The state of Canadian hockey after the 96 World Cup and 98 Olympic losses

[dalewood12]

Was there a lot of discourse in the media and early internet forums about Canadian hockey being on a downward trajectory?

If so, who was to blame? Hockey Canada executives? Professional players?

Click to read more...

 

[Gorskyontario]

Yes a lot of people were whining in the media and panicking over it. I thought the 1996 world cup was fun. The 1998 Olympics were super boring.

1996 I would blame the players/coaching but the USA had a good team in their prime. On paper Canada looks better but we had a lot of geezers and a weak D group. Probably win with Bourque and Mario Lemieux, but Bourque liked his vacation and Lemieux I imagine was more concerned with being healthy for the NHL season.

1998 Canada looked really good until the Czech game. Players fell asleep during the game and dominated the last 10-15 minutes completely. I guess you could blame the players but Hasek was able to steal games. Reichel was also completely deadly in shootouts. Probably a better chance of winning if Bowman or even Quinn coaches instead of Crawford. Czechs had the 2 best players in the world but a much less well rounded roster, good for them.

 

[MadLuke]

Canada won the world junior every year from 1993 to 1997 (and won 90-91 just before that, the previous 3 first overall pick were Canadians.

Kariya-Sakic-Lemieux were missing to have nice excuse, so I am not so sure how much it was the case, versus the competition getting better, single elimination game, Hasek got them and they were not interested in the bronze medal like Finland cared, we had a lot of excuse being brought up versus Canada hockey dominance was over. (not used to shootout like Euros were I think was one of the many...)

And unlike 2006, Canada had a good tourney, maybe the best until 2010.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I was out of the country for most of those years, but I felt I could sense we were in a down stretch, definitely. My own feeling, sketchy though it was, was that we were at this phase because our 80s heroes were getting too old yet difficult to replace because of their legacies, and that the 90s in general which had too much emphasis on brawn over finesse.

In general , I would say the biggest "enemy" was parity in general. The international best on best game had evolved to the point where trends in age mattered to Canada's national teams whereas prior to this time we could get away with it. To me, the image of Gretzky on the bench after the Czech game symbolized this poignantly.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

(not used to shootout like Euros were I think was one of the many...)

I’ve heard this one before and remember researching the prevalence of shootouts in international hockey because of it:

I’m not sure why shootouts should have been that much of an advantage for European teams at that point, the argument would have to rely heavily on “the skilled Euro game/player type”, which I guess is fair enough, but I still find it odd that a Canadian all-star team wouldn’t have game breaking 1-on-1 talent or be less experienced/prepared for shootouts.

My argument being: as far as I can tell, deciding games in shootouts wasn’t common in Europe at the time. The Swedish league didn’t do away with ties and begin deciding RS games with shootouts until the 1999-00 season, and the Czech league didn’t until 2000-01. Shootouts doesn’t seem to have decided games in the World Championships much either, the format changed several times from year to year but as late as the 1997 tournament they had a points based system allowing games to end in draws, and a best-of-three finals. I suspect because the 1994 Olympic finals famously ended in a shootout, and IIHF tournaments/the Olympics having an aura of “European hockey” with things like big ice, stingy reffing and shootouts sticking out for NHL fans, people make assumptions. The World Championship elimination rounds at times in the 90s decided games in shootouts should it come down to it, but I only found two occasions between Lillehammer 1994 and Nagano 1998 where this happened, and both times Canada was involved and won: in the 1994 gold medal game Canada beat Finland in a shootout (Robitaille and Ranford the heroes), and in 1996 Canada overcame Russia in the quarterfinals in a shootout.

So basically, shootouts don’t seem to have been commonplace in European leagues in the 90s, and as far as I know even players with a ton of national team experience would extremely rarely or perhaps never have been in one. The Czechs might have been better prepared in 1998, they should have been well aware that their best bet at overcoming a team like Canada’s would be keeping it a low-scoring affair, which substantially raises the chances of a shootout, and Canada might have underestimated their opponents, but I’m not convinced the Czechs were favored because of having more experience with the concept.

I think these are all the elimination games decided in a shootout in international competition up until Nagano:



At the 1992 Olympics Canada beat Germany in the quarterfinals.



At the 1992 World Championships Finland beat Czechoslovakia in the semifinals.



At the 1994 Olympics Sweden beat Canada in the finals.



At the 1994 World Championships Canada beat Finland in the finals.



At the 1996 World Championships Canada beat Russia in the semifinals.



