Why did Canada fail at 2006 Olympics?

[Czech Your Math]

So what are we considering the list of true best on best?
1981
1984
1987
1996
1998
2002
2004
2006
2010
2014

1972, 1976, and 1991 are close but not quite. 2016 is not.

This would result in the following victories
Canada x6
Soviets x1
Sweden x1
Czech Republic x1
USA x1

2005 World Championship had best players available, since no NHL season. There were some notable players missing (Hasek, Forsberg, Lidstrom, Sakic, Selanne, etc.), but I think many of those players were injured.

 

[JackSlater]

2005 World Championship had best players available, since no NHL season. There were some notable players missing (Hasek, Forsberg, Lidstrom, Selanne, etc.), but I think many of those players were injured.

The rosters at the 2005 world championships were still pretty far off the rosters at the 2004 World Cup and 2006 Olympics just a few months later, and that's without the weird situation where some players showed up despite not playing that season. It's a high end edition of the world championships but not something to be compared with best on best tournaments. I'd put it in a sort of miscellaneous category with things like the Summit Series.

 

[Czech Your Math]

The rosters at the 2005 world championships were still pretty far off the rosters at the 2004 World Cup and 2006 Olympics just a few months later, and that's without the weird situation where some players showed up despite not playing that season. It's a high end edition of the world championships but not something to be compared with best on best tournaments. I'd put it in a sort of miscellaneous category with things like the Summit Series.

I'd say it's more like in between an Olympics and a normal WC, but if 2004 World Cup is counted, 2005 WC should be counted as well IMO. There's always weird things with international tournaments: Injuries, strange selections, different sizes of ice, often travel across the globe, controversial group formats, etc.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Here are some stats for the forwards for last four games (not counting Italy and Germany)

Nash 0-0-0 -3 8 PM
Bertuzzi 0-0-0 -1 6 PM
Gagne 0-0-0 -1 4 PM
Heatley 0-0-0 -1 2 PM
Lecavalier 0-1-1 0 14 PM
Smyth 0-0-0 0 2 PM
Doan 0-0-0 0 2 PM
Sakic 0-0-0 0 0 PM
Draper 0-0-0 +1 0 PM
Iginla 0-1-1 +1 4 PM
Richards 1-0-1 0 6 PM
Thornton 1-1-2 -2 0 PM
St. Louis 1-0-1 0 0 PM

Draper and Iginla were the only + forwards. Draper had the same number of shots as Thornton (5)

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Now the defence

Regehr 0-0-0 -2 2 PM
McCabe 0-0-0 -1 4 PM
Foote 0-0-0 -1 4 PM
Redden 0-0-0 +1 0 PM
Bouwmeester 0-0-0 0 0 PM
Blake 0-1-1 -1 2 PM
Pronger 1-1-2 0 12 PM

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Causing shorthanded situations for Canada for the last four games:
Pronger-6
Nash-4
Richards-2
Bertuzzi-2
Iginla-2
McCabe-2
Gagne-2
Doan, Heatley , Foote, Lecavalier, Blake, Smyth, Regehr, Foote (one each)

 

[IslesFan2017]

I've become fascinated with that team, maybe because that season is when I started following the NHL seriously. There were so many other forward choices that could have been taken like Crosby, Staal, Spezza, Savard, Kariya, Marleau, Shanahan etc.

In hindsight, the lack of chemistry seemed to hurt them and maybe the result would have been better if they had picked Marleau to go with Thornton, Spezza with Heatley and maybe even Alex Tanguay to go with Sakic.

Speaking of chemistry, does anyone remember if Lecavalier, Richards and St. Louis played together since they were all picked from the Lightning?

 

[NordiquesForeva]

I've become fascinated with that team, maybe because that season is when I started following the NHL seriously. There were so many other forward choices that could have been taken like Crosby, Staal, Spezza, Savard, Kariya, Marleau, Shanahan etc.

In hindsight, the lack of chemistry seemed to hurt them and maybe the result would have been better if they had picked Marleau to go with Thornton, Spezza with Heatley and maybe even Alex Tanguay to go with Sakic.

Speaking of chemistry, does anyone remember if Lecavalier, Richards and St. Louis played together since they were all picked from the Lightning?

