. The American TV broadcasters agreed that Russia outplayed the USA in their match, and only lost because of a sensational performance by an individual in the 13th round of a shootout.

 

[JackSlater]

It is true that some of the American players were crying and hugging teddy bears on the bench! Seriously though, an Olympic medal was at stake, and the USA gave full effort to win it. They just got blown out by an opponent that was superior defensively, and who outplayed them by a huge margin offensively. Finland is that good! Ask Canada. The American TV broadcasters agreed that Russia outplayed the USA in their match, and only lost because of a sensational performance by an individual in the 13th round of a shootout.

You can project your own thoughts onto the American team all that you want (tears and whatnot) but there is no way that they all valued that game equally. It was an Olympic medal, but it was only bronze. The Finnish team took pictures after winning bronze like they had just won the Stanley Cup. I would be stunned if the American team acted that way for a prize other than gold. Look at the attitudes of posters on this website if that is the only insight you can gain, and you can see which continent values a bronze medal in hockey far more. I don't want to get an unrelated thread on the path of European fans informing North American fans about how much North Americans secretly love bronze medals.

All of the above is beside the main point though. I agree that Finland outplayed USA in that game and deserved to win it. Even if we assume that their drive was identical, it still does not tell us very much. The results of a single game are next to meaningless for comparison purposes.

 

[garbageteam]

Overrated? Where have people been placing them? Even the (exceedingly flawed) IIHF rankings place them at third. Canada is obviously not 4th and the US is obviously not 6th. Even with that said, Russia is a solid 4-5... definitely a cut above the Czechs, Slovaks and Swiss, on par with the US but quite certainly a step below the likes of Canada, the Swedes and the Finns.

Anyone that still thinks Russia is the #1 hockey nation hasn't been paying attention for the past decade. Anyone that thinks they are outside of the top 5 has a clear anti-Russian agenda.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

I've never seen anything other than anecdotal, superficial analyses that have pointed out occasions when the home team didn't win. Never any analysis that shows why the home team was the best team, but didn't win because they had the misfortune of playing at home. It sounds like you are arguing that, for example, Russia was clearly the best team with the best players at Sochi, but the home ice jinx beat them. That is incredibly ridiculous, and I think you know it. You're just trying to come up with some kind of whacky spin that suggests that it isn't a huge advantage to play at home, so you won't have to admit that Canada and the US have a massive advantage playing at home under only the most favorable conditions. Do you think people don't see through the absurdness of that premise?

There is a problem with your home ice advantage theory. The team that has home ice usually doesn't win. Canada did but Russia didn't USA didn't Japan didn't although that wasn't a shock. Only Canada pulled it off since the Olympics became best on best

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Overrated? Where have people been placing them? Even the (exceedingly flawed) IIHF rankings place them at third. Canada is obviously not 4th and the US is obviously not 6th. Even with that said, Russia is a solid 4-5... definitely a cut above the Czechs, Slovaks and Swiss, on par with the US but quite certainly a step below the likes of Canada, the Swedes and the Finns.

Anyone that still thinks Russia is the #1 hockey nation hasn't been paying attention for the past decade. Anyone that thinks they are outside of the top 5 has a clear anti-Russian agenda.

Or maybe they just think the Czechs are better

 

[Jakk123]

Overrated? Where have people been placing them? Even the (exceedingly flawed) IIHF rankings place them at third. Canada is obviously not 4th and the US is obviously not 6th. Even with that said, Russia is a solid 4-5... definitely a cut above the Czechs, Slovaks and Swiss, on par with the US but quite certainly a step below the likes of Canada, the Swedes and the Finns.

Anyone that still thinks Russia is the #1 hockey nation hasn't been paying attention for the past decade. Anyone that thinks they are outside of the top 5 has a clear anti-Russian agenda.

This.

 

[Xokkeu]

They used to be a solid number 2, but in past decade I feel they've fallen to a solid 4-5 slot below Sweden and the US.

 

[Soundwave]

I think they still have arguably the second best group of forwards in the world. Malkin, Ovechkin, Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, etc. is nothing to scoff at, though they could use much better role players for the 3rd and 4th lines.

Their problems are their D and goaltending falls short.

If you gave Canada the same D and goaltending they would probably medal, but it'd likely be a bronze.

 

[JoeyBeans]

Russians are getting upset, but at the end of the day (2014) Russia is most certainly over rated.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Thanks for taking one for the team.

It's okay. I'm getting use to it. Hell, in another thread, a poster accused me of having a "anti-U.S. bias". Can you believe that?

 

[Caser]

As usual: even when there really is nothing to discuss in International Tournaments section, there is always Russia. If you think of it that way, it kind of answers the question of this thread.

 

[Yakushev72]

Yeah I haven't seen any convincing evidence that playing at home is an advantage in international hockey. I can see the case for ice surface or even for the style of refereeing, but not the home crowd. It looked to me like both Canada and Russia were somewhat rattled by their home crowds in the last two Olympics.



Based on?

Instead of being "rattled" by home crowds, how about if they just didn't play well, or the other team was just better? Home crowds get home teams jacked up, and of course influence referees, who hate having a crowd riding their back, especially if they are challenging their patriotism. You can keep arguing the point, but I don't think that anyone will buy it