International shootout experience:

Canada: 3-1

Finland: 1-1

Sweden: 1-0

Czechoslovakia: 0-1

Germany: 0-1

Russia: 0-1



The Swedish league was the first from a major hockey nation to have regular season games decided in shootouts, in 1999-00. The German league seems to have had continuous overtime in regular season games the year prior, but replaced this with a shootout the same year as the Swedish league did.



More just to say, it might have been true in the 2000s until the lockout that Euro league players were more used to the concept, but throughout the 90s they only occurred about once in every other major international tournament, and the majority of times Canada was involved.

Team Canada might’ve made a few odd choices and failed to prepare properly for the possibility of a shootout, and I think it’s very possible the Czechs had planned for it much more intently considering their defensive style. There are parallels to soccer here, where less talented squads are likely to adopt a defensive system, practice set pieces and penalty kicks to a much greater extent, and look more comfortable running out the clock than the favored team, as they are aware their chances to advance increases with the randomness of penalty shootouts rather than trying to force a goal in regulation.

Similarly to the DPE in hockey, and the low-scoring Nagano Olympics, that gradually informed rule changes in international hockey and professional leagues alike, soccer had a trend of more teams going in the direction of, and finding success with increasingly structured defensive and lead-protecting tactics, culminating in the abysmal, historically low-scoring 1990 World Cup in Italy where a ton of games ended in shootouts or with 1-0 scores, which informed several rule and format changes throughout the 90s.

Problem I have is it’s not the first time I’ve sensed the notion from some of hockey shootouts being something European, that it’s been part of “our game” since forever and that we enjoy games being decided with a gimmick, which is unfair as it’s just not true. Our leagues have playoffs, we play 20 minute overtime periods until someone scores a winner, and we wouldn’t want it any other way.

I wonder if it’s due to the prevalence of shootouts in soccer that some North Americans have figured that European hockey fans supposedly love them or that it’s the reason they snuck into hockey, because I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Swede or any other hockey fan say they enjoy games being decided in a shootout. But I suppose we don’t whine about the 1994 gold not feeling real, on the other hand: it’s unfortunately the format. In retrospect, I don’t value the gold as highly for reasons including the fact it was decided in a shootout, but also because it wasn’t a best-on-best. Had it not been for that move making Forsberg a household name, I think the historical Olympic success would have been soon-forgotten once Turin happened.

What a weird rant against no one this became, sorry about that, but to close my argument against the strawmen:

The reasons they changed the format of international tournaments into quarterfinals, semis, etc, where you can’t have ties, I’d say is mostly due to the risks of unsportsmanlike manipulation within that format. In the 1991 WHC we saw an example of such, when the Soviets despite being just one goal down against Sweden in the final matchup never pulled their goalie, as Tikhonov preferred Sweden winning gold over Canada, which would have been the case had they forced the game into a draw.

And the reason we’re not allowed to have continuous overtime in IIHF competitions I would suspect is mainly due to broadcasting rights holders demanding games finish at some point.

 

[Boxscore]

If so, who was to blame? Hockey Canada executives? Professional players?

No one is the blame, imho. The rest of the globe simply caught up due to access, rinks, and the sport gaining in popularity. The boom of rinks in the States was unheard of around that time. I sort of look at it like the Canadiens having access to the top talent in Quebec Province. Once they lost that advantage, they started to decline. Once the rest of the world started grooming better hockey players... and some Canadian kids began to focus on baseball, football, golf, and soccer... the playing field leveled out a bit.

 

[Crosby2010]

The 1996 team was still one of those teams that could have won. They had the name recognition on that team. But this wasn't 1991. In 1991 there was a ton of guys missing. The Soviets weren't a big threat anymore and the Americans were just starting to realize how good they could be. Sweden was okay, but that's about it. Either way, it was Canada's to lose in 1991 and even with Gretzky getting injured in the second to last game and a team that was missing a lot of talent, they still were better than the Americans. Just look at the laundry list of players not on Team Canada in 1991 who weren't there for a variety of reasons:

Mario, Bourque, Neely, Oates, Recchi, Roy, Gilmour, Nieuwendyk, Sakic, Yzerman, Francis, Hull joins the U.S. team, even Gartner not being there is an example. This team wasn't one Keenan was building to be super fast. It was a super grinding team with still good players but lots of talent missing. I don't know if there is room for the types like Nieuwendyk, Gilmour, Francis, etc. anyway, but the rest very much had a good case, and bad playoff or not (a rare one in 1991 for him) I don't think your team is worse with a guy like Gilmour on it.

