Most Important Wins by Country

[VladNYC*]

Ukrainian

As Den said. Zhitnik is the only one who can even make a claim as being a non Russian player since he was a product of Sokol Kiev during the USSR but he has never played for any Ukrainian team internationaly.

 

[canucksfan]

Who cares Russia and Czechoslovakia sent their best players and we didn't send our best players

No the Miracle was what made the US great at hockey The Miracle on ice was the US's 2nd gold medal, hell i'd put Squaw Valley and the Silver in 72 above 96 I'll borrow this common rant from our Northern bretheren.

Being Canadian you just can't know how much hockey is a part of this country's identity.

Try vast majority. Poll Americans on this subject I'd be surprised if 99.99% didn't say Lake Placid.

Canada and the Soviet Union were both hockey powers. Not having one of them is a big difference. The effect of Miracle wasn't felt until years later. However, many great American players that came after the Olympic win, played many years later. As we see in recent years many great American kids are being drafted higher and the US are winning many under 20 tournaments and under 18 tournaments. This is mainly due to the 96' World Cup win. For American culture, Miracle was much more important than the 96' World Cup. I won't disagree with that.

96' is when the USA established itself as a hockey super power. The Miracle on ice didn't. Granted, it help create many players that won in 96' but it didn't establish the US as a hockey superpower.

I won't disagree with you that almost all Americans will pick the Miracle on Ice over the 96' World Cup win.

 

[canucksfan]

I don't care if Canada didn't have a team at the tournament, and the rest of the world except Russia sent a bunch of beer league castoffs. The Miracle on Ice win is the pre-eminent moment in U.S. hockey history, and No. 2 in hockey history following 1972. A team of virtual unknowns beat one of the best international teams ever assembled.

As for the 2005-06 Canadian WJC team, they weren't favoured, but you knew they'd play a strong team game and have great goaltending, so you could never count them out.

The team that won the 1993 WJC (the first of five in a row) was a team that nobody gave any chance. They had several undrafted players (including Manny Legace, who was passed over twice). They were coming off an embarassing 6th place finish the year before. Sweden has assembled a powerhouse team and was an overwhelming favourite, especially on home ice. But Legace turned in an epic performance, guys like Brent Tully played the best hockey of their life, Canada upset Sweden and won gold.

I won't deny that the Miralce on ice was impressive. The reason why I picked the 96' World Cup is because this is the first time the US won a best on best tournament.

Many anaylists picked Canada to finish fourth. They didn't give them much of a chance. I think what many of them did was compare the team to the 04-05 team. A team that is coached by Sutter and has a great goalie always has a chance.

 

[Heat McManus]

I won't deny that the Miralce on ice was impressive. The reason why I picked the 96' World Cup is because this is the first time the US won a best on best tournament.

Many anaylists picked Canada to finish fourth. They didn't give them much of a chance. I think what many of them did was compare the team to the 04-05 team. A team that is coached by Sutter and has a great goalie always has a chance.

Trust me, I'm American. The 96 WC was fun, but nothing tops the Miracle on Ice.

 

[Roughneck]

Lithuanian by birth.

Well Owen Nolan is Irish by birth, Alex Steen and Robert Nilsson are Canadian by birth, Ryan O'Marra is Japanese, Dany Heatley is German, Robyn Regehr is Brazillian, but I can't imagine anybody would argue that these players aren't legitimately products of the countries they currently play for

 

[mattihp]

Well Owen Nolan is Irish by birth, Alex Steen and Robert Nilsson are Canadian by birth, Ryan O'Marra is Japanese, Dany Heatley is German, Robyn Regehr is Brazillian, but I can't imagine anybody would argue that these players aren't legitimately products of the countries they currently play for

Wasn't Owen Nolan northern irish by birth?

BIG difference.

 

[Roughneck]

Wasn't Owen Nolan northern irish by birth?

BIG difference.

You are Irish whether or not you're from Northern Ireland or the Republic, though most loyalists will refer to themselves as Northern Irish, or erroneously as British.

In Nolan's case, he is Northern Irish, but he would compete for Ireland.

 

[Hasbro]

Who cares Russia and Czechoslovakia sent their best players and we didn't send our best players
Canada and the Soviet Union were both hockey powers. Not having one of them is a big difference. The effect of Miracle wasn't felt until years later. However, many great American players that came after the Olympic win, played many years later. As we see in recent years many great American kids are being drafted higher and the US are winning many under 20 tournaments and under 18 tournaments. This is mainly due to the 96' World Cup win. For American culture, Miracle was much more important than the 96' World Cup. I won't disagree with that.

