Top 20 Swedish players of all time

[jkrx]

Yes, very interesting.
From what I've heard and read, the genereral consensus were/are that Henrik's good play and production during Daniel's injury, showed he could do it alone (at least during that limited time). It surely seems to have helped Henrik getting his Hart.

Otherwise, it's hard to know.

I do think it is more likely that they would have scored 50 % more points if playing in different teams, than Hakan Loob would probably have had a bunch of Hart, Lindsey/Pearson, Conn Smythe, Art Ross and probably Selke and Norris too (of course during the same season, thus making him legendary) if he had played some more seasons in the NHL...

Says the person who eventually can come to the conclussion that Henriks hart season was better than Mikitas and Clarkes based on adjusted points.

 

[Ola]

Interesting thread with a unique sub topic. The Sedins, Daniel and Henrik. Are they to be viewed individually or as a collective?

Throughout their career(s) they have played together. At the NHL, the twins had the advantage of being drafted one after another by the same team, the Vancouver Canucks. The results to date are virtually identical Henrik 666 points in 810 games, Daniel 651 points in 787 games, difference attributable to Daniel losing nearly 20 games to injury during the 2009-10 season.

Playing together has created certain unique situations. The teams style/systems are built around the Sedins as a collective unit opposed to the normal inividual player factors. This has an influence on results - team and individual.

So it is fair to ask if the Sedins are to be viewed as a collective, leading to the question whether the collective talent is greater than the sum of their individual talents. Or are Daniel and Henrik to be viewed as individual talents who would have produced roughly identical results if they had played on distinct teams with distinct circumstances - team styles/systems, coaches, management team mates, schedules etc.

Comments.

They are a hybrid of course.

In reality, I think their biggest advantage is not the sheer amount of chemistry they have with each other, but the confidence they have to play their style if you get what I mean.

I mean, like a duo of Toews and Kane would never get the idea to try to keep the puck within the team to the same extent as the Sedins.

But, are their success a result from the fact that there are two of them? First of all, lets keep in mind that many of the greats have a lot of other players, and/or their team, to thank for big parts of their success. Second, of course they are in a special environment. They have won two concequtive Art Ross Trophy's while I personally think they individually are noticebly a level below Crosby/AO, for example.

I've played against the two BTW. We litterary lost 21-0. MoDo's U18 (B1) team needed help to make the PO's, Sedins when they were 17 y/o had not played for that team all year, most teams were made out of 16 y/o (the best 17 y/o played with the U20 team). My team were like 2nd in the standings and we lost to the 5th ranked team 21-0, and the Sedins were in on like 18 of the goals scored. Natrually for two first overall in a draft candidates it shouldn't be that hard dominating against players a year younger then yourself, but many forget how insanely good the Sedins were when they were 16 - 17 y/o. They actually did not develop well at all from when they were like 20-23 or something like that. I know that they actually was slower in tests during the lockout year compared to their last season in the SEL before they left for NA. But lately they have of course taken a big step.

 

[sr edler]

loob was a first team all star in 1988 and thus the best right winger in the game that season - better than kurri, larmer, anderson, ciccarelli, mullen, gartner - that's 4 hall of famers 27, 27, 27, 28 years old respectively

50 goals 56 assists +41 [third in league] 8 sh goals [second in league] - also 8 goals in 9 playoff games

but no ulf samuelsson was a better player

 

[seventieslord]

Interesting thread with a unique sub topic. The Sedins, Daniel and Henrik. Are they to be viewed individually or as a collective?

Throughout their career(s) they have played together. At the NHL, the twins had the advantage of being drafted one after another by the same team, the Vancouver Canucks. The results to date are virtually identical Henrik 666 points in 810 games, Daniel 651 points in 787 games, difference attributable to Daniel losing nearly 20 games to injury during the 2009-10 season.

Playing together has created certain unique situations. The teams style/systems are built around the Sedins as a collective unit opposed to the normal inividual player factors. This has an influence on results - team and individual.

So it is fair to ask if the Sedins are to be viewed as a collective, leading to the question whether the collective talent is greater than the sum of their individual talents. Or are Daniel and Henrik to be viewed as individual talents who would have produced roughly identical results if they had played on distinct teams with distinct circumstances - team styles/systems, coaches, management team mates, schedules etc.

Comments.

