Team Canada in World Cup 1996 - what would you change?

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
Funny fact: Team Canada named the following defencemen to their roster:

Rob Blake6'321512/10/69Simcoe, ONLA (NHL)
Doug Bodger6'22136/18/66Chemainus, BCSJ (NHL)
Adam Foote6'12027/10/71Toronto, ONCOL (NHL)
Paul Coffey6'01906/1/61Weston, ONDET (NHL)
Eric Desjardins6'12056/14/69Rauyn, QCPHI (NHL)
Scott Niedermayer6'02008/31/73Cranbrook BCNJ (NHL)
Lyle Odelein5'112107/21/68Quill Lake, SKMON (NHL)
Al MacInnis6'22007/11/93Inverness, NSSTL (NHL)
Scott Stevens6'22104/1/64Kitchener, ONNJ (NHL)
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Doug Bodger? Does anyone have any idea why he was picked? Of course he didn't play a single second in the tournament.
 

jj cale

Registered User
Jan 5, 2016
14,767
8,324
Nova Scotia
Here is a team in an alternate reality where there are no injuries, refusals or players playing against the country where they were born and primarily raised:

Lemieux Francis Recchi
Kariya Lindros Hull
Sakic Gretzky Fleury
Shanahan Messier Neely
Yzerman

Stevens Bourque
Coffey MacInnis
Foote Desjardins
Murphy

Roy
Joseph
Brodeur

It's much easier to construct the team with the injured/refused players missing.

This team wins that tournament, not a lot of doubt about it.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,664
Funny fact: Team Canada named the following defencemen to their roster:

Rob Blake6'321512/10/69Simcoe, ONLA (NHL)
Doug Bodger6'22136/18/66Chemainus, BCSJ (NHL)
Adam Foote6'12027/10/71Toronto, ONCOL (NHL)
Paul Coffey6'01906/1/61Weston, ONDET (NHL)
Eric Desjardins6'12056/14/69Rauyn, QCPHI (NHL)
Scott Niedermayer6'02008/31/73Cranbrook BCNJ (NHL)
Lyle Odelein5'112107/21/68Quill Lake, SKMON (NHL)
Al MacInnis6'22007/11/93Inverness, NSSTL (NHL)
Scott Stevens6'22104/1/64Kitchener, ONNJ (NHL)
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Doug Bodger? Does anyone have any idea why he was picked? Of course he didn't play a single second in the tournament.

What is your source for this? He isn't listed here:

Team Canada Named for World Cup of Hockey

Bourque and MacInnis pulled out, but Cote and Foote were added and Jovanovski was the alternate.

This team wins that tournament, not a lot of doubt about it.

Those are the breaks. That loss always bugged me mainly due to Lemieux, Bourque and Hull. The injured players are an inevitable part of hockey, plus USA was without a huge piece in Roenick.
 
Last edited:

jj cale

Registered User
Jan 5, 2016
14,767
8,324
Nova Scotia
What is your source for this? He isn't listed here:

Team Canada Named for World Cup of Hockey

Bourque and MacInnis pulled out, but Cote and Foote were added and Jovanovski was the alternate.



Those are the breaks. That loss always bugged me mainly due to Lemieux, Bourque and Hull. The injured players are en inevitable part of hockey, plus USA was without a huge piece in Roenick.


Roenick is not close to the loss of all those guys though. A considerable loss yes..............but not of the magnitude of what Canada took.

It was a real kick in the nuts............basically cost us that tournament in all probability.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
What is your source for this? He isn't listed here:

Team Canada Named for World Cup of Hockey

Bourque and MacInnis pulled out, but Cote and Foote were added and Jovanovski was the alternate.

The Hockey Canada site used to list a roster without Bourque, but with MacInnis still on it. Both Foote and Bodger appear on that roster, but not Cote. The site in question isn't online anymore, but it's been archived here.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,664
The Hockey Canada site used to list a roster without Bourque, but with MacInnis still on it. Both Foote and Bodger appear on that roster, but not Cote. The site in question isn't online anymore, but it's been archived here.

Well, that is interesting. I have no memory of Bodger being involved, perhaps someone else does. I am inclined to think that his name is listed there erroneously given that he wasn't named to the original roster, two defencemen were dropped from the team and two other players (Cote and Foote) were added and actually played. Perhaps there is confusion as Bodger was on the 1996 World Championship team.
 