The biggest issue with this team was the defense. No Niedermayer (injured), and neither Blake nor Pronger were 100%. Regehr, Foote and McCabe were poor selections for the larger international ice surface. Instead of replacing Niedermayer with McCabe, they should have replaced him with Boyle who would have provided some much-needed puck moving ability on the back-end. The most effective d-man, imho, was Bouwmeester who, while very young, had incredible skating ability and did the most to transition the puck up to the forwards.

The team lacked chemistry on the ice, but a lot of the forwards played together previously. At the 2005 World Championships, Thornton centered a dominant line with Gagne and Nash. Most of the forwards had played well together at the 2004 World Cup. Unfortunately, it just didn't translate to that particular tournament. The forward depth was too slow and the group needed more speed on the wings. At a minimum, Kariya, Crosby, and Staal should have been on the team and likely Marleau as well. If you go back and watch the tournament, you'll notice that our best forwards were probably Nash and Gagne - two natural wingers with great speed who knew how to play on international ice.

To your question, the lines weren't consistent over the tournament. I think Richards centered the 4th line for much of the tournament with Smyth, Doan or Bertuzzi on his wing. Lecavalier may have played with St. Louis and Heatley. Sakic with Iginla, Thornton with Nash. Gagne shuffled between Sakic and Thornton. That's what I remember.

 

[connellc]

The biggest issue with this team was the defense. No Niedermayer (injured), and neither Blake nor Pronger were 100%. Regehr, Foote and McCabe were poor selections for the larger international ice surface. Instead of replacing Niedermayer with McCabe, they should have replaced him with Boyle who would have provided some much-needed puck moving ability on the back-end. The most effective d-man, imho, was Bouwmeester who, while very young, had incredible skating ability and did the most to transition the puck up to the forwards.

The team lacked chemistry on the ice, but a lot of the forwards played together previously. At the 2005 World Championships, Thornton centered a dominant line with Gagne and Nash. Most of the forwards had played well together at the 2004 World Cup. Unfortunately, it just didn't translate to that particular tournament. The forward depth was too slow and the group needed more speed on the wings. At a minimum, Kariya, Crosby, and Staal should have been on the team and likely Marleau as well. If you go back and watch the tournament, you'll notice that our best forwards were probably Nash and Gagne - two natural wingers with great speed who knew how to play on international ice.

To your question, the lines weren't consistent over the tournament. I think Richards centered the 4th line for much of the tournament with Smyth, Doan or Bertuzzi on his wing. Lecavalier may have played with St. Louis and Heatley. Sakic with Iginla, Thornton with Nash. Gagne shuffled between Sakic and Thornton. That's what I remember.

This is what I remembered too. The defense really couldn't move the puck up quickly and with speed. Add to that Pronger was also beat up and injured too. Wayne was a bit too loyal to the 2002/2004 crew with a few of his selections, however, on paper scoring shouldn't have been an issue like it was during the entire tournament. Although Patt Quinn was a great motivator, he didn't have the tactician mind to pivot with such little time after the round robin.

I felt some uneasiness in the 2014 team because scoring was an issue like in 2006 but the defense was so airtight, they only needed a couple goals per game to get it done.

It was probably the most frustrated I have ever been to a true best on best Canadian national team.

 

[Crosby2010]

Just one of the most bizarre situations and it might have been all started with the fact that we had won the last two big tournaments and we went back with the same management and coaching. Gretzky and Lowe did well in 2002, and pretty good in 2004 although there was some questionable picks. But by 2006 you need to shake it up. Mike Keenan won both of his Canada Cups but they still didn't pick him a 3rd time. Yes they picked Babcock three times but Yzerman was picking the teams in 2010 and 2014 and by 2016 it was a whole new crew, so that got shaken up. With 2006 you had Quinn coaching again and Gretzky and Lowe picking the teams again. It is like a politician that stays too long, he's eventually going to give a lot of sweet deals to his buddies.

It all started with Gretzky going overboard by saying Lemieux and Yzerman have a spot for them on the team. Okay, now hold on. What? Look, Lemieux on the power play alone might be worth it, but he's 40, the big ice might hurt him and he was banged up by now. He barely played in the 2005-'06 season and to be honest I am not sure if he doesn't retire in January that he isn't on that team. Yzerman was wise enough to abdicate and let someone else take his place. Other than that Gretzky is picking him. Why? So luckily that never came to fruition.