96' is when the USA established itself as a hockey super power. The Miracle on ice didn't. Granted, it help create many players that won in 96' but it didn't establish the US as a hockey superpower.

I won't disagree with you that almost all Americans will pick the Miracle on Ice over the 96' World Cup win.

Who gives a **** about not beating Canada? The hockey sun doesn't shine out of Canada's ***.

College kids beating the best team on Earth is a hell of alot more impressive than an al-star team beating another wobbly all-star team.

 

[Badger Bob]

Well Owen Nolan is Irish by birth, Alex Steen and Robert Nilsson are Canadian by birth, Ryan O'Marra is Japanese, Dany Heatley is German, Robyn Regehr is Brazillian, but I can't imagine anybody would argue that these players aren't legitimately products of the countries they currently play for

Not all of these are valid comparisons. (Jeez, wasn't Steve Smith was born in Scotland?) Nobody considers Regehr to be Brazilian in any way, other than he happened to be born there while his parents were missionaries. The closest might be Petr Nedved, when there were controversies over whether he could play for Canada or Czech Republic international competion.

Oh, and btw, don't forget the villification Brett Hull took from many Canadians after declaring himself to be American for the '91 Canada Cup and especially the '96 World Cup. (He simply remembered that USA Hockey gave him a chance, years before, when Hockey Canada wouldn't.) In many of these cases, it's about where there's simply a chance to play. In Kaspiraitis's case, Russia was where he was able to ply his trade. Wonder if he says he's Russian around Lithuanian family and friends back home? That was the only point.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I won't deny that the Miralce on ice was impressive. The reason why I picked the 96' World Cup is because this is the first time the US won a best on best tournament.

Many anaylists picked Canada to finish fourth. They didn't give them much of a chance. I think what many of them did was compare the team to the 04-05 team. A team that is coached by Sutter and has a great goalie always has a chance.

One reason that Canada was an underdog at this past year's WJC was the result at the 2003 Junior World Cup. For those not aware, the Junior World Cup is the U18 tournament that Hockey Canada really cares about. It's the U18 tournament that Canada gets to send our best young talent to. (The WU18 takes place in the middle of the spring, when most of our top young talent is still gunning for the Memorial Cup). I think Canada has won the Junior World Cup in 13 of 14 years, mostly in convincing fashion. Except for 2003. Canada finished fourth. The players on the 2003 team were the ones drafted in 2004, and the ones who were supposed to be the backbone of the 2005-06 WJC entry. The 2004 draft wasn't kind to Canada, either, our worst draft since 1999. But the combination of stellar coaching, a commitment to team play, late-blooming 19-year-olds (Pogge, Boyd, Comeau, etc) who weren't on the map in 2003, and some outstanding 18-year-olds (Staal, Bourdon, Parent, Downie) lifted Canada to victory.

I don't care who the U.S. played in 1980. They could have played beer league cast-offs from Czechoslovakia, Finland, Sweden and Canada, and it would still be the greatest victory in the history of the country. Why? These college and minor league players beat one of the greatest teams ever assembled. While that USSR was in somewhat of a state of transition from the Kharlamov/Tretiak/Yakushev era to the KLM/Fetisov era, it was still a dominant team that should have cruised to gold. I think the USSR beat the U.S. 10-3 during an exhibition game.

To realize the significance of the Miracle on Ice, just look at the drafts from 1986 to 1992. These were strong drafts for the U.S. The kids drafted in those years would have been between the ages of six to 12 in 1980, and the ones most inspired by the Miracle on Ice. And it was those players who formed the majority of Team USA in the 1996 World Cup. The 1996 World Cup win doesn't happen without the Miracle on Ice.

The Miracle on Ice is the reason Herb Brooks is in the HHOF. 1996 won't get Ron Wilson into the HHOF.

 

[Heat McManus]

One reason that Canada was an underdog at this past year's WJC was the result at the 2003 Junior World Cup. For those not aware, the Junior World Cup is the U18 tournament that Hockey Canada really cares about. It's the U18 tournament that Canada gets to send our best young talent to. (The WU18 takes place in the middle of the spring, when most of our top young talent is still gunning for the Memorial Cup). I think Canada has won the Junior World Cup in 13 of 14 years, mostly in convincing fashion. Except for 2003. Canada finished fourth. The players on the 2003 team were the ones drafted in 2004, and the ones who were supposed to be the backbone of the 2005-06 WJC entry. The 2004 draft wasn't kind to Canada, either, our worst draft since 1999. But the combination of stellar coaching, a commitment to team play, late-blooming 19-year-olds (Pogge, Boyd, Comeau, etc) who weren't on the map in 2003, and some outstanding 18-year-olds (Staal, Bourdon, Parent, Downie) lifted Canada to victory.

