Olympics: Will the Olympics ever be a true best on best?

[daver]

Those statistics say absolutely nothing about Canada.

Actually the stats only indicate who were the best amateur teams. Canada was clearly the best when you factored in professionals.

 

[Past Considerations]

Also another question, why did many Swedish players admit they lost on purpose to Slovakia in the 2006 Olympics (Sedin, Forsberg etc) so they wouldn't have to face Russia or Canada (Sweden lost 5-0 to Russia)?

This was not so long ago I think. I remember that Forsberg admitted it in some interview, then later changed his words. Don't remember other players saying anything about it, but maybe I have missed those.

I read that even the IIHF and Olympics were investigating about it, but nothing happened.

At least IIHF did, might have related to just clarifying what Forsberg/other player said than actually looking at the game events again. I remember that the game itself was already looked by IIHF officials right after the game and already then it was a newsstory (I remember, of course I remember: <= country flag ).

 

[jekoh]

Actually the stats only indicate who were the best amateur teams. Canada was clearly the best when you factored in professionals.

If they were "clearly" the best they would have thrashed the Soviets.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

If they were "clearly" the best they would have thrashed the Soviets.

They would've if their best player wasn't injured.

 

[Yakushev72]

If they were "clearly" the best they would have thrashed the Soviets.

I am persuaded by the case you make for Czechoslovakia. Even in competition against Team Canada, arguably the best Canadian team ever assembled, in the '76 Canada Cup, Czechoslovakia was barely edged out in the championship game. I believe that they either beat or tied Canada in the round robin. So Czechoslovakia earned the right to be in the mix for the '72 Series. In truth, Canada was just trying to put to rest once and for all the suggestion that the Soviets were at their level. The rest is history.

 

[Theokritos]

I'm not sure what there is to suggest Canada were any better than Czechoslovakia in 1972

In the first place Canada missed Hull, Tremblay and the best player in the world (or do we have to ask what there is to suggest Bobby Orr was that player at the time?) as you are well aware of. Their bad of course, but still a very relevant factor if we're comparing athletic matters, not organizational issues.
Also: Before the match Czechoslovakia had 3 warm up games against East Germany while Team Canada played a physically and mentally exhausting 8-games-series against the Soviets. Several of the better Canadian players (Bergman, Henderson, Ellis, Ratelle) were rested and replaced by the likes of Dale Tallon, Brian Glennie and Bill Goldsworthy in Prague. Czechoslovakia on the other hand was in full-strenght, not missing any top performer.
Then: The Canadians had won the decisive games in Moscow where they felt everything was at stake. After one off day, in the wake of their victory party and on the way to the next party back home, they had to play an exhibition game that couldn't have been anything but an anticlimatic matter of duty for them. For the Czechoslovaks on the other hand their one game against the NHLers was the chance of their liftetime.

Considering the circumstances laid down above, the 3-3 tie does not suggest Czechoslovakia was actually on par with Canada in 1972 to me.

 

[Mr. Penguin]

This thread is just silly. Does the topic creator have any clue what he is talking about? The Winter Olympics only last 2 weeks. There is no time for all the 7 best nations to face each other unless the tournament only consists of 6 teams. The current system is fine and the only one that makes sense.

 

[jekoh]

Considering the circumstances laid down above, the 3-3 tie does not suggest Czechoslovakia was actually on par with Canada in 1972 to me.

That one game alone does not. The fact that Czechoslovakia had just won the WCh over the USSR, in addition to regularly beating them in the years prior, while it took Canada 8 games and a slash to Kharlamov's ankle to marginally top the Soviets, on the other hand, does.

They would've if their best player wasn't injured.

You're right, Kharlamov's injury made the rest of the series irrelevant

 

[Theokritos]

That one game alone does not. The fact that Czechoslovakia had just won the WCh over the USSR, in addition to regularly beating them in the years prior, while it took Canada 8 games and a slash to Kharlamov's ankle to marginally top the Soviets, on the other hand, does.