Then there was the Bertuzzi thing. I figured with the big ice and the Moore incident still fresh in people's minds that he isn't making the team. Even early in the season you can see he has lost a step, but then he goes on a tear and it is right before they announce the team and Gretzky put him on there. That alone was a bad look. It gave the team that division right away. Then there was the betting scandal with Rick Tocchet and you had Janet Gretzky being implicated. Nothing came of it, but this happens right in January of 2006 before the Olympics. It just gave the whole pre-tournament vibe a big shake up, and not in a good way.

Onto the team selections. Nothing wrong with the goaltending. Brodeur, Luongo and Turco. You can nitpick about Turco, but he was alright, and you already had two star goalies who were going to be ahead of him, so he wasn't seeing ice time.

Then the defense. Hmmm. Where to start? On the surface it looked alright. Redden, Pronger, Blake, Foote, Bouwmeester, McCabe, Regehr. However, we missed Niedermayer to injury, and McCabe was the one added in. Why not Boyle? At least he was the closest out of anyone to rushing the puck like Niedermayer. And plus Boyle played excellent in 2010. Blake is probably too old at this point, the ice is big, and Regehr and Foote don't both need to be there. Take at least one out. I'd have actually made room for Phaneuf as he was young and enthusiastic and had already made a name for himself.

But up front we made the most mistakes. Gretzky was too loyal to guys he shouldn't have been. He brings back Doan and Draper from 2004 and there is just so much better options, especially over Draper. The whole Doan, Draper, Smyth, Bertuzzi quartet was too much. You need sandpaper yes, but this is also the big ice and even in the smaller ice we only left room for Morrow in 2010 as that type of guy. You don't need 4 of them. I'd have taken at least Draper and Bertuzzi off and put in Crosby and Staal. Crosby is your x-factor and I think he thrives and in a year he is the best player in the NHL. Staal had the best year of his career and he was still good enough to be on the team in 2010. Put them on there! That leaves Doan and Smyth. Do you take one of them off and put in more speed and skill? Kariya comes to mind even if he had lost a step. Spezza is a potential guy too although I like Crosby and Staal in there a lot better.

But honestly, just the addition of Boyle on the back end, Crosby up the middle and Staal somewhere on the wing and this team is made up far differently. With that being said, even with the roster selections we still should have won. That's a lot of skill on that team. The Lightning trio, Thornton, Heatley, Iginla, Gagne, etc. Sakic is older at this time and I am not sure him being the captain did much. I guess I'd pick him too, but this team never seemed together. The thing that I have put my finger on with this team is that they didnt play as a team. They played as individuals. This is why they got shutout by the Swiss. That and at the end of the day there still were some guys who didn't do well in pressure situations that we didn't know about yet. Thornton, Heatley, Nash come to mind as guys who were never playoff warriors. Sakic wasn't the one you depended on anymore either. This team was just a mess.

 

[IslesFan2017]

Just one of the most bizarre situations and it might have been all started with the fact that we had won the last two big tournaments and we went back with the same management and coaching. Gretzky and Lowe did well in 2002, and pretty good in 2004 although there was some questionable picks. But by 2006 you need to shake it up. Mike Keenan won both of his Canada Cups but they still didn't pick him a 3rd time. Yes they picked Babcock three times but Yzerman was picking the teams in 2010 and 2014 and by 2016 it was a whole new crew, so that got shaken up. With 2006 you had Quinn coaching again and Gretzky and Lowe picking the teams again. It is like a politician that stays too long, he's eventually going to give a lot of sweet deals to his buddies.

It all started with Gretzky going overboard by saying Lemieux and Yzerman have a spot for them on the team. Okay, now hold on. What? Look, Lemieux on the power play alone might be worth it, but he's 40, the big ice might hurt him and he was banged up by now. He barely played in the 2005-'06 season and to be honest I am not sure if he doesn't retire in January that he isn't on that team. Yzerman was wise enough to abdicate and let someone else take his place. Other than that Gretzky is picking him. Why? So luckily that never came to fruition.

Then there was the Bertuzzi thing. I figured with the big ice and the Moore incident still fresh in people's minds that he isn't making the team. Even early in the season you can see he has lost a step, but then he goes on a tear and it is right before they announce the team and Gretzky put him on there. That alone was a bad look. It gave the team that division right away. Then there was the betting scandal with Rick Tocchet and you had Janet Gretzky being implicated. Nothing came of it, but this happens right in January of 2006 before the Olympics. It just gave the whole pre-tournament vibe a big shake up, and not in a good way.

Onto the team selections. Nothing wrong with the goaltending. Brodeur, Luongo and Turco. You can nitpick about Turco, but he was alright, and you already had two star goalies who were going to be ahead of him, so he wasn't seeing ice time.

