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

[FerrisRox]

Niedermayer - Stevens
Bourque - MacInnis
Coffey - Murphy

The D-mans is a no brainer.

I don't think that's a no brainer at all. I would absolutely not have Larry Murphy on the team particularly at the expense of someone like Eric Desjardins, Mark Tinordi or Rob Blake.

 

[frisco]

I looked it up, he was 9th in scoring among Canadians in 1996. I don't get where you think he is among the top 5 guys.

NHL scoring leaders from 1992-1996 eligible for Team Canada:

Oates-399
Sakic-379
Francis-371
Turgeon-369
Lemieux-358
Lindros-357

Since Francis was injured and Lemieux sat out I don't think it is any stretch to say Turgeon deserved his shot on the team based on his superior NHL performance plain and simple.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

NHL scoring leaders from 1992-1996 eligible for Team Canada:

Oates-399
Sakic-379
Francis-371
Turgeon-369
Lemieux-358
Lindros-357

Since Francis was injured and Lemieux sat out I don't think it is any stretch to say Turgeon deserved his shot on the team based on his superior NHL performance plain and simple.

My Best-Carey

Great.................but what I am less interested in would be point totals, because as I said I can do the same thing over the span of a few years with Marc Savard and it sounds pretty weird to justify Savard on the Olympic teams isn't it? We know that sounds weird because he just wasn't high on anyone's pecking order. He never proved it in the playoffs, he was just a point collector with little substance. So what I am asking is what could Turgeon bring to the table that we didn't already have?

 

[The Panther]

I don't think that's a no brainer at all. I would absolutely not have Larry Murphy on the team particularly at the expense of someone like Eric Desjardins, Mark Tinordi or Rob Blake.

Murphy wasn't a spring-chicken by 1996, but since speed and physicality weren't his hallmarks anyway, it doesn't matter (as his NHL career proved). In 1996, I'll maybe take Desjardins over him, yeah, but Tinordi and Blake? Nope, give me Murphy.

 

[frisco]

So what I am asking is what could Turgeon bring to the table that we didn't already have?

If it is not obvious enough, Turgeon proved himself as a producer. In the highest league in the world. Against the best players. Over a long period of time. Canada needed playmakers and finishers. Turgeon did both. If the hundreds of NHL games aren't a good enough "test" or sample of Turgeon's ability then what? The same guys Turgeon was dominating in the NHL were the same contingent of players that he would have faced in the World Cup. I really don't understand how someone cannot see this as valid.

My Best-Carey

 

[Pominville Knows]

If it is not obvious enough, Turgeon proved himself as a producer. In the highest league in the world. Against the best players. Over a long period of time. Canada needed playmakers and finishers. Turgeon did both. If the hundreds of NHL games aren't a good enough "test" or sample of Turgeon's ability then what? The same guys Turgeon was dominating in the NHL were the same contingent of players that he would have faced in the World Cup. I really don't understand how someone cannot see this as valid.

My Best-Carey

I got to add though that the World Cup may have contained a whole lot of NHL players, but it was mainly the better ones.
Not sure, but my feeling is that Turgeon would be a player that would struggle a little in that company.

 

[Big Phil]

If it is not obvious enough, Turgeon proved himself as a producer. In the highest league in the world. Against the best players. Over a long period of time. Canada needed playmakers and finishers. Turgeon did both. If the hundreds of NHL games aren't a good enough "test" or sample of Turgeon's ability then what? The same guys Turgeon was dominating in the NHL were the same contingent of players that he would have faced in the World Cup. I really don't understand how someone cannot see this as valid.

My Best-Carey

The centres Canada had were: Lindros, Sakic, Gretzky, Messier, Yzerman. Hard to say Turgeon gets in over any of them. The other centres on the team who filled in at different roles or on the line: BrindAmour (was a LW in his career too), Linden, Damphousse, Primeau. Both Linden and Damphousse were on Gretzky's line. BrindAmour I believe was on the left wing with Yzerman down the middle and Fleury on the right side. Primeau was used sparingly as it was. The rest of the team were natural wingers. I am just trying to figure out where Turgeon fits in. The lines from my recollection looked like this:

Shanahan-Lindros-Sakic
Damphousse-Gretzky-Linden
BrindAmour-Yzerman-Fleury
Graves-Messier-C. Lemieux

The leftovers were Primeau and Verbeek who didn't play much.

Who does Turgeon bump off? He is a playmaking centre who probably doesn't translate well on the wing. Not to mention he does not have the intensity needed for this tournament, this was a rough, rough series with the USA. When was there a moment he carried a team anywhere?

I got to add though that the World Cup may have contained a whole lot of NHL players, but it was mainly the better ones.
Not sure, but my feeling is that Turgeon would be a player that would struggle a little in that company.