But in 1996 we couldn't get away with that sort of thing anymore. 1991 I get it, Keenan could shape the team in his own image and we still win. 1987 was probably closer than it should have been as there was a lot of talent left off the team too. Maybe Keenan knew what he was doing, after all we won both, but this didn't work in 1996. Check out the names missing there:

Lemieux, Bourque, Roy, Kariya, Francis, MacInnis, Pronger, Recchi, maybe even Oates or Larry Murphy. At the very least, the first 6 names on here were expected to be on here. And there is no way we lose with them. Heck, if Mario is there he's leading the tournament in points and we win. Maybe just Bourque or Roy alone changes course just enough. But we just couldn't be lacklustre this time around. Glen Sather coaching had some nostalgia to it, especially with the old Oilers, but after Bowman backed out of coaching this team I just wonder why he was picked. He wasn't a coach by that time. Most of the coaches in the NHL were Canadian, so we had our pick.

By 1998 there was a panic. We ignored every other way to pick a team that we did in the past by forming a team that could beat anyone and solely looked at beating the Americans. We did that, but they weren't prepared. This was again a cocky way of picking teams. Bob Gainey and Bobby Clarke as well as Pierre Gauthier (why him?) involved. Then with Mario retired and Kariya getting hurt all of the sudden our roster looked thinner. Sakic got hurt in the quarter final and there goes a lot of our speed on the big ice. Niedermayer not picked for his speed on the back end. The goaltending was superb, no one picks anyone but the trio of goalies we had. Messier or even Francis not getting the invite over Zamuner was bad. I never got the Zamuner thing. It never made sense. Chris Kunitz bugged me being on the 2014 team, but I can at least see why he was picked being Crosby's teammate. Similar to if Hyman ever gets picked in 2026. But with Zamuner there was no reason for it. Mike Peca was the reigning Selke winner, why not him? If you want this ace in the hole that you think is a darkhorse to win why not pick a guy like Gilmour for that very same role? Then things like Corson being picked over Recchi. Recchi only got added once Kariya was out. Linden being there was not great either. Maybe he was still riding on his big game status, but even by then you could see he wasn't the same player anymore. Too many big bodies, not enough natural goal scoring ability or speed. Even Jeff Friesen is a better pick than these guys as he could fly at that time.

 

[Crosby2010]

Sorry, to answer the OP's question, there was a lot of panic that wasn't needed. Overall there were some lousy drafts such as 1990, 1992, 1994 and 1996 especially. This is why the 1980s guard was still kicking around and being the core of the team. But there should have been some awareness for the future. 1997 was a great draft, 1998 was a good Canadian-laden draft too. Even at that time there were too many Europeans being groomed in the Canadian Junior ranks, a lesson Canada still hasn't learned to this day that they shouldn't emphasize. And of course the cost of hockey has increased. Really, the biggest enemy to Canadian Hockey is..................Hockey Canada. Then and now, same thing.

I will also point out that I was not impressed with the round robin of each tournament. Canada squeaked out a win against Russia in 1996 in the opener and the Russians had a couple of goals called back. Then we lost against the Americans for the first time ever and that set off a confidence for them that they built on. We needed a win against Slovakia to ensure getting into the playoffs, and we won 3-2 thanks to a late Yzerman goal. But we were down a goal in the 3rd period! It was nuts. Then a lacklustre 4-1 vs. Germany in the quarter finals and that overtime game vs. Sweden where we were a post away from losing. In Game 1 of the final we had it in the bag before allowing the U.S. to tie it with 7 seconds left. Then Yzerman's overtime winner was about 2 feet offside. We were sloppy, then got outplayed in Game 2 and Game 3 Richter found his inner 1994-self.

1998 I know people think we had a great round robin, but I was just "meh" with it. I never saw that killer instinct. 5-0 against Belarus, okay not bad, but the shots were 31-18. Shouldn't we have controlled the play better? Then Sweden loses to us 3-2. Alright fine. I liked the U.S. game with us winning 4-1, and that was epic, but they did outplay us and Roy really held us in there. In the quarters against Kazakstan we scored two quick goals, then they got one, and for about 30 minutes it was a 2-1 game. They actually scored on a goal that was blown offside that would have made it 2-2. Two late goals at the end of the 2nd made it 4-1 but I just never felt like we blew the doors off of them. I was concerned playing the Czechs because I just didn't feel like we looked comfortable on that big ice. And we really didn't do anything against the Czechs either. In overtime we stepped up, but if we had played that way earlier we'd have won, but we didn't. So I guess my thought is that we never dominated and they never looked hungry enough.