Then the defense. Hmmm. Where to start? On the surface it looked alright. Redden, Pronger, Blake, Foote, Bouwmeester, McCabe, Regehr. However, we missed Niedermayer to injury, and McCabe was the one added in. Why not Boyle? At least he was the closest out of anyone to rushing the puck like Niedermayer. And plus Boyle played excellent in 2010. Blake is probably too old at this point, the ice is big, and Regehr and Foote don't both need to be there. Take at least one out. I'd have actually made room for Phaneuf as he was young and enthusiastic and had already made a name for himself.

But up front we made the most mistakes. Gretzky was too loyal to guys he shouldn't have been. He brings back Doan and Draper from 2004 and there is just so much better options, especially over Draper. The whole Doan, Draper, Smyth, Bertuzzi quartet was too much. You need sandpaper yes, but this is also the big ice and even in the smaller ice we only left room for Morrow in 2010 as that type of guy. You don't need 4 of them. I'd have taken at least Draper and Bertuzzi off and put in Crosby and Staal. Crosby is your x-factor and I think he thrives and in a year he is the best player in the NHL. Staal had the best year of his career and he was still good enough to be on the team in 2010. Put them on there! That leaves Doan and Smyth. Do you take one of them off and put in more speed and skill? Kariya comes to mind even if he had lost a step. Spezza is a potential guy too although I like Crosby and Staal in there a lot better.

But honestly, just the addition of Boyle on the back end, Crosby up the middle and Staal somewhere on the wing and this team is made up far differently. With that being said, even with the roster selections we still should have won. That's a lot of skill on that team. The Lightning trio, Thornton, Heatley, Iginla, Gagne, etc. Sakic is older at this time and I am not sure him being the captain did much. I guess I'd pick him too, but this team never seemed together. The thing that I have put my finger on with this team is that they didnt play as a team. They played as individuals. This is why they got shutout by the Swiss. That and at the end of the day there still were some guys who didn't do well in pressure situations that we didn't know about yet. Thornton, Heatley, Nash come to mind as guys who were never playoff warriors. Sakic wasn't the one you depended on anymore either. This team was just a mess.

I agree with pretty much everything that you mentioned but in particular the last point you made. That's how I've always felt about this team, even with the mistakes that were made there was so much offensive talent that it's almost unfathomable to me that they finished in 7th place because of the players you mentioned who were pretty much locks to be on the team.

Also agreed that it's a shame Dan Boyle wasn't on that team considering that he contributed in 2010.

 

[Leksand]

Because Sweden is awesome! Simply the best. And Canada has Poutine festivals, which is untenable.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Thornton was supposed to be the tip of the spear for that team, and Thornton might be the worst big-game player in NHL history.

 

[Crosby2010]

I agree with pretty much everything that you mentioned but in particular the last point you made. That's how I've always felt about this team, even with the mistakes that were made there was so much offensive talent that it's almost unfathomable to me that they finished in 7th place because of the players you mentioned who were pretty much locks to be on the team.

Also agreed that it's a shame Dan Boyle wasn't on that team considering that he contributed in 2010.

Another thing I'll add to the 2006 team. There was not that legendary leader on the team. Think back to every other time we had a best on best. 1972 even without Hull and Orr we had Esposito be the alpha male and step up and carry the team. 1976 we had loads of leaders on that team: Orr, Hull, Esposito, Clarke, etc. you name it. 1981 we lost and you can say it was a bit of a transition with a young Gretzky and such but we still had Robinson, Gainey, Trottier, Bossy, etc. Guys who won a lot. 1984, 1987 and 1991 it's Gretzky, Messier and Coffey on all three teams. Heck, even 1996. 1998 you still had Gretzky even though he passed the reigns to Lindros. 2002 and 2004 there was Mario taking the elder statesman role. Basically in 2006 you had the quiet Sakic being the guy. We all like Sakic, and he's won a lot and no one denies his playoff resume, but there just weren't the supporting veteran savvy guys who had all done it before with great leadership skills. Sakic was a great complementary piece with Mario in 2002 and 2004, but I don't know if it fit him to be the captain of so many skilled guys nearing the back nine of his career.

Thornton was supposed to be the tip of the spear for that team, and Thornton might be the worst big-game player in NHL history.