I don't care who the U.S. played in 1980. They could have played beer league cast-offs from Czechoslovakia, Finland, Sweden and Canada, and it would still be the greatest victory in the history of the country. Why? These college and minor league players beat one of the greatest teams ever assembled. While that USSR was in somewhat of a state of transition from the Kharlamov/Tretiak/Yakushev era to the KLM/Fetisov era, it was still a dominant team that should have cruised to gold. I think the USSR beat the U.S. 10-3 during an exhibition game.

To realize the significance of the Miracle on Ice, just look at the drafts from 1986 to 1992. These were strong drafts for the U.S. The kids drafted in those years would have been between the ages of six to 12 in 1980, and the ones most inspired by the Miracle on Ice. And it was those players who formed the majority of Team USA in the 1996 World Cup. The 1996 World Cup win doesn't happen without the Miracle on Ice.

The Miracle on Ice is the reason Herb Brooks is in the HHOF. 1996 won't get Ron Wilson into the HHOF.

 

[canucksfan]

Who gives a **** about not beating Canada? The hockey sun doesn't shine out of Canada's ***.

College kids beating the best team on Earth is a hell of alot more impressive than an al-star team beating another wobbly all-star team.

Canada and the USSR were the top two countries at the time. Unlike the 96' World Cup where the best players were there the same couldn't be said for the 80' olympics. I think that's very significant.

 

[canucksfan]

I don't care who the U.S. played in 1980. They could have played beer league cast-offs from Czechoslovakia, Finland, Sweden and Canada, and it would still be the greatest victory in the history of the country. Why? These college and minor league players beat one of the greatest teams ever assembled. While that USSR was in somewhat of a state of transition from the Kharlamov/Tretiak/Yakushev era to the KLM/Fetisov era, it was still a dominant team that should have cruised to gold. I think the USSR beat the U.S. 10-3 during an exhibition game.

To realize the significance of the Miracle on Ice, just look at the drafts from 1986 to 1992. These were strong drafts for the U.S. The kids drafted in those years would have been between the ages of six to 12 in 1980, and the ones most inspired by the Miracle on Ice. And it was those players who formed the majority of Team USA in the 1996 World Cup. The 1996 World Cup win doesn't happen without the Miracle on Ice.

The Miracle on Ice is the reason Herb Brooks is in the HHOF. 1996 won't get Ron Wilson into the HHOF.

The same could be said for the 96' World Cup. Look at how high American kids are being drafted now. They are strong competitors in any under 20 tournaments now.

For American culture the Miracle on Ice was more important than the 96' World Cup I wont disagree with that. However, the 96' World Cup win made the US a significant hockey power and it's the first time where the US won a best on best tournament.

 

[Badger Bob]

The same could be said for the 96' World Cup. Look at how high American kids are being drafted now. They are strong competitors in any under 20 tournaments now.

For American culture the Miracle on Ice was more important than the 96' World Cup I wont disagree with that. However, the 96' World Cup win made the US a significant hockey power and it's the first time where the US won a best on best tournament.

Nobody should have any problem with those statements. The Miracle on Ice also had major political implications, which need not be reiterated here. With a ragtag bunch of college kids, it was such a long-shot to beat the highly skilled Soviet team, which was amateur in name only. The Lake Placid team inspired a lot of American players. That next generation went on to the World Cup win.

The '96 World Cup victory should be #2 for USA. It just didn't receive much press coverage until the final series against Canada. However, it firmly established USA as a major hockey power, even if the international program had showed improvement in '91 over the Canada Cup tournaments of the 80's. Like you said, it was best against best.

 

[Heat McManus]

Nobody should have any problem with those statements. The Miracle on Ice also had major political implications, which need not be reiterated here. With a ragtag bunch of college kids, it was such a long-shot to beat the highly skilled Soviet team, which was amateur in name only. The Lake Placid team inspired a lot of American players. That next generation went on to the World Cup win.

The '96 World Cup victory should be #2 for USA. It just didn't receive much press coverage until the final series against Canada. However, it firmly established USA as a major hockey power, even if the international program had showed improvement in '91 over the Canada Cup tournaments of the 80's. Like you said, it was best against best.

I have no problem with 96 being a solid #2, but there is a huge distance between gold and silver in that race. Imagine what happens to US hockey if the 1980 team played like everybody thought they would.

 

[God Bless Canada]

The same could be said for the 96' World Cup. Look at how high American kids are being drafted now. They are strong competitors in any under 20 tournaments now.

For American culture the Miracle on Ice was more important than the 96' World Cup I wont disagree with that. However, the 96' World Cup win made the US a significant hockey power and it's the first time where the US won a best on best tournament.