 

[LightningStorm]

One thing I heard regarding Canada winning Gold in 2002 is while the media ran with the 50 year Gold drought with it being a nice round number, that wasn't a concern for the more hardcore fans. Rather, not winning the 2 best on best tournaments mentioned by the OP was a much more pressing concern going into those games.

 

[VanIslander]

In '98 the entire shopping mall STOPPED MOVING when the lineup was announced on TV (the last public event pre-9/11 i recall in the TV age, we so very Internetted these days.)

Note: ESPN was to a generation then what the 6 o'clock news was to a previous one!

Pat Quinn & the boys settled matters in '02.

In '98 the entire shopping mall STOPPED MOVING when the lineup was announced on TV (the last public event pre-9/11 i recall in the TV age, we so very Internetted these days.)

Note: ESPN was to a generation then what the 6 o'clock news was to a previous one!

Pat Quinn & the boys settled matters in '02.

I talk like an old man. I was born in the sixties and feel like it today.

 

[JackSlater]

Yes there was a lot of panic, at least for a fairly frivolous topic like hockey. The main things were that Canada had lost two best on best tournaments and that the players drafted in the 1990s were lacking compared to the players of the previous generation. Canada's abysmal 1998 WJC was also a sore point despite frequent successes at that tournament in the 90s. This all led to the open ice summit on Canadian hockey in 1999 that looked to address player development in Canada, which was too focused on size and systems. These are the 11 recommendations that came out of the summit:

1. System of mentor coaches for minor ice hockey associations, with one professional coach per twenty amateur coaches
2. Number of games should not be greater than the number of practices
3. Adjust age limits so the same players are not always the oldest in each group
4. Educate importance of skills development and give recognition for skills
5. Expand marketing and education aimed at first-time players
6. Provide more coaching education including online modules
7. Examine raising the age for draft eligible players
8. Educate public on having respect for all participants, the rules and the sport
9. Educate all hockey participants on the recommendations resulting from the Open Ice Summit
10. Co-operation between hockey associations, school boards, and sponsors to improve sports in school
11. Improve communication between hockey partners on program developments

I give them credit for recognizing that there were legitimate issues in development despite the existence of plenty of positive signs at the time.

One thing I heard regarding Canada winning Gold in 2002 is while the media ran with the 50 year Gold drought with it being a nice round number, that wasn't a concern for the more hardcore fans. Rather, not winning the 2 best on best tournaments mentioned by the OP was a much more pressing concern going into those games.

Yes that's true, it was mainly a media talking point. The pressure on Canada from Joe Blow Hockey Fan would have been no less if Canada had won for instance the 1994 Olympic hockey tournament. Losing three consecutive best on best tournaments was a major concern however.

 

[Gorskyontario]

In '98 the entire shopping mall STOPPED MOVING when the lineup was announced on TV

I have a hard time believing this, and find it a very odd thing to mention.

 

[VanIslander]

Gorsky,.... stop stalking me and saying the same thing over.

 

[VanIslander]

To be clear: i was there, a uni student working part time at Eaton's in Lethbridge, when that white truck of OJ's spent hours on the road. The entire mall stopped. Every single eyeball was glued to the TVs in the electronics dept (next to my toys/seasonal area).

The only other comparable experience: I was there in a mall downtown Winnipeg, selling Christmas gifts, making extra coin while doing grad school research, when a whole mall group gasp met the announcement of a specific unexpected player... !

To the Internet generation it is hard to talk about a time of unfragmented entire-TV focused media. That or the next morn's newspaper.

 

[Gorskyontario]

The only other comparable experience: I was there in a mall downtown Winnipeg, selling Christmas gifts, making extra coin while doing grad school research, when a whole mall group gasp met the announcement of a specific unexpected player... !

That's odd because I remember people being fairly confident in the 1998 lineup. It seems like you're trying to apply hindsight to a real life memory which likely did not happen.

 

[VanIslander]

Rob Zamuner.
(A fool doubles down.)
I was there. Not the peanut gallery.

 

[VanIslander]

Wait... this gorsky guy joined a couple of weeks ago and has replied to 14 of my posts already? (4 pms). MODS there ought to be a stalking f-off law. I'll "ignore" but isn't that just kidney punching?