Indeed, he probably has done the worst out of anyone in NHL history who had great opportunities to thrive. So many good teams, so much potential, so little inspirational hockey. I will say this, in Thornton's defense he did play well in the 2004 World Cup. He picked Chara's pocket in a game for a goal and it just seemed like he could do that all the time if he wanted to. Only Lecavalier had more than Thornton's 6 points on Canada. So I think even going into the 2006 Olympics the idea was that he was going to be a driving force on that team. He hadn't built up the playoff choker label yet.

Because Sweden is awesome! Simply the best. And Canada has Poutine festivals, which is untenable.

Here is the funny thing, Canada was just a colossal mess in 2006, they never were firing on all cylinders, not once. And yet Sweden still allegedly tanked a game to avoid playing Canada in the medal round just because I assume everyone figured that the Canadian roster should come together somehow with all of that talent. So if I take anything positive from 2006 it is that we learned from it and built better teams in the future, and even the Gold medalists of that year were still somehow scared of us!

 

[DRW895]

It was rare expection when after weak group stage Canada didn`t improved

 

[lawrence]

Another thing I'll add to the 2006 team. There was not that legendary leader on the team. Think back to every other time we had a best on best. 1972 even without Hull and Orr we had Esposito be the alpha male and step up and carry the team. 1976 we had loads of leaders on that team: Orr, Hull, Esposito, Clarke, etc. you name it. 1981 we lost and you can say it was a bit of a transition with a young Gretzky and such but we still had Robinson, Gainey, Trottier, Bossy, etc. Guys who won a lot. 1984, 1987 and 1991 it's Gretzky, Messier and Coffey on all three teams. Heck, even 1996. 1998 you still had Gretzky even though he passed the reigns to Lindros. 2002 and 2004 there was Mario taking the elder statesman role. Basically in 2006 you had the quiet Sakic being the guy. We all like Sakic, and he's won a lot and no one denies his playoff resume, but there just weren't the supporting veteran savvy guys who had all done it before with great leadership skills. Sakic was a great complementary piece with Mario in 2002 and 2004, but I don't know if it fit him to be the captain of so many skilled guys nearing the back nine of his career.



Indeed, he probably has done the worst out of anyone in NHL history who had great opportunities to thrive. So many good teams, so much potential, so little inspirational hockey. I will say this, in Thornton's defense he did play well in the 2004 World Cup. He picked Chara's pocket in a game for a goal and it just seemed like he could do that all the time if he wanted to. Only Lecavalier had more than Thornton's 6 points on Canada. So I think even going into the 2006 Olympics the idea was that he was going to be a driving force on that team. He hadn't built up the playoff choker label yet.



Here is the funny thing, Canada was just a colossal mess in 2006, they never were firing on all cylinders, not once. And yet Sweden still allegedly tanked a game to avoid playing Canada in the medal round just because I assume everyone figured that the Canadian roster should come together somehow with all of that talent. So if I take anything positive from 2006 it is that we learned from it and built better teams in the future, and even the Gold medalists of that year were still somehow scared of us!

felt like we were just waiting for them to break out. Than Swissterland with their AHL roster beats Canada, funiest shit in team Canada history.

 

[overpass]

For all the star power in the lineup, Canada's forwards just didn't play well. Not enough speed, skill, or puck-carrying ability for the big ice. Not enough guys who could attack east-west or use the extra space. And not a very smart team either for a best on best.

Watch the shift starting at 25:30, after Canada scored to go up 2-0 on Czech. It's Nash-Thornton-Bertuzzi at forward and McCabe and Regehr on defence, and it's such a stupid play by a team that's just gone up 2-0 and needs to win. A basic rush by the Czech fourth line turns into a first class scoring chance after terrible backchecking.



Regehr takes the puck carrier and McCabe goes with the Czech forward who is driving near post. Bertuzzi is the first forward back and, instead of picking up the Czech F3 going to the far post, he angles way across to chase the puck and doubles up with Regehr on the puck carrier. Thornton is cruising behind the play not even moving his feet, and Nash is nowhere to be seen after anticipating a Czech turnover at the other end of the ice that never came. Canada's back side is wide open and it's the easiest pass in the world to create a first class scoring chance. Fortunately it's for Rusty Olesz who shoots it wide.

 

[Crosby2010]

felt like we were just waiting for them to break out. Than Swissterland with their AHL roster beats Canada, funiest shit in team Canada history.