Good question. I believe it can be done either way, but if one's goal is to evaluate players as individuals, then the Sedins can be no exception. I think it's clear that they have a synergy rarely seen in hockey, and that if they were separated, their effectiveness would be somewhat limited.

Unfortunately, they will always play together, so we will end up with a Brodeur-like situation where some people overrate him thanks to an advantageous situation, and those who want to some discredit him, don't ever get the chance to.

Hopefully, in the distant future, when their legacies are reviewed alongside those of Thornton, Datsyuk, Alfredsson, and other players of the generation, their linemates (eachother) are kept in mind to temper any overenthusiasm about their true greatness as individual players.

 

[seventieslord]

loob was a first team all star in 1988 and thus the best right winger in the game that season - better than kurri, larmer, anderson, ciccarelli, mullen, gartner - that's 4 hall of famers 27, 27, 27, 28 years old respectively

50 goals 56 assists +41 [third in league] 8 sh goals [second in league] - also 8 goals in 9 playoff games

but no ulf samuelsson was a better player

That is one season of true greatness, backed up by two seasons as a good first liner and four seasons as an average 2nd-liner.

Samuelsson never reached true greatness for one season, but he did finish 6th and 11th in postseason all-star voting, indicating how he was regarded at the time. He was a top-pairing defenseman on a cup winner, and top-2 on his team's defense corps in icetime a total of 9 times (top-4 14 times) which not a lot of players have done. This was all during a 12-year stretch in which he never missed the playoffs, and six times won at least one round.

In other words, he was a heavily-relied on player, and by pretty good teams, too.

I ranked him ahead and it is certainly defensible. Loob's best season is better. It's rather arguable that Samuelsson's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best seasons (and beyond) were better than Loob's.

 

[sr edler]

samuelsson was a good player but those pittsburgh teams were ridiculous offensively

defense wasn't as good and islanders happened in 93

 

[seventieslord]

samuelsson was a good player but those pittsburgh teams were ridiculous offensively

defense wasn't as good and islanders happened in 93

I'm not saying he's the reason his teams won, or anything silly like that... but he made big contributions. as his team's #1-2 blueliner he was often their 3rd-5th most valuable player, in nine seasons. I think people have remembered all the bad and started to forget how good he actually was.

 

[jkrx]

I'm not saying he's the reason his teams won, or anything silly like that... but he made big contributions. as his team's #1-2 blueliner he was often their 3rd-5th most valuable player, in nine seasons. I think people have remembered all the bad and started to forget how good he actually was.

He was very good no doubt, don't know if he was top-10 of all time good though. I'm not too concerned with you regarding him above Loob but if we are going for those MS arguements then sorry. He isn't qualified because of adjusted stats nonesense and the fact that he have no personal awards in the NHL. Öhlund have six better seasons offensively plus a all-rookie team so clearly he's the better player.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Regarding the Sedin's and how they should be viewed, of course it has to be as individual's. That's why I think it's outrageous that Sedin won the Hart last year, or that Daniel will this year. Are you trying to tell me if Crosby grew up with an identical twin who was a better goalscoring version of himself, that it would be possible for teams to keep them from averaging 2+ points a game? Not only do I think that would happen, I don't think it would be possible to stop it. Just because they always have and always will play with each other, doesn't mean we should see them each as that good, as they basically just share a lot of points. I think either one of them could finish top 10 in points if you replaced the other with an average 1st liner, so on their own I believe they are somewhere between the 10-15th best forwards in the world offensively.

 

[seventieslord]

He was very good no doubt, don't know if he was top-10 of all time good though. I'm not too concerned with you regarding him above Loob but if we are going for those MS arguements then sorry. He isn't qualified because of adjusted stats nonesense and the fact that he have no personal awards in the NHL. Öhlund have six better seasons offensively plus a all-rookie team so clearly he's the better player.

judging forwards mainly by their offensive production has value. Judging defensemen by offensive totals has very little value. I know you were being sarcastic but that point has no merit.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

seems crazy to me to judge the sedins by a hypothetical situation in which there was just one of them. i mean, you wouldn't say "if pierre turgeon had gretzky's dad he we would have scored 2,000 points so we have to imagine an alternate reality gretzky and figure out what his stats would have been if he'd had a single mom." extreme example, yes, but what are you going to do? daniel always had henrik. brent sutter always grew up competing against his older brothers. orr was (for all intents and purposes) always on the same team as esposito. lemieux was always 6'4". gretzky always had his dad.

personally, i don't even care that henrik was an MVP candidate without daniel, and he was an MVP candidate with daniel (i.e., the bossy with tonelli and sutter argument). i don't say this expecting them to someday be top 100 or even top 150 all-time players -- hell i didn't think they'd get even close to this far -- i just think you have to respect the unique situation and take it for what it is.