@Theokritos
@Johnny Engine

In 20 years here, i never have felt i'm as psycho endangered.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Wait... this gorsky guy joined a couple of weeks ago and has replied to 14 of my posts already? (4 pms). MODS there ought to be a stalking f-off law. I'll "ignore" but isn't that just kidney punching?

@Theokritos
@Johnny Engine

In 20 years here, i never have felt i'm as psycho endangered.

You messaged me first every time(I only replied to you), I'm not sure the policy of sharing private messages but I can very easily prove this to any mod. Also I simply do not understand what you post the majority of the time. Or you make weird comments about Bobby Orr being less accomplished than Bourque which is patently false.

I reply to posts I disagree with to engage in debate. It's really that simple. Or I give my opinion and people can either agree with me or disagree with me as they see fit. Being a supposed former 'grad student'(if that's indeed true) surely you're aware of this concept?

Rob Zamuner.

He was an odd pick but I can guarantee an entire shopping mall didn't 'stop moving' as his name was announced.

 

[VanIslander]

But so many people did STOP. It was as odd as that OJ Saturday. Eyes were GLUED TO THE TV... like in high school when i told the librarian about the shuttle explosion. Or when we heard Lady Di died in that tunnel. Life stopped. Cars stopped. For minutes, ... it was surreal.

 

[JianYang]

No one is the blame, imho. The rest of the globe simply caught up due to access, rinks, and the sport gaining in popularity. The boom of rinks in the States was unheard of around that time. I sort of look at it like the Canadiens having access to the top talent in Quebec Province. Once they lost that advantage, they started to decline. Once the rest of the world started grooming better hockey players... and some Canadian kids began to focus on baseball, football, golf, and soccer... the playing field leveled out a bit.

With respect to the Habs having fist access to the local talent, the only advantage they had over other teams was that they got first choice of a local player who was not signed to a C form by an NHL team. However, virtually all players that were worth anything would already have signed a C form before the Habs could pick anyone.

Sure, it would make it easier for habs to have proxy on alot of quality prospects, but I don't think there was any rule preventing other teams from trying to offer C forms in Quebec.

There was a study done to see how many players actually materialized into anything out of that special rule for montreal, and the answer was very little. From what I recall, the most prominent name was Reggie Houle, followed by a journeyman backup goalie.

Regardless, the Canadiens kept pumping out talent after that rule was gone. Their advantage in the 70s was that they had a management that valued first round picks alot more than most other organizations in the league. They would trade older veterans at the right time in exchange for 1st rounders, and keep the pipeline flowing while winning cups in that decade.

I still hear people perpetuate a myth that the Habs got Lafleur first overall because the Habs had the rights to select a Quebec born player before anyone else. The reality is that this pick actually belonged to the seals, and a trade was done to acquire it.

I'd say their decline was more evident by the mid 90s for a variety of on ice and off ice reasons.

 

[seventieslord]

In '98 the entire shopping mall STOPPED MOVING when the lineup was announced on TV

I was literally in a shopping mall when the team was announced, and this is literally what happened.

You were in Eaton's, I was in The Bay.

@Crosby2010 you missed your chance to take me for a possibly unlimited sum of money. I would've bet anything that Niedermayer was on the Nagano team. It's like I even remember him being in the team photo.

 

[MadLuke]

I would've bet anything that Niedermayer was on the Nagano team

A searcher on memory took 'advantage' of 9/11, that week he made his students of a class he was giving to write down in details what they were doing when they heard the news and what they did after that day.

2 years late (or some short amount like that), made them write what they remember from that day, then gave them back their original description, the differences were wilds.

Except few exceptions, we are not made to have specially good detailed memory like that.

 

[VanIslander]

I was literally in a shopping mall when the team was announced, and this is literally what happened.

You were in Eaton's, I was in The Bay.

We both were in Winnipeg?

I was at Eaton's in Lethbridge when OJ drove away; at Portage Place downtown Winnipeg when Team Canada was announced.

 

[VanIslander]

Canada was STRESSED about hockey until the gold medal in '02. Then it seemed all was well. '06 just wasn't the same. We had done it. '02 was our generation's Summit Series.

 

[seventieslord]

We both were in Winnipeg?

I was at Eaton's in Lethbridge when OJ drove away; at Portage Place downtown Winnipeg when Team Canada was announced.

No, I was in Regina, otherwise, similar situation to you.