86Habs

Registered User
May 4, 2009
2,588
419
The final roster was probably the best one possible given the players available to Sather, with the exception of Roy of course. I had a few minor quibbles over guys like Graves, Verbeek, and Odelein, but they weren't critical pieces and there were no obvious omissions that you could say definitely should have been there. Someone like Recchi might have been a better pick up front, and Pronger on defense, but they wouldn't have changed the result.
 

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
blake comes to mind. perhaps pronger too.

Pronger always was a big guy, of course, but I don't remember him being all that mean back in his earlier days. It was something he developed. Atleast in my mind. He also was seen as a playoff choker for the first part of his career before he went on the great runs with EDM, ANA and PHI.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,585
15,948
Pronger always was a big guy, of course, but I don't remember him being all that mean back in his earlier days. It was something he developed. Atleast in my mind. He also was seen as a playoff choker for the first part of his career before he went on the great runs with EDM, ANA and PHI.

iirc, pronger was always mean. but early on, he was bertuzzi-mean. reactionary, impulsive, prone to stupid penalties. later on, he was chelios mean, messier mean. as in, he channeled it in a useful way, to make you think twice about crossing him instead of making you want to intentionally cross him.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,508
3,057
The Maritimes
There's a lot that could be said about the '96 World Cup team (and also about the '98 Olympic team). One thing I would have done - and it's certainly not a popular opinion - is include the much-maligned Pierre Turgeon. He would have looked great on a line with Lemieux. Those teams really missed Lemieux and Kariya.

Imagine the '98 shootout with Lemieux, Kariya, Turgeon and Sakic. These were Canada's real talents of the late '90s.

But that '96 U.S. team would've been tough to beat. They were a great generation of American players. Great skaters, they knew each other very well. They deserved to win.
 
Last edited:

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Lots of things were wrong with this team. Hey look folks, don't just think because we lost that tournament that this is the reason to judge them in hindsight. I have seen teams that have won that did some stupid things that I wouldn't have done myself. Yzerman not on the 1991 Canada Cup team makes no sense even to this day.

Tom Brady very dangerously nearly threw an interception the play before the Patriots - with that legendary comeback - scored in overtime against the Falcons for last year's Super Bowl. Look it up, it was a foolish play. No one remembers that.

So it goes beyond just whether they won or not.

First off, people forget Scotty Bowman was originally the coach here. Then he backed down, but before that happened he was the one who didn't pick Patrick Roy. Why? Who knows? Just because Bowman is considered the greatest coach of all-time it doesn't mean everything he did was sound. After the 1998 Olympics Bowman stated he was glad Canada didn't win simply because he would have had to hear Patrick Roy bragging about it. Think about that for a second, do you want this sort of bias behind picking your team? No. So that was the first problem.

While I like Sather, you can't tell me there isn't another coach willing to do it.

Bourque turned the invitation down. Lemieux did too although his back was flaring up. Kariya, MacInnis and Francis were hurt as well. I don't know why Recchi wasn't on the team. For whatever reason Team Canada never liked him. I don't know how you can have Odelein and Cote on the defense but not Pronger. Or Larry Murphy who at the very least is as smart as anyone hockey sense-wise.

Lastly the goaltending. I understand Roy wasn't invited. Bad choice, but fine. That being said, these are the goalies that weren't invited either:

Belfour, Fuhr, Potvin

Could they have made a difference? Are they a better choice than Brodeur, Joseph and Ranford? I know Ranford looks out of place there but I do understand why he was a 3rd stringer. Joseph probably shouldn't have been the starter in my opinion. In hindsight Brodeur might have been the better choice.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
There's a lot that could be said about the '96 World Cup team (and also about the '98 Olympic team). One thing I would have done - and it's certainly not a popular opinion - is include the much-maligned Pierre Turgeon. He would have looked great on a line with Lemieux. Those teams really missed Lemieux and Kariya.

Imagine the '98 shootout with Lemieux, Kariya, Turgeon and Sakic. These were Canada's real talents of the late '90s.

But that '96 U.S. team would've been tough to beat. They were a great generation of American players. Great skaters, they knew each other very well. They deserved to win.