That's the idea. The intensity of that tournament was pretty good and he never fit that mold.

 

[frisco]

That's the idea. The intensity of that tournament was pretty good and he never fit that mold.

Turgeon had proven himself elite at the highest level which was all he could possibly do. There's no reason to believe he would of dropped off on a best on best tournament vs. anyone else. I suspect it goes back to the 1987 World Juniors.

Canada in 1996 couldn't finish or make plays. That's right down Turgeon's alley. That's not where Primeau, Linden, C.Lemieux shine. Also, they were relying too much on Coffey, Gretzky, Messier all mid-30's at the time. Turgeon was 26. Would've been interesting to see Pierre get the chance.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

Turgeon had proven himself elite at the highest level which was all he could possibly do. There's no reason to believe he would of dropped off on a best on best tournament vs. anyone else. I suspect it goes back to the 1987 World Juniors.

Canada in 1996 couldn't finish or make plays. That's right down Turgeon's alley. That's not where Primeau, Linden, C.Lemieux shine. Also, they were relying too much on Coffey, Gretzky, Messier all mid-30's at the time. Turgeon was 26. Would've been interesting to see Pierre get the chance.

My Best-Carey

Alright, but who does he take off? Canada had some great centres on that team. I can't see how you replace Sakic, Lindros, Gretzky, Messier or Yzerman. One of them (Sakic) went on the wing as well. You can't have too many centres out of position either. Turgeon would be out of position. You have to have the right centres do this as well. Turgeon was not the type of player that you just had to simply make room for him. 2010 had a lot of centres that just made their way onto the team and they didn't even pick Stamkos. But they had 7 centres and yet played different roles.

Also, playing against the Hartford Whalers isn't the same as playing against the best American players in the world in an intense setting. I don't see where in his career he proves he belongs.

 

[frisco]

. I don't see where in his career he proves he belongs.

NHL Canadian scoring leaders from 1992-1998:
Oates-557
Francis-548
Gretzky-532
Turgeon-522
Sakic-516
Recchi-510
Lindros-507
Yzerman-506

If someone outscores Sakic, Recchi, Lindros, Yzerman he deserves consideration in 1996/1998. That is all. Take off Fleury, Brind'Amour, Primeau, Graves, Linden, even Messier.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

NHL Canadian scoring leaders from 1992-1998:
Oates-557
Francis-548
Gretzky-532
Turgeon-522
Sakic-516
Recchi-510
Lindros-507
Yzerman-506

If someone outscores Sakic, Recchi, Lindros, Yzerman he deserves consideration in 1996/1998. That is all. Take off Fleury, Brind'Amour, Primeau, Graves, Linden, even Messier.

My Best-Carey

Oh man..................really?

Points among Canadians from 2003-'09:
Thornton - 494
Iginla - 421
St. Louis - 420
Savard - 411
Lecavalier - 408
Crosby - 397
Spezza - 397
Staal - 358

Let's just call it for what it is. Was Marc Savard even a top 10 player in the NHL for any of those seasons? Granted Turgeon had the better career than him, but in those seasons is he any different than Turgeon among his Canadian brethren? No, and yet no one for good reason had him on the radar. I would say Turgeon was on the radar more in 1998 than 1996. But even so, we left Messier and Francis at home who would have at least given us solid two-way hockey, so I don't see where Turgeon helps.

I have to ask seriously though, we've talked a lot about this, but is Turgeon related to you? I've just never seen such a push for a player before.

 

[frisco]

Let's just call it for what it is. Was Marc Savard even a top 10 player in the NHL for any of those seasons?

I truly do not know what Marc Savard has to do with the Canada National teams in 1996/98...

My Best-Carey

 

[Pominville Knows]

I have to ask seriously though, we've talked a lot about this, but is Turgeon related to you? I've just never seen such a push for a player before.

Yeah. Sounds a bit like when i'm pushing for Pominville for everything. In my case its either in situations where no case is really to be made for him, or i'm just in terrible shape and need an outlet to "contribute".

 

[Big Phil]

I truly do not know what Marc Savard has to do with the Canada National teams in 1996/98...

My Best-Carey

You used the amount of points Turgeon had over the span prior to 1996 and felt that justified him being on the team. I was just pointing out that Marc Savard was 4th in Canadian scoring over a 6 year span and he was never even thought of for the 2004 World Cup or 2006 and 2010 Olympics. Points aren't everything. Savard and Turgeon were two players that weren't known for their clutch play and had more of a high batting average without many RBIs. Players with a lot of points aren't always going to be on there. Adam Oates led the NHL in points from 1991 to 1996. He wasn't there either. It isn't everything.

 

[frisco]

I have to ask seriously though, we've talked a lot about this, but is Turgeon related to you? I've just never seen such a push for a player before.

