WC: Is this years Team Canada the best team that has ever played in World Championship?

[LiveeviL]

As I believe that athletes of today are better than those from older eras one can certainly argue that the current gold team is close to the best. If slicing "the best" in any other way I for sure would pick the 80's USSR.

 

[KCC]

From a statistical standpoint you can make the claim that it is.

 

[sportsdynasty]

Best team i've ever seen in a World Championship. Dominant performance. And the big ice made it more fun to watch than the NHL playoffs.

 

[llwyd]

It's not only that they dominated the tournament, but also their style of play that reminds me of the Soviets: crazy speed combined with imaginative and quick passing, quick changes of places - that first period yesterday will live in memory (and there the Russians also gave their best and were madly quick too, but couldn't any more stop that massive onslaught in the 2nd and 3rd periods).

 

[Wisp]

As I believe that athletes of today are better than those from older eras one can certainly argue that the current gold team is close to the best. If slicing "the best" in any other way I for sure would pick the 80's USSR.

If we're honest with ourselves, the best teams of our time would probably regularly triumph over yesterday's teams that we remember so fondly. A lot of obvious concepts we take for granted today are what gave the Soviets the edge. only the Soviets were applying things like 'conditioning' & 'fitness' and were only dominant relative to competitors who didn't apply such basic fundamentals as seriously.

We should celebrate the Soviet teams for revolutionizing the sport, however. My fellow Canadians like to crow about inventing the game and owning it, but before Soviet dominance we were convinced brawling and hitting was the path to victory. Hell, it wasn't until Sochi that a lot of this old beliefs were finally laid to rest by the powers that be (and even then they still persist in some corners of the NHL).

 

[llwyd]

If we're honest with ourselves, the best teams of our time would probably regularly triumph over yesterday's teams that we remember so fondly. A lot of obvious concepts we take for granted today are what gave the Soviets the edge. only the Soviets were applying things like 'conditioning' & 'fitness' and were only dominant relative to competitors who didn't apply such basic fundamentals as seriously.

We should celebrate the Soviet teams for revolutionizing the sport, however. My fellow Canadians like to crow about inventing the game and owning it, but before Soviet dominance we were convinced brawling and hitting was the path to victory. Hell, it wasn't until Sochi that a lot of this old beliefs were finally laid to rest by the powers that be (and even then they still persist in some corners of the NHL).

Well, of course there is no question about the radical difference between modern teams and, say, the 80's national teams. That's why it's difficult to compare eras directly - there was also amazing talent in those pre-modern era teams that just wasn't as highly developed as it's now possible. Any comparisons have to be in relative terms, to be fair, not absolute, I would say.

 

[VMBM]

Those Red Army teams played together all year. Pretty tough to compare this team to them. This team was fun to watch though. I enjoyed this tournament much more than the Olympic tourney due to all the offense.

This was the most dominate Team Canada at the whc in the modern era. Maybe the most dominant of all teams since the Red Army days.

Just because some film makers have [wrongly] decided to call the Soviet national team "Red Army", it doesn't mean that we should start to do it too

The Soviet national team, at its best, had great depth (3rd & 4th lines), Red Army, a.k.a CSKA Moscow did not.

 

[Theokritos]

Best since 2005, at least, perhaps best of the modern era.

Obviously one of the Soviet teams of the early 80s would be the best WC team ever - this was back when the USSR could even beat Canada's A team.

So I guess it's between this one and the lockout-year Czech Republic team.

This post gets it right.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

Depends on which teams miss the NHL playoffs and how many great Canadian players are on those teams. I think this team was better than the 2007 Gold Medal team.

I gotta say it was a joy watching the passing on team Canada. Just a ton of skill...pretty awesome.

 

[Coog]

Yes. I think it was. If I may quote Pantera, a vulgure display of power...

 

[Macman]

It's certainly the best and fastest Canadian team I'm seen at the worlds. It was such a joy to see great passing, beautiful goals and open ice after such a dismal year of boring, grinding hockey in the NHL. The NHL needs to learn something from this, but I know they won't. Everything's wonderful in Gary World.