I've been annoyed watching Team Canada in my lifetime, I've been upset, even sad, and obviously angry. But does the word "livid" describe that Canada/Swiss game best? I am trying to think of a better word. Enraged? And it was Paul DiPietro - a Canadian - who scored both goals on us. I just remember at that time that I wasn't sure if we were meant to win the gold after that Swiss loss. Being shutout by the Swiss was just demoralizing, and I just don't know if you can mentally come back from that, and I don't think they ever did.

 

[The Panther]

I think there is a little shame on the 1998 Canada team for not winning the bronze in the final game. A medal is a medal. Go out and get the damn medal rather than going home empty-handed. (I partly blame Gretzky for this.)

 

[Crosby2010]

I think there is a little shame on the 1998 Canada team for not winning the bronze in the final game. A medal is a medal. Go out and get the damn medal rather than going home empty-handed. (I partly blame Gretzky for this.)

Why Gretzky? I think he may have had an assist in that game, so he did something at least.

 

[The Panther]

Why Gretzky? I think he may have had an assist in that game, so he did something at least.

I'm just speculating based on what Scott Stevens said years later, but apparently Gretzky was pissed after the shoot-out loss (understandably) and was complaining to teammates about "How many goals have I scored before?" and so on. And he was passing out beers to all the guys, and if Gretzky passes you a beer --- it's like a Beatle giving you a joint -- you drink. I just think this added to the general sense of deflation and "it's already over", which it wasn't.

 

[Matty Sundin]

You know how some teams are too dedicated to certain players and it’s ends up biting them in the end? Thats kinda what happen here. A lot of players were already guaranteed spots for previous success no matter how they were played during the 2005-06 season.

I remember the selections caused a lot of chatter and controversy for the picks at the time they were made. Adam Foote was passed his prime and shouldn’t have been there. Kris Draper wasn’t needed there to shut down some teams that had 4 solid lines. I’m sure having Crosby or Spezza take his place wouldn’t hurt.

Then you had the injuries. Chris Pronger was really struggling this tourney and probably needed his minutes cut but with no Neids, they just rode with him. Bryan McCabe there for just the PP was still a bad selection. McCabe is awful in the big ice that he was actually cut on a euro team during the lockout. Something that management didn’t consider. The team still had firepower that I’m sure you could make a PP work without adding him.

Despite that, the team was still talented on paper but then it comes to the coaching staff. They couldnt find any chemistry with them. They played like they just met each other in the parking lot and went out for a game of shinny. If you look at the box score they outplayed the Swiss but they really just didn’t have enough chemistry to find that last gear to light them up. The Swiss had better chemistry with each other and didn’t need a lot of chances.

It also looked like they weren’t prepared properly for the big ice surface. Finland ate them alive and while they beat the Czechs, they didn’t deserve to win that game. I know it’s hard to get all these in order in a short tourney but they were was no progress being made at all. I’m glad we didn’t play the Swedes as they would have embarrassed us.

Canada was due during this time to not win a tourney and I don’t hold it against Gretzky & co too much as they did a good job in 2002 and 2004 but it’s hard not to point out their mistakes they made as they still should of did better. From the iffy selections, injuries to key players, coaching unable to find team with talent it’s gear, under performing players looking lost due to poor chemistry and big ice surface, the result was one of the most disastrous best on best performance from Canada.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

You know how some teams are too dedicated to certain players and it’s ends up biting them in the end? Thats kinda what happen here. A lot of players were already guaranteed spots for previous success no matter how they were played during the 2005-06 season.

I remember the selections caused a lot of chatter and controversy for the picks at the time they were made. Adam Foote was passed his prime and shouldn’t have been there. Kris Draper wasn’t needed there to shut down some teams that had 4 solid lines. I’m sure having Crosby or Spezza take his place wouldn’t hurt.

Then you had the injuries. Chris Pronger was really struggling this tourney and probably needed his minutes cut but with no Neids, they just rode with him. Bryan McCabe there for just the PP was still a bad selection. McCabe is awful in the big ice that he was actually cut on a euro team during the lockout. Something that management didn’t consider. The team still had firepower that I’m sure you could make a PP work without adding him.

Despite that, the team was still talented on paper but then it comes to the coaching staff. They couldnt find any chemistry with them. They played like they just met each other in the parking lot and went out for a game of shinny. If you look at the box score they outplayed the Swiss but they really just didn’t have enough chemistry to find that last gear to light them up. The Swiss had better chemistry with each other and didn’t need a lot of chances.