The 1996 and 1998 teams were lacking one thing - speed. Turgeon had skill and he had good hands and playmaking, but he lacked the intensity. I think if you are going to pick someone like that, you pick Oates. He was able to produce at a higher level when it counted more. Turgeon didn't have a lot of speed either, just like Oates.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Okay, just for the heck of it, that 1996 team if everyone is healthy:

Kariya-Lemieux-Neely
Shanahan-Lindros-Yzerman
Sakic-Gretzky-Fleury
Damphousse-Messier-Recchi
Francis

Bourque-Stevens
Coffey-MacInnis
Niedermayer-Murphy
Pronger

Roy
Brodeur
Belfour

How does that team lose? It doesn't. Not a chance. I kept Damphousse in there because he would make a good checking line with Messier and Recchi. All were responsible defensively but were able to join in offensively. Also, there are barely any players out of position. Sakic and Yzerman, that's it. Damphousse played some wing in his career. I like Pronger in there for facing the Americans. He's the only Canadian defenseman over 6'2". I just like Murphy in there because of his hockey sense and while he was slower by that stage of his career his partner isn't. Imagine, I even had to cut Blake.

The goalie don't matter a whole lot outside of Roy, he's getting the playing time.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,508
3,057
The Maritimes
The 1996 and 1998 teams were lacking one thing - speed. Turgeon had skill and he had good hands and playmaking, but he lacked the intensity. I think if you are going to pick someone like that, you pick Oates. He was able to produce at a higher level when it counted more. Turgeon didn't have a lot of speed either, just like Oates.

I'm well aware of all the criticisms of Turgeon, and I agree with some of them, but I think he should have been given a chance to play in the best-on-best events. He wasn't a speed demon a la Mike Modano, but he wasn't slow either. Turgeon had a nice set of elite skills that not many players could match. I think his talents would have been real assets on some of these teams. I think, especially in the right situation (like playing on a line with Lemieux), he could have been a top scorer.
 

Sanf

Registered User
Sep 8, 2012
1,943
902
Roy. I don´t know. IIRC he was bitter for not being selected to 1987 Canada Cup. He passed 1991 Canada Cup because of sinus infection?. With current knowledge it very well may have been that he would have only take the starting goalie role. During that season he left Montreal. With second (and third) final played in Montreal. And the selections were made after NHL regular season so nobody knew that he would go to Stanley Cup with Colorado.

Personally I understand why he was out. It was risky.

And didn´t Belfour had struggles at that point of his career (Well could check that myself too).

I don´t see CuJo as bad selection or the problem why they lost.
 

Eye of Ra

Grandmaster General of the International boards
Nov 15, 2008
17,966
4,454
Malmö, Sweden
I'm well aware of all the criticisms of Turgeon, and I agree with some of them, but I think he should have been given a chance to play in the best-on-best events. He wasn't a speed demon a la Mike Modano, but he wasn't slow either. Turgeon had a nice set of elite skills that not many players could match. I think his talents would have been real assets on some of these teams. I think, especially in the right situation (like playing on a line with Lemieux), he could have been a top scorer.

but where would he fit? gretzky, yzerman, sakic, lindros, messier, oates, francis where all ahead of him on the depth card.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,508
3,057
The Maritimes
but where would he fit? gretzky, yzerman, sakic, lindros, messier, oates, francis where all ahead of him on the depth card.

Who says they were all ahead of him on the depth chart? Oates and Francis weren't on the team, for one thing. Turgeon outscored a lot of these guys in the '90s - in PPG in the '90s, he outscored Yzerman, outscored Messier, outscored Francis. He scored big points no matter what team, no matter who he played with as linemates. In the season immediately preceding the '98 Olympics, Turgeon was the top scorer PPG among all Canadian players, #1. Yet he never gets an opportunity. His talent was missed, in my opinion.

Ideally, he plays on a line with another talented centre.

And, don't forget, with all these star centres you've mentioned above, the team still lost and, in fact, was completely outclassed by the more talented Americans.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: frisco

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,664
Who says they were all ahead of him on the depth chart? Oates and Francis weren't on the team, for one thing. Turgeon outscored a lot of these guys in the '90s - in PPG in the '90s, he outscored Yzerman, outscored Messier, outscored Francis. He scored big points no matter what team, no matter who he played with as linemates. In the season immediately preceding the '98 Olympics, Turgeon was the top scorer PPG among all Canadian players, #1. Yet he never gets an opportunity. His talent was missed, in my opinion.

Ideally, he plays on a line with another talented centre.

And, don't forget, with all these star centres you've mentioned above, the team still lost and, in fact, was completely outclassed by the more talented Americans.