Canada went into the series underprepared and underrating the Soviets. It cost them in the first 4 games, that's why they went 1-1-2. I'm convinced they would have won 2 or 3 in Canada if they knew what to expect. Czechoslovakia on the other hand knew exactly who and how good the Soviets were, their team was built to stop them and they managed to do so several times.

 

[daver]

If they were "clearly" the best they would have thrashed the Soviets.

Unequal playing field. If Canada's team played together all year instead of being thrown together it would not have been close.

 

[jekoh]

Canada went into the series underprepared and underrating the Soviets.

And that should earn them extra points? Should we also award the 2002 Olympics to Sweden on the grounds that they were underrating Belarus and had beaten all the top teams thrown their way including the eventual "winners" if we can call them that?

Canada would have been unprepared all the same against the Czechoslovaks anyway, and surely they underrated them even more. Were they even aware that they beat the USSR on a regular basis?

 

[Theokritos]

And that should earn them extra points? Should we also award the 2002 Olympics to Sweden on the grounds that they were underrating Belarus

If your point is that the Soviets or Czechoslovaks were on par with (or better than) Canada in 1972 the same way Belarus was better than Sweden in 2002, then fine. They won that game fair and square, but that does not make them the better team (let alone the better country hockeywise) in my book.

 

[jekoh]

If your point is that the Soviets or Czechoslovaks were on par with (or better than) Canada in 1972 the same way Belarus was better than Sweden in 2002, then fine.

It obviously isn't

They won that game fair and square, but that does not make them the better team (let alone the better country hockeywise) in my book.

Come on, we all know that winning a game or even a series only means anything when it's Canada winning.

 

[Theokritos]

Come on, we all know that winning a game or even a series only means anything when it's Canada winning.

You're mistaken me for a Canada fan. The Soviet victories in the 1979 Challenge Cup and the 1981 Canada Cup mean a lot. But Belarus on par with Sweden in 2002? Not quite. And Czechoslovakia on par with Canada in 1972? Closer, but still to too optimistic in my opinion.

BTW does my opinion about 2002 also make me a Swedish homer? And I believe USSR > USA in 1980 despite the "Miracle", does that make me a Soviet homer? If so I must be the first Canadian Swedish Soviet homer in the world.

 

[Hennessy]

Also another question, why did many Swedish players admit they lost on purpose to Slovakia in the 2006 Olympics (Sedin, Forsberg etc) so they wouldn't have to face Russia or Canada (Sweden lost 5-0 to Russia)?

I read that even the IIHF and Olympics were investigating about it, but nothing happened.

Because no such thing happened. Forsberg said that sometimes guys won't give it their all for a game in which nothing is on the line. Of course this was interpreted by some people as an admission of a tank to avoid Canada.

As for your OP, you want that the Stanley Cup playoffs change their format, too? I mean, the eventual Cup winner only has to face 4 of 15 of teams. How is that fair?

Almost every international team competition uses the Swiss system instead of round robin, mostly for the time it takes to do the latter. And with the Olympics, time is certainly a factor.

 

[markz*]

This was not so long ago I think. I remember that Forsberg admitted it in some interview, then later changed his words. Don't remember other players saying anything about it, but maybe I have missed those.


At least IIHF did, might have related to just clarifying what Forsberg/other player said than actually looking at the game events again. I remember that the game itself was already looked by IIHF officials right after the game and already then it was a newsstory (I remember, of course I remember: <= country flag ).

True Finland was definitely the Best Country in the World that year, Sweden might have won the Tournament - but Finland was the Best!

 

[markz*]

Because no such thing happened. Forsberg said that sometimes guys won't give it their all for a game in which nothing is on the line. Of course this was interpreted by some people as an admission of a tank to avoid Canada.

Right.... because they admitted they lost on purpose because they would have to face Russia/Canada, everyone got mad and then they started the "we never said that".

As for your OP, you want that the Stanley Cup playoffs change their format, too? I mean, the eventual Cup winner only has to face 4 of 15 of teams. How is that fair?