But to answer the question of most important wins by country, I think you need to look at the impact in each country. And the impact of the Miracle on Ice is much greater than the impact of the World Cup.

The U.S. has been producing a lot of players recently, but that's more reflective of the U.S. National Junior Development Program than an off-shoot of the 1996 World Cup. I believe it was formed in 1996, and since then, the U.S. has claimed silver (1997) and gold (2004) at the WJC. Of course, they have had their fair share of disappointing results (1999, 2005 and 2006. They finished fourth in 2000, losing to Canada in the bronze medal game, but I don't think expectations were overly high).

The greatest U.S. success has been at the WU18, with two straight gold medals and several other strong results, but a lot of their success can be attributed to the chemistry that goes along with playing together for most of the year. While the U.S. has produced some fine prospects the last four years, it certainly helps in a short tournament to have played together for most of the season.

The ultimate evaluations on this crop of young American talent will start coming at the World Championships in a couple years, and then the 2010 Olympics.

 

[canucksfan]

But to answer the question of most important wins by country, I think you need to look at the impact in each country. And the impact of the Miracle on Ice is much greater than the impact of the World Cup.

The U.S. has been producing a lot of players recently, but that's more reflective of the U.S. National Junior Development Program than an off-shoot of the 1996 World Cup. I believe it was formed in 1996, and since then, the U.S. has claimed silver (1997) and gold (2004) at the WJC. Of course, they have had their fair share of disappointing results (1999, 2005 and 2006. They finished fourth in 2000, losing to Canada in the bronze medal game, but I don't think expectations were overly high).

The greatest U.S. success has been at the WU18, with two straight gold medals and several other strong results, but a lot of their success can be attributed to the chemistry that goes along with playing together for most of the year. While the U.S. has produced some fine prospects the last four years, it certainly helps in a short tournament to have played together for most of the season.

The ultimate evaluations on this crop of young American talent will start coming at the World Championships in a couple years, and then the 2010 Olympics.

The impact of the 96' World Cup still hasn't been completely seen yet. Granted, I think the Miracle will be more of an impact to US hockey than the 80' Olympics.

It's not all the U.S. program they put in place now. A lot of Americans are being drafted higher than ever and a lot more of them are being drafted in the first round now.

 

[Hasbro]

Canada and the USSR were the top two countries at the time. Unlike the 96' World Cup where the best players were there the same couldn't be said for the 80' olympics. I think that's very significant.

In the Olympics they sure as hell weren't. During the cold war era I'd put the Soviets, Czechs, Finns, Swedes and the US ahead of Canada as an Olympic power.

Chasing Tretiak from net or CuJo melting down when he was inexplicably picked for the team ahead of Roy and Brodeur.

 

[canucksfan]

In the Olympics they sure as hell weren't. During the cold war era I'd put the Soviets, Czechs, Finns, Swedes and the US ahead of Canada as an Olympic power.

Chasing Tretiak from net or CuJo melting down when he was inexplicably picked for the team ahead of Roy and Brodeur.

They weren't the best in the Olympics, because they didn't send their best players.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

I don't know how important it was for Denmark, but how about when they beat the US a few years ago in the WC?

 

[Hasbro]

They weren't the best in the Olympics, because they didn't send their best players.

And niether did the US for that matter, however the Soviets did. Like I said hockey is bigger than Canada.

 

[espo*]

And niether did the US for that matter, however the Soviets did. Like I said hockey is bigger than Canada.

It is,but during that time Canada and the Soviets were definately the two best teams in hockey, withThe Czechs close by.Canada not winning olympic gold does'nt change that.

I don't think you could possibly find a fan from any country that would not agree with what the balance of power was at the time.If you do find one,he/she is pretty out there.

 

[Hasbro]

It is,but during that time Canada and the Soviets were definately the two best teams in hockey, withThe Czechs close by.Canada not winning olympic gold does'nt change that.

As for the Olympics it does.

it doesn't denegrate the 1980 gold medal in the least that the US didn't beat the almighty Canadians.

 

[Heat McManus]

Canada wasn't a powerhouse in the olympics. Bronze in '68, silver in 60 were the only medals for them in the previous 20 years. Canada wasn't on the radar.

 

[espo*]

As for the Olympics it does.

it doesn't denegrate the 1980 gold medal in the least that the US didn't beat the almighty Canadians.

Of course it does'nt.

But.........the win in Lake Placid did not make the U.S.A Canada's or the Soviets equal in hockey at that time either, nor the Czechs for that matter.

U.S hockey was still below the Soviet,Canadian and Czech models at that time.