 

[tony d]

If it's not then it should be. Such a great lineup top to bottom even the goaltending held out.

 

[Honest M]

Weak OP, should have listed rosters of other gold-winning teams. But essentially yes, this is the highest firepower team we have sent to the WC. Our average D and goaltending wasn't an issue whatsoever due to offensive dominance.

Don't agree to this at all, sweden and russia had good firepower but lacked in defence and golie. Russia had alot of skilled forwards that didn't manage to get the pucks on goal and they on the other hand had a wide open defence.

difference was teem game hard work defence and golie, smith was good when he was needed, bob wasn't.

 

[bert]

Considering this Canadian team would not be able to play in the NHL due too being waaaaaaay above the salary cap, Its for sure one of the better teams in recent years. If you count player by player they are better then most, if not all NHL teams. If I remember correctly most teams during the NHL lockout was pretty stacked aswell, but im to lazy to find the rosters, but im sure they are out there somewhere.

And its its hard to compare with the old Soviet teams that dominated hockey for so many years. But i think i have to give it to the 70's Soviet teams.

This team would run the table in the NHL and make mince meat out of anyone they played. Who cares if they dont have a prototypical physical shut down D they would have the puck the entire game. This is the way the game is moving anyways, long gone are the big, tough d men that cant skate, read the play or move the puck. This team was ahead of its time in its make up. Hockey Canada really nailed it.

I know this is going to sound arrogant but this is what you get when Canada sends its best. They just never do it at the WC.

 

[bert]

Weak OP, should have listed rosters of other gold-winning teams. But essentially yes, this is the highest firepower team we have sent to the WC. Our average D and goaltending wasn't an issue whatsoever due to offensive dominance.

The D was certainly better than average. Mike Smith is a great goalie, he is stuck on a horrible team he just took an average roster to the conference finals a few years ago.

 

[bert]

Don't agree to this at all, sweden and russia had good firepower but lacked in defence and golie. Russia had alot of skilled forwards that didn't manage to get the pucks on goal and they on the other hand had a wide open defence.

difference was teem game hard work defence and golie, smith was good when he was needed, bob wasn't.

Sweden's forwards werent even remotely close, while Russia had the top end they didnt have anything close to the depth.

 

[Canuckistani]

This was easily the best WHC team of the post-Soviet era. Totally dominating in every way.

Overall I'd say the best WHC team ever was the USSR in 1979: Poland 7-0, W Germany 3-2, Sweden 9-3, Canada 5-2, Czech 11-1, Sweden 11-3, Canada 9-2, Czech 6-1

 

[Canuckistani]

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/Team-Canada/Men/World-Championship/2005/CAN-Roster lockout year roster. They finished 2nd and the roster is solid but not overly impressive imo.

2005 was the best Team Canada on paper at this event, followed by 2008.

But in terms of performance, this year's squad beats all others by a mile.

 

[Honest M]

Sweden's forwards werent even remotely close, while Russia had the top end they didnt have anything close to the depth.

Thats right, swedens D men was a big part of the teems attack and the reason to the scoring ability. So i think they where pretty good at putting the puck in the net but had serious issues on D. Finland was the opposite, strong D and teem game but lack of scoring ability.

Canada was solid on every aspect and of cause, had a much stronger forward crew then sweden.

 

[Slimmy]

Thats right, swedens D men was a big part of the teems attack and the reason to the scoring ability. So i think they where pretty good at putting the puck in the net but had serious issues on D. Finland was the opposite, strong D and teem game but lack of scoring ability.

Canada was solid on every aspect and of cause, had a much stronger forward crew then sweden.

Sweden could have had a really good squad. Zetterberg, Kronwall, Nyqvist, H & D Sedin, Erik Karlsson, Zibby, Steen, and so on, were all available before the medal rounds. With Forsberg, Loui, OEL, Klingberg, Staffan Kronwall already on the roster, it could have been a fun tourney for Sweden.
For some reason the stars aligned for Canada but none of our stars turned up. Still a fun team to watch and the chemistry on the fourth "power" line was a treat. It's going to be a blast watching Filip in the future.
Congrats Canada, btw. I missed the final. Sat in a car for 17 hours to get home from Prague to Gothenburg.