If you don't play all the Best teams (Top 7/8 in the Olympics - and go undefeated) or play the Top 16 in the Stanley Cup Playoffs and win overall, it just means you won the Tournament, that's it. Not a True Best on Best.

 

[Harry Waters]

Of course, the sample size in an Olympic tournament is very small, but I don't see how playing every team would change that fundamentally. Unless you have at least two games against each other, but that is not working in the frame of the Olympics.

And then there is another argument I like to put forward: the idea of a 'best on best' tournament is not about having to play every opponent. It's about coming out on top within a tournament where the best players play.
To put it another way: In a tennis Grand Slam the winner doesn't play all of the top 10 opponents - but no one would ever argue that it isn't a 'best on best' tournament.

 

[jekoh]

You're mistaken me for a Canada fan.

That wasn't directed at you.

And Czechoslovakia on par with Canada in 1972? Closer, but still to too optimistic in my opinion. BTW does my opinion about 2002 also make me a Swedish homer? And I believe USSR > USA in 1980 despite the "Miracle", does that make me a Soviet homer?

Your opinion on 1972 Czechoslovakia and Canada is based on precious little. On the other hand the USSR was wiping the floor with the USA both before and after the aptly-named Miracle, and the same is true for Sweden and Belarus, so none of it has any relevance to 1972.

If so I must be the first Canadian Swedish Soviet homer in the world.

And that makes you the brightest one, too.

 

[Mythras]

Back on topic, it would be pretty exciting to see an old-school WJC format, but with the best 8 countries in the world.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Back on topic, it would be pretty exciting to see an old-school WJC format, but with the best 8 countries in the world.

Yes, but then you would hear complaints from one of Russia/Canada/USA/Sweden fans that, for example, this is no fair because Finland had was allowed to acquire some team chemistry while beating Switzerland and Germany, while we had to play Canada and Russia our first two games with only one practice before hand...

You can never make everyone happy and have the tournament free of "what ifs."

 

[WarriorofTime]

I am persuaded by the case you make for Czechoslovakia. Even in competition against Team Canada, arguably the best Canadian team ever assembled, in the '76 Canada Cup, Czechoslovakia was barely edged out in the championship game. I believe that they either beat or tied Canada in the round robin. So Czechoslovakia earned the right to be in the mix for the '72 Series. In truth, Canada was just trying to put to rest once and for all the suggestion that the Soviets were at their level. The rest is history.

This. A lot of people don't realize how good the Cold War era Czechoslovakian teams were. I'm sure they would have been able to take down the Canadians occasionally on best on best competition. I don't know why some Canadians have difficulty admitting the gap wasn't as large between their best and some of the other countries best. Depth was nobody really comes close to Canada, I agree. However when just looking at the stars it was very tight.

 

[markz*]

Depth was nobody really comes close to Canada, I agree. However when just looking at the stars it was very tight.

Depth on Small Ice: Canada

Depth on Big Ice: probable Russia

Two different games - Canada is use to Small Ice and Russia likes the Big ice because is allows for more high end skilled players. Also evens up Defense for all Countries (harder to dominate on Big Ice).

 

[WarriorofTime]

Depth on Small Ice: Canada

Depth on Big Ice: probable Russia

Two different games - Canada is use to Small Ice and Russia likes the Big ice because is allows for more high end skilled players. Also evens up Defense for all Countries (harder to dominate on Big Ice).

Meh, I don't watch nearly enough KHL games to know for sure but I'm still reasonably confident Canada's B Team would take care of Russia's B Team on the big ice. Definitely historically in the Soviet era they would. There wasn't much emphasis on developing the players not good to play on the Red Army team.

 

[markz*]

Meh, I don't watch nearly enough KHL games to know for sure but I'm still reasonably confident Canada's B Team would take care of Russia's B Team on the big ice.

Last time on Big Ice in the Olympics (2006) (with missing some of the Best Players: Fedorov, Mogilny, Zubov, Khabibulin): Russia beat Canada 2-0

Last 3 times in a row at the World's (2009,2010,2011): Canada lost to Russia each time.


Depth on Big Ice: probable Russia (also ranked 1st in the World Rankings)