No, not related. He seems to get a bad rap from some and he's one of my favorite guys. I think he got labelled from the 1987 WJC as a 17 year-old and never got over the public stigma which doesn't seem fair.

You got to ask yourself the same question. I don't think I can get in a Turgeon post without a rebuttal from yourself. Usually, it is not about his production or career but more personal stuff like his "character", he wasn't "clutch", not the "kind of player" who would excel in big international games, his numbers overstate his real value, he lacks something, etc., Do you know something about Turgeon personally, some inside information about flaws he might have as a human being, that tilts your opinion of him so far to the negative?

Generally, he always seemed like a consummate pro (perennial Lady Byng candidate) and nice enough guy but maybe I'm missing something.

My Best-Carey

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

The centres Canada had were: Lindros, Sakic, Gretzky, Messier, Yzerman. Hard to say Turgeon gets in over any of them. The other centres on the team who filled in at different roles or on the line: BrindAmour (was a LW in his career too), Linden, Damphousse, Primeau. Both Linden and Damphousse were on Gretzky's line. BrindAmour I believe was on the left wing with Yzerman down the middle and Fleury on the right side. Primeau was used sparingly as it was. The rest of the team were natural wingers. I am just trying to figure out where Turgeon fits in. The lines from my recollection looked like this:

Shanahan-Lindros-Sakic
Damphousse-Gretzky-Linden
BrindAmour-Yzerman-Fleury
Graves-Messier-C. Lemieux

The leftovers were Primeau and Verbeek who didn't play much.

Who does Turgeon bump off? He is a playmaking centre who probably doesn't translate well on the wing. Not to mention he does not have the intensity needed for this tournament, this was a rough, rough series with the USA. When was there a moment he carried a team anywhere?



That's the idea. The intensity of that tournament was pretty good and he never fit that mold.

Only difference was Sakic centered the Lindros line, while The Yzerman line was the 4th line per Fleury's book. I just don't get what Sather was thinking with that Gretzky line.

 

[blogofmike]

Only difference was Sakic centered the Lindros line, while The Yzerman line was the 4th line per Fleury's book. I just don't get what Sather was thinking with that Gretzky line.

I'd have been all for removing Damphousse. Did they need a token Habs forward?

 

[Big Phil]

No, not related. He seems to get a bad rap from some and he's one of my favorite guys. I think he got labelled from the 1987 WJC as a 17 year-old and never got over the public stigma which doesn't seem fair.

You got to ask yourself the same question. I don't think I can get in a Turgeon post without a rebuttal from yourself. Usually, it is not about his production or career but more personal stuff like his "character", he wasn't "clutch", not the "kind of player" who would excel in big international games, his numbers overstate his real value, he lacks something, etc., Do you know something about Turgeon personally, some inside information about flaws he might have as a human being, that tilts your opinion of him so far to the negative?

Generally, he always seemed like a consummate pro (perennial Lady Byng candidate) and nice enough guy but maybe I'm missing something.

My Best-Carey

I don't think the WJC in 1987 was held against him by that time. Think of Marc Andre Fleury and the debacle in 2004. He doesn't let it translate into the NHL. He goes to a couple of straight Cup finals, then is the 3rd stringer on Team Canada 2010. It would have been easy to keep blaming him for that. Turgeon even while he was in the NHL developed the nickname "Tin Man" which I always thought had a much longer shelf life for his reputation.

Look, the guy had some skill, but I don't think he had any intensity and that tournament was one with racheted intensity. Canada in 1996 had skill too. That team had plenty of skilled guys, this is why they beat the Russians and the Swedes and such. We were missing some guys and not every pick was perfect but that team had a ton of scoring, but it was limited to a lot of power play goals and not the much needed 5-on-5 goals at even strength. I just don't see how Turgeon makes the difference here when we couldn't even get Lindros or Sakic to do this. Gretzky led the team in scoring with 7 points, no one else took the torch and ran with it. If Mario was healthy, obviously its him, but he wasn't.

I've got no bones with Turgeon as a person, I just think that to beat the U.S. the team also needed some sandpaper, which they had. You have to build a team that you envision can win in different ways against different countries.

Only difference was Sakic centered the Lindros line, while The Yzerman line was the 4th line per Fleury's book. I just don't get what Sather was thinking with that Gretzky line.

Yeah, true. Maybe he ran out of linemates for him? I like the top line, no arguments there. Messier is going to be with Graves, I get that, and Claude Lemieux adds to that line as sort of an energy line but I'd have liked to have seen Yzerman or Fleury with Gretzky. Fleury played a bit with Gretzky in the 1991 Canada Cup and did well. Why not again?

 

[frisco]

I just don't see how Turgeon makes the difference here when we couldn't even get Lindros or Sakic to do this. Gretzky led the team in scoring with 7 points, no one else took the torch and ran with it. If Mario was healthy, obviously its him, but he wasn't.