Francis was definitely ahead of Turgeon given that Francis was named to the team and had to pull out while Turgeon was never named. As for the assessment that the team was completely outclassed by a more talented team, that's hard to justify. Canada lost, sure, and was outplayed overall across the four games that the teams did play. That USA team doesn't really stack up to the Canadian team player for player at forward though.
 

Iapyi

Registered User
Apr 19, 2017
5,072
2,361
Canadian Prairies
Lots of things were wrong with this team. Hey look folks, don't just think because we lost that tournament that this is the reason to judge them in hindsight. I have seen teams that have won that did some stupid things that I wouldn't have done myself. Yzerman not on the 1991 Canada Cup team makes no sense even to this day.

Tom Brady very dangerously nearly threw an interception the play before the Patriots - with that legendary comeback - scored in overtime against the Falcons for last year's Super Bowl. Look it up, it was a foolish play. No one remembers that.

So it goes beyond just whether they won or not.

First off, people forget Scotty Bowman was originally the coach here. Then he backed down, but before that happened he was the one who didn't pick Patrick Roy. Why? Who knows? Just because Bowman is considered the greatest coach of all-time it doesn't mean everything he did was sound. After the 1998 Olympics Bowman stated he was glad Canada didn't win simply because he would have had to hear Patrick Roy bragging about it. Think about that for a second, do you want this sort of bias behind picking your team? No. So that was the first problem.

While I like Sather, you can't tell me there isn't another coach willing to do it.

Bourque turned the invitation down. Lemieux did too although his back was flaring up. Kariya, MacInnis and Francis were hurt as well. I don't know why Recchi wasn't on the team. For whatever reason Team Canada never liked him. I don't know how you can have Odelein and Cote on the defense but not Pronger. Or Larry Murphy who at the very least is as smart as anyone hockey sense-wise.

Lastly the goaltending. I understand Roy wasn't invited. Bad choice, but fine. That being said, these are the goalies that weren't invited either:

Belfour, Fuhr, Potvin

Could they have made a difference? Are they a better choice than Brodeur, Joseph and Ranford? I know Ranford looks out of place there but I do understand why he was a 3rd stringer. Joseph probably shouldn't have been the starter in my opinion. In hindsight Brodeur might have been the better choice.

Possibly because in a short tournament with so little time to put a team together a selfish me first kind of guy isn't a gimme? I also think the other goalies were better anyway but that is a discussion for another thread.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,508
3,057
The Maritimes
Francis was definitely ahead of Turgeon given that Francis was named to the team and had to pull out while Turgeon was never named. As for the assessment that the team was completely outclassed by a more talented team, that's hard to justify. Canada lost, sure, and was outplayed overall across the four games that the teams did play. That USA team doesn't really stack up to the Canadian team player for player at forward though.

What I mean is that it doesn't mean all these guys should have been ahead of Turgeon. I understand that many people are critical of Turgeon for various reasons, but very few players in the NHL at that time were as talented as he was. And he was in his prime. Which is not the case for all of these guys.

How is it hard to justify? The Americans were faster than the Canadians, better. They won the final 2 games 5 - 2 each game. On the all-tournament team, the Americans had 4 players, Canada zero. Most of the Americans were in their prime, and they were the best generation of Americans ever. These guys were fast and talented. Tkachuk, Weight, Modano, LeClair, Amonte. Not to mention guys like Hull, LaFontaine, Guerin. And great defensemen: Leetch, Chelios, Schneider, Hatcher.

I guess it's easy to look at the rosters and say that Canada had better forwards, but I don't agree. They had better names. But they weren't better at that point in time.

It wasn't a fluke that the Americans won. They were better and they deserved to win.

Canada, unfortunately, was missing their 2 most talented forwards: Lemieux and Kariya. They might have made a significant difference, but the Americans still would have been tough, I think.
 
Last edited:

86Habs

Registered User
May 4, 2009
2,588
419
What I mean is that it doesn't mean all these guys should have been ahead of Turgeon. I understand that many people are critical of Turgeon for various reasons, but very few players in the NHL at that time were as talented as he was. And he was in his prime. Which is not the case for all of these guys.

How is it hard to justify? The Americans were faster than the Canadians, better. They won the final 2 games 5 - 2 each game. On the all-tournament team, the Americans had 4 players, Canada zero. Most of the Americans were in their prime, and they were the best generation of Americans ever. These guys were fast and talented. Tkachuk, Weight, Modano, LeClair, Amonte. Not to mention guys like Hull, LaFontaine, Guerin. And great defensemen: Leetch, Chelios, Schneider, Hatcher.