 

[JazzRockford]

So it is fair to ask if the Sedins are to be viewed as a collective, leading to the question whether the collective talent is greater than the sum of their individual talents. Or are Daniel and Henrik to be viewed as individual talents who would have produced roughly identical results if they had played on distinct teams with distinct circumstances - team styles/systems, coaches, management team mates, schedules etc.

Comments.

Well, you always have to take a range of side factors into account when evelauting players. Quality of linemates, quality of competition, what team they played for, what era they played in, and so on. The Sedins are somewhat a special case, but it's not fundamentally different than trying to review other forward duos - like Bossy/Trottier, or Selänne/Kariya.

I think it's fairly obvious that their chemistry enhances their success and that they would not be as effective without each other. Still, if Henrik and Daniel each can win an Art Ross playing together, I'm guessing they can finish top 5-10 in scoring alone.

However, you can't punish them for playing with other. Having that sort of chemistry is after all a talent - in its own way - and obviously every club wants their first line to have great chemistry.

I have quickly made my own list. Just so you know: I put a great emphasis on peak when ranking players. Also, I judge players after an 'entire world criteria', meaning a guy like Tumba is compared to the best Canadians of his time (and, subsequently, he does not make the list). Lastly, best on best-play, no matter if it's in the NHL or internationally, matters the most, but I do look at WC tournaments, too.

Nicklas Lidström - probably a top 20 player looking at all nationalities
Peter Forsberg - Art Ross-winning two-way force (clutch, too)
Börje Salming - top 100 player
Daniel Alfredsson - better peak and more complete than Sundin
Mats Sundin - somewhat overrated NHL career, but extremely clutch internationally

Henrik Zetterberg - playoff warrior, excellent peak
Henrik Lundqvist - best Swedish goaltender
Henrik Sedin - elite playmaker
Daniel Sedin - a step below his brother
Markus Näslund - had quite a run

Mats Näslund - very good offensively, good in the playoffs
HÃ¥kan Loob - see above
Thomas Gradin - two-way guy, very good in the playoffs, apparently
Calle Johansson - defensive cornerstone for Washington
Pelle Lindbergh - excellent peak, sad story

Bengt-Ã…ke Gustafsson - underrated
Ulf Samuelsson - very good defensemen on some very good teams
Kent Nilsson - one awesome year, but really bad in the playoffs
Mattias Öhlund - top defenceman
Samuel PÃ¥hlsson - top defensive center, a legit Conn Smythe candidate

Somewhat hastily put together list, but I like it.

EDIT: Meant Thomas Gradin, not Steen

 

[Hardyvan123]

loob was a first team all star in 1988 and thus the best right winger in the game that season - better than kurri, larmer, anderson, ciccarelli, mullen, gartner - that's 4 hall of famers 27, 27, 27, 28 years old respectively

50 goals 56 assists +41 [third in league] 8 sh goals [second in league] - also 8 goals in 9 playoff games

but no ulf samuelsson was a better player

Loob had that one great season but we should really look at his entire career and you are missing the boat there.

If we look at his NHL career in context he had one very good season 88, one pretty good one in 89 and 2 decent ones and 2 below average (for a one trick pony type of guy).

A very strong case could be made that Kent Nilsson had a better NHL career than Loob as well.

 

[sr edler]

i'm all with you that loob wasn't great in all of his seasons and disappointed in a few of them and especially in one of them but he did score 30+ goals in all of his first three seasons which wasn't his best ones

i also wouldn't call him a one trick pony type of guy

kent nilsson was a great player offensively but he magically disappeared defensively and when the game went physical

 

[Pear Juice]

so jorgen jonsson over his brother kenny, eh? when they played together, like on WC or olympic teams, was jorgen the better one? because kenny had a pretty stellar international career and, according to wikipedia, seems to have good accomplishments in the SEL considering he played there pre- and post-prime. and obviously he destroyed his brother in the NHL. but tell me more about what jorgen did in sweden, because i really don't know.