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

On paper, I don't think the team itself was as strong as they performed on the ice.

At forward, any team with Crosby is going to be good. Having elite talents like Giroux, Seguin and Hall helped too. But besides them, there was the usual crop of young forwards getting international experience (Ennis, Couturier, Toffoli, MacKinnon, etc) and a veteran or two (Spezza) who make the team most years when we lose in the quarter finals.

On defense, Burns and Hamhuis were solid, but it was just a bunch of kids after them - Ekblad, Weircioch, Savard and Muzzin.

Goaltending should have been awful with Mike Smith, who had the 39th best SV% in the NHL this year.

As a team, they were more than just the sum of their parts. I think it had to do with good coaching and everyone being amped up once Crosby joined the team.

 

[JackSlater]

Sweden could have had a really good squad. Zetterberg, Kronwall, Nyqvist, H & D Sedin, Erik Karlsson, Zibby, Steen, and so on, were all available before the medal rounds. With Forsberg, Loui, OEL, Klingberg, Staffan Kronwall already on the roster, it could have been a fun tourney for Sweden.
For some reason the stars aligned for Canada but none of our stars turned up. Still a fun team to watch and the chemistry on the fourth "power" line was a treat. It's going to be a blast watching Filip in the future.
Congrats Canada, btw. I missed the final. Sat in a car for 17 hours to get home from Prague to Gothenburg.

I disagree that the stars aligned for Canada. Doughty just straight up refused, as did Johansen and Couture and I believe Carter. Benn opted for surgery. Vlasic was injured, Weber was injured, Letang was injured, Pietrangelo was hurt, Tavares wanted to play apparently but Schenn was in his spot. Bergeron and Fleury were available but not asked given the way the roster was already constructed. It was a good team, and Canada had a better success rate with players than usual, but there were still many players missing.

On paper, I don't think the team itself was as strong as they performed on the ice.

At forward, any team with Crosby is going to be good. Having elite talents like Giroux, Seguin and Hall helped too. But besides them, there was the usual crop of young forwards getting international experience (Ennis, Couturier, Toffoli, MacKinnon, etc) and a veteran or two (Spezza) who make the team most years when we lose in the quarter finals.

On defense, Burns and Hamhuis were solid, but it was just a bunch of kids after them - Ekblad, Weircioch, Savard and Muzzin.

Goaltending should have been awful with Mike Smith, who had the 39th best SV% in the NHL this year.

As a team, they were more than just the sum of their parts. I think it had to do with good coaching and everyone being amped up once Crosby joined the team.

I agree that they performed better than their parts would indicate (defensively). Canada didn't have even one of its top ten defencemen in my opinion. Credit to the players and especially the coaching staff. I don't give Crosby all that much credit for being a great leader (there isn't much evidence either way) but several players did indicate that his presence brought the team to a new level in terms of preparation and seriousness. I haven't considered him to be hugely important to team Canada, but it's possible that his stature has an impact on the team.

 

[Appleyard]

Just from the Flyers Mason and Simmonds were ruled out.

Simmonds broke his leg right at the end of the season.

Mason ruled himself out pretty much before the season ended, due to nagging knee injury.

Both would have almost certainly been there otherwise.

 

[Wisp]

Just from the Flyers Mason and Simmonds were ruled out.

Simmonds broke his leg right at the end of the season.

Mason ruled himself out pretty much before the season ended, due to nagging knee injury.

Both would have almost certainly been there otherwise.

You flyers fans think way too highly of Mason.

 

[Wisp]

2005 was the best Team Canada on paper at this event, followed by 2008.

But in terms of performance, this year's squad beats all others by a mile.

2005 was the best Team Canada on paper at this event, followed by 2008.

But in terms of performance, this year's squad beats all others by a mile.

that defense looks awful to me. looking at their points over their careers and the fact Philips, Hannan and Regehr were considered top players in their day blows me away.

games changed. this year's team fielded six Dan Boyles and was rewarded for it.