I've got no bones with Turgeon as a person, I just think that to beat the U.S. the team also needed some sandpaper, which they had. You have to build a team that you envision can win in different ways against different countries.

So even what you know now in hindsight, that Canada lost three of four to the U.S., you wouldn't change anything about the composition of the roster?

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

So even what you know now in hindsight, that Canada lost three of four to the U.S., you wouldn't change anything about the composition of the roster?

My Best-Carey

No, I'd change it. Roy is in net. Even adding guys like Pronger or Murphy on defense would at least strengthen it. It would soften the blow of missing Bourque and MacInnis. Cote and Odelein should not have been on that team. The Gretzky line would be changed for me. Have Fleury with him.

 

[The Panther]

I know Gretzky didn't like Shanahan, but they played together a bit at Canada Cup '91 and had real chemistry. Basically, a "power forward" who will go to the net and bang in goals is Gretzky's ideal linemate in the mid-90s when he was getting too soft. But I don't think Gretz played with Shanny at all in 1996. Wonder why.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

I know Gretzky didn't like Shanahan, but they played together a bit at Canada Cup '91 and had real chemistry. Basically, a "power forward" who will go to the net and bang in goals is Gretzky's ideal linemate in the mid-90s when he was getting too soft. But I don't think Gretz played with Shanny at all in 1996. Wonder why.

They should have been in NY together ughhh

 

[Big Phil]

I know Gretzky didn't like Shanahan, but they played together a bit at Canada Cup '91 and had real chemistry. Basically, a "power forward" who will go to the net and bang in goals is Gretzky's ideal linemate in the mid-90s when he was getting too soft. But I don't think Gretz played with Shanny at all in 1996. Wonder why.

Why didn't he like Shanny? Was that publicly known at the time?

I agree with you, that is a perfect marriage right there. I honestly thought Gretzky and Hull had they spent an entire season together would have made music. Hull was your classic type of player who would get open and wait for the one-timer. Perfect for Gretzky even in 1996 because he was always a puck carrier. Even better is Shanahan with the physicality.

I think the Shanahan-Lindros-Sakic line was good though and you can't argue with the two physical beasts on one line, which was needed for the USA. But yeah, for whatever reason Gretzky got a bit of the shaft with his linemates. Damphousse and Linden. Look, nothing wrong with them but you need a trigger guy on Gretzky's line, that's his forte being able to find you. And to think, he still led Canada in scoring.

 

[The Panther]

Why didn't he like Shanny? Was that publicly known at the time?

I don't know why, or even that he "didn't like [him]" (to quote myself) exactly, but I do know that Gretzky in either L.A. or New York (I think, New York) stamped out a possible deal that would have brought Shanahan to his team. For some reason, Gretzky didn't want him. (Maybe he and Janet were friends with Craig Janney...?)

I agree with you, that is a perfect marriage right there. I honestly thought Gretzky and Hull had they spent an entire season together would have made music. Hull was your classic type of player who would get open and wait for the one-timer.

That's what everyone thought, but according to Mike Keenan Wayne and Brett crossed wires for quite a while because they both liked to carry the puck over the blue line. Wayne wanted to carry the puck through the neutral zone and Hull did, too, according to Keenan. They did get better in the playoffs, though, so as you suggest they likely would have been better in 1996-97. (You'd ideally have someone with a higher skill-set than Shayne Corson on the other wing, though.)

But yeah, for whatever reason Gretzky got a bit of the shaft with his linemates.

I have the impression that one guy on the coaching staff didn't really want Gretzky on the team...

 

[JianYang]

What changes would you do?

I would send this team:

Roy
Burke
Brodeur

Niedermayer - Stevens
Bourque - MacInnis
Coffey - Murphy

M.Lemieux - Gretzky - Neely
Kariya - Lindros - Fleury
Shanahan - Yzerman - Recchi
Messier - Francis - Nolan

Neely injured alot, but still played 44 games this season, i think he could manage World Cup 1996. No idea why Bourque, Roy, Mackinnis, Murphy, Mario, Kariya where not on the team, shocking for me. Owen Nolan was a monster these years. I tried to put in Sakic, but Gretzky, Prime Lindros, Yzerman is hard to beat out and Francis feels like a better 4C than Sakic. I know Recchi had chemistry with Lindros but i just feel that 2 speedsters like Kariya and Fleury would be ideal for Lindros. Sean Burke was very underated. The D-mans is a no brainer.

USA would not beat this team in a 3 game series (the finals had best of 3).

The way Richter played, I'm actually not sure it would have mattered.

Was Neely not an American by this point? I dont think it was realistic for him to suit up though, because he needed all the rest he could get to keep his career going.