It also looked like they weren’t prepared properly for the big ice surface. Finland ate them alive and while they beat the Czechs, they didn’t deserve to win that game. I know it’s hard to get all these in order in a short tourney but they were was no progress being made at all. I’m glad we didn’t play the Swedes as they would have embarrassed us.

Canada was due during this time to not win a tourney and I don’t hold it against Gretzky & co too much as they did a good job in 2002 and 2004 but it’s hard not to point out their mistakes they made as they still should of did better. From the iffy selections, injuries to key players, coaching unable to find team with talent it’s gear, under performing players looking lost due to poor chemistry and big ice surface, the result was one of the most disastrous best on best performance from Canada.

I've always wondered if the mindset of the 2006 team was one where the coaching staff and players assumed they would eventually find chemistry, turn things around, and pick up momentum in the playoff round like they did in 2002 - then they were caught waiting for something that was never going to happen. Canada eked out a win vs. Finland (2-1) in the 2002 QFs, but had to face a tough Russian team in the 2006 QFs. The 2002 also had significantly better leadership throughout the lineup relative to 2006, with their best leaders also being their best players (Mario, Sakic, Yzerman, Niedermayer, Pronger, Blake) and guys lower in the lineup like Lindros, Peca, Nieuwendyk and Nolan also being team captains or veteran leaders. In 2006 that generation kind of passed the leadership baton to guys like Thornton, Iginla and Lecavalier, who were fell a little short.

 

[VistamarCroissants]

Two reasons: Alex Ovechkin and Paul DiPietro

 

[Crosby2010]

I'm just speculating based on what Scott Stevens said years later, but apparently Gretzky was pissed after the shoot-out loss (understandably) and was complaining to teammates about "How many goals have I scored before?" and so on. And he was passing out beers to all the guys, and if Gretzky passes you a beer --- it's like a Beatle giving you a joint -- you drink. I just think this added to the general sense of deflation and "it's already over", which it wasn't.

I will admit I stayed away from the bronze medal game just purely out of spite. Then in the 3rd period I tuned in and we were tied 2-2 going into the 3rd so I thought "Oh well, I guess bronze is better than nothing." Then they lost and I was just bitter - again. I don't remember almost anything about that game, but we lost 3-2 and outshot them 34-15. That's pretty dominant. Were we just playing good defense because I honestly remember just a deflated team out there. Marc Crawford made the mistake of putting Patrick Roy in net for the bronze. I know, he wasn't the reason we lost to the Czechs, but you had Cujo and Brodeur on the bench and why not let them come in and have a fresh perspective? They would have more to prove. It wouldn't be a knock on Roy. But either way, there was an old boys feeling, and I am guessing Crawford doesn't want to upset his goalie in Colorado. This is why I respect what Quinn did with Joseph in 2002 by placing Brodeur in there. He did this despite Cujo being his goalie in Toronto.

Despite that, the team was still talented on paper but then it comes to the coaching staff. They couldnt find any chemistry with them. They played like they just met each other in the parking lot and went out for a game of shinny. If you look at the box score they outplayed the Swiss but they really just didn’t have enough chemistry to find that last gear to light them up. The Swiss had better chemistry with each other and didn’t need a lot of chances.

It also looked like they weren’t prepared properly for the big ice surface. Finland ate them alive and while they beat the Czechs, they didn’t deserve to win that game. I know it’s hard to get all these in order in a short tourney but they were was no progress being made at all. I’m glad we didn’t play the Swedes as they would have embarrassed us.

You hit the nail on the head with that comment about how they just seemed like they met each other in the parking lot and started playing. That's exactly how it felt. There was no leadership. Sakic is too quiet of a guy to be that guy. But these teams still should have known each other. The Lightning trio for obvious reasons. Gagne, Sakic and Iginla made a great line in 2002, they knew each other. Sakic and Iginla were linemates in the 2004 World Cup. There were also holdovers from the 2004 team. There should have at least been some familiarity. I don't get it. But I will say that with the 2002 team when they had that first loss to Sweden, I still thought they would win it all. There were just the guys that could do it on there, the old boys with the seasoning that knew how to come together. I knew it was only a matter of time. 2004 we came together pretty good too.

The big ice and the new NHL rules also come to mind for 2006. Pronger just looked bad, so did Blake. There was an adjustment with the New NHL so there is that to factor in. But every team had to adjust, it was just Canada that looked sick to their stomachs.