Concerning what they did in the NHL, Kenny definitely had the better career. But outside the NHL (which Jörgen left early for personal reasons), Jörgen Jönsson may very well be the most merited player in recent history. Some his accolades are:

• Swedish Champion - 1997, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2009. (Runner up in: 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005)
• World Champion - 1998, 2006 (Medalist 9 times)
• Olympic Gold - 1994, 2006
• 285 international games for Sweden - 1st overall
• 658 regular season points in the SEL - 1st overall
• 280 regular season goals in the SEL - 4th overall

He has been the front face of Färjestads BK during their recent stint of domination in Swedish hockey. I would say their reign from 97-09 is probably the second most dominant reign in Swedish hockey second only to Djurgårdens IF in the 50/60s.

Jörgen Jönsson's place in Swedish hockey history cannot be understated. Simply put, his brother Kenny may have had a better NHL career, but Jörgen is far and away the more important player when it comes to contribution to Swedish hockey in general.

 

[Pear Juice]

My list :

1) Nicklas Lidstrom
2) Peter Forsberg
3) Borje Salming
4) Mats Sundin
5) Daniel Alfredsson
6) Henrik Sedin
7) Daniel Sedin
8) Henrik Lundqvist
9) Henrik Zetterberg
10) Markus Naslund
11) Ulf Samuelsson - criminally under-rated player
12) Hakan Loob - 1 NHL season over 70 adjusted points, don't really care that he dominated an AHL-calibre league for 5 years
13) Pelle Lindbergh
14) Mats Naslund
15) Kent Nilsson - sublime talent, limited results
16) Kenny Jonsson - great player wasted on a crap NYI team, then left NHL early.
17) Thomas Steen
18) Calle Johansson
19) Thomas Gradin
20) Stefan Persson

Hedberg would be 21. Past 15 it becomes really interchangeable and there are about 15 'good' players you could slot into the final 5 slots. Gustafsson, Sandstrom, Ulf Nilsson, Ohlund etc.

I know the Swedish posters will hate this list because it's NHL-centric and doesn't include guys like Sven Tumba and Svedberg. But honestly, even though those guys are obviously exceedingly important figures in the history of Swedish hockey, they never played a game against NHL-calibre competition and I find it pretty unlikely they would have been stars in the O6 NHL era. Same as the Soviet players from the 50s/60s.

I understand you reasoning, but your timing is off on Svedberg. He was at his peak between 68-72 when he sadly died in a car crash. To my knowledge the only player outside Soviet to have been invited to train with the CSKA team under Anatoli Tarasov. He was at the Red Wings training camp in 1969, and Sid Abel suggested he should stay and play with them, however he and his wife decided that they'd rather stay in Sweden. I can only dream about what could've happened if he stayed, most importantly of all, he would not have ended his career and life in such a horrible way.

Also, I think it's a bit unfair to discredit European players for not taking a spot on a North american roster prior to the 70s. The importance of Börje Salming in this case should not be understated. I understand that this is just my personal opinion, but I believe that the reason for the lack of Europeans in North american hockey prior to 1970 is not only due to lack of skill from our side. I don't believe Börje Salming was the first player able to make an impact in the NHL, he was the first player who to actually make an impact in the NHL. European players from the 50s/60s/70s may have done aswell, and I believe attributing their lack of success only to them personally is unfair. The blame is as much on the coaches/GMs as on the players, as there can be no doubt that there were some amazing hockey players in Europe during that time.

 

[Theokritos]

invited to train with the CSKA team under Anatoli Tarasov. He was at the Red Wings training camp in 1969, and Sid Abel suggested he should stay and play with them

I love that story. CSKA camp in 1968, Red Wings camp in 1969. Only player to wear the CSKA shirt and the Red Wings shirt within one year before Sergei Fyodorov came along in 1990. Only player to be coached by Anatoli Tarasov AND Sid Abel.

 

[jkrx]

I love that story. CSKA camp in 1968, Red Wings camp in 1969. Only player to wear the CSKA shirt and the Red Wings shirt within one year before Sergei Fyodorov came along in 1990. Only player to be coached by Anatoli Tarasov AND Sid Abel.

...but he wasn't good according to the "historians" in this thread.

 

[Flames420]

(I suspect because Canada sucks).

Says the person too ashamed to put his home country in his profile.