I guess it's easy to look at the rosters and say that Canada had better forwards, but I don't agree. They had better names. But they weren't better at that point in time.

It wasn't a fluke that the Americans won. They were better and they deserved to win.

Canada, unfortunately, was missing their 2 most talented forwards: Lemieux and Kariya. They might have made a significant difference, but the Americans still would have been tough, I think.
Well, I'd certainly want Francis on the team ahead of Turgeon. Francis led the league in assists in 1995-1996 and finished in Selke voting. He was a very valuable two-way forward at that point in his career, and probably someone who could play up and down the lineup, unlike Turgeon who could (presumably) only play a scoring role.

Turgeon was effectively "blacklisted" by Hockey Canada and the kind of people who decide upon these rosters after the 1987 World Juniors. Can you imagine a guy like Bobby Clarke selecting Turgeon to play on the 1998 team? That is a funny thought.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,508
3,057
The Maritimes
Well, I'd certainly want Francis on the team ahead of Turgeon. Francis led the league in assists in 1995-1996 and finished in Selke voting. He was a very valuable two-way forward at that point in his career, and probably someone who could play up and down the lineup, unlike Turgeon who could (presumably) only play a scoring role.

Turgeon was effectively "blacklisted" by Hockey Canada and the kind of people who decide upon these rosters after the 1987 World Juniors. Can you imagine a guy like Bobby Clarke selecting Turgeon to play on the 1998 team? That is a funny thought.

I really like Francis and I have nothing bad to say about him, but the only reason he was very high in the scoring leaders in '96 is because he was playing with the 2 best players in the NHL.

I'd pick Turgeon over Francis, but I might possibly take Francis also, over somebody else.

Ideally, I'd like a #1 line of Lemieux - Kariya - Turgeon, but you could put Fleury on that line to add some grit too.

I'm well aware of Turgeon and Piestany. But it's ridiculous and childish to hold this against him a decade later. Him not fighting didn't affect anything. It's silly.

As far as '98, I'd much rather have Turgeon in the shootout than most or all of those guys who were actually in the shootout.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
I'm well aware of all the criticisms of Turgeon, and I agree with some of them, but I think he should have been given a chance to play in the best-on-best events. He wasn't a speed demon a la Mike Modano, but he wasn't slow either. Turgeon had a nice set of elite skills that not many players could match. I think his talents would have been real assets on some of these teams. I think, especially in the right situation (like playing on a line with Lemieux), he could have been a top scorer.

Who says they were all ahead of him on the depth chart? Oates and Francis weren't on the team, for one thing. Turgeon outscored a lot of these guys in the '90s - in PPG in the '90s, he outscored Yzerman, outscored Messier, outscored Francis. He scored big points no matter what team, no matter who he played with as linemates. In the season immediately preceding the '98 Olympics, Turgeon was the top scorer PPG among all Canadian players, #1. Yet he never gets an opportunity. His talent was missed, in my opinion.

Savard, Federko and Francis among others never got a shot on Canada, although Francis was invited but was injured on the 1996 team. Savard got cut in 1984 and never invited in 1987. Oates is another name that comes to mind as someone not invited. Even in 1991. Federko didn't peak like these other guys but showed he was capable of raising his game in the postseason. Maybe Turgeon is the most comparable to Federko, but at the same time there is a reason he wasn't asked. Canada has a ton of skill down the middle.

You have to bring something else to the table. There are still strange circumstances as to why Savard or Yzerman got left off of teams (Yzerman eventually got on) because they were better individual talents on their own, but the story still stands, Canada was deep down the middle. You always had Gretzky, Messier and sometimes Lemieux. You had guys like Hawerchuk not getting invited in 1984, Savard cut in 1984, not invited in 1987, Francis never getting invited until he posted huge back to back seasons in 1996 and Oates ignored his whole career too.

I just don't see what Turgeon could bring that the others didn't already have. 1996 had Lindros, Gretzky, Messier, Yzerman and Sakic down the middle. This is even without Lemieux. I just don't see what Turgeon could bring. He wasn't great defensively. If they are leaving Oates off of the team and Francis finally gets invited, how does Turgeon's snub seem worse?

Possibly because in a short tournament with so little time to put a team together a selfish me first kind of guy isn't a gimme? I also think the other goalies were better anyway but that is a discussion for another thread.

Ego aside, he could stop a puck and was - even then - one of the better clutch goalies of all-time still in his prime.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->