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

[nutbar]

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."

But there's not 6 good teams and 2 crappy ones anymore.

 

[Yakushev72]

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.

Hull and Tremblay wouldn't have made much of a difference. They were both getting old, and both Hull and Tremblay played against the Soviets 2 years later, but didn't in any way tilt the series in Canada's direction. Orr was arguably the best player in the World before the '72 series, but he never recovered from the injury that kept him out of it. He was never close to the same player after that injury.

 

[Yakushev72]

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.

Neither Russia nor Canada have a B team, so you are basing your speculative outcome on things that don't even exist.

 

[markz*]

Neither Russia nor Canada have a B team, so you are basing your speculative outcome on things that don't even exist.

Exactly what me and most of my friends think (I'm Canadian) They're lots of different way to measure strength, only time I've ever heard the Term 'B' is by TSN and CBC.

 

[Yakushev72]

Exactly what me and most of my friends think (I'm Canadian) They're lots of different way to measure strength, only time I've ever heard the Term 'B' is by TSN and CBC.

You're exactly right. There is no such thing as a "B" team, so why speculate on which nonexistent team is better than another nonexistent team?

 

[Theokritos]

Hull and Tremblay wouldn't have made much of a difference. They were both getting old, and both Hull and Tremblay played against the Soviets 2 years later, but didn't in any way tilt the series in Canada's direction.

Tremblay was still one of the best puck moving defencemen in North America. And Bobby Hull was "getting old", really? You're aware that he was the top scorer in the 1974 Summit Series and the highest scoring Canadian forward in the 1976 Canada Cup? At age 35 the guy proved he was as good a scorer as the likes of Kharlamov and Yakushev at their peak and you think he wouldn't have made a difference two years before that? I guess Kharlamov or Yakushev didn't make "much of a difference" either in 1972 in your opinion.

Orr was arguably the best player in the World before the '72 series, but he never recovered from the injury that kept him out of it. He was never close to the same player after that injury.

Orr came back to win the Norris in 72-73, 73-74 and 74-75, outscoring everybody in the NHL not named Phil Esposito - and in 74-75 he even outscored Esposito, winning another Art Ross Trophy. His impact would have been massive in 1972.

only time I've ever heard the Term 'B' is by TSN and CBC.

Only because you are Canadian. The Term 'B' national team is commonly used in Europe.

 

[Past Considerations]

But there's not 6 good teams and 2 crappy ones anymore.

I think the top 6 is still very easy to name, and maybe its now even easier than it has been in the past two decades. Slovakia is often the "7th best", but their player production is clearly on the decline. Then the countries after that (Switzerland, Germany ... Norway, Denmark, Latvia, Belarus?) are more much more even and results in tournaments are not really that consistent.

Of course, if such old format tournament was played, the positions would probably come from the IIHF ranking anyway.

 

[Hennessy]

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".



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.

If I have to keep debating with children I am out of here. And all my progeny with me.

 

[markz*]

If I have to keep debating with children I am out of here. And all my progeny with me.

If you can handle the facts, that's you're own problem.

Orr came back to win the Norris in 72-73, 73-74 and 74-75, outscoring everybody in the NHL not named Phil Esposito - and in 74-75 he even outscored Esposito, winning another Art Ross Trophy. His impact would have been massive in 1972.

Only because you are Canadian. The Term 'B' national team is commonly used in Europe.

The NHL was a garage league in the 1970's (No Europeans and WHA + Expansion teams) - Inflated stats from the era, fact.

And please sources from which Europeans Countries in Hockey that call supposed 'B' teams - cause sounds pretty dubious.

 

[Past Considerations]

And please sources from which Europeans Countries in Hockey that call supposed 'B' teams - cause sounds pretty dubious.

It's (no longer) an official term, but for sure it is often used and refers to the non-dream teams, but more especially teams with very few NHL players that end up playing in the WCs. Like Finland this year.

"No longer" - because there is some historic meaning too. Here in Finland "national team A" (in Finnish: "A-maajoukkue") is still pretty common term across sports, in hockey it's more of a historic relic though.

 

[Theokritos]

The NHL was a garage league in the 1970's (No Europeans and WHA + Expansion teams) - Inflated stats from the era, fact.

That is a possible argument against Orr in a comparison with Doug Harvey or Ray Bourque, but not if in a comparison with his contemporaries. My point was that Orr outscored the whole NHL, fact, even though the other players also benefited from inflated stats. BTW if the NHL was a garage league then what was the Soviet League? After all Phil Esposito's scoring pace against the Soviet National Team was at least as high as his scoring pace in the NHL before and after the Summit Series...

And please sources from which Europeans Countries in Hockey that call supposed 'B' teams - cause sounds pretty dubious.

Easy: go to the various subforums and ask people from different countries (Swedes, Germans, Czechs etc). It's common knowledge.

 

[daver]

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.

What do you think the preceding 82 game season is for? It identifies the top 16 teams. What's your suggestion to make it best-on-best without making the season longer?

 

[Yakushev72]

Tremblay was still one of the best puck moving defencemen in North America. And Bobby Hull was "getting old", really? You're aware that he was the top scorer in the 1974 Summit Series and the highest scoring Canadian forward in the 1976 Canada Cup? At age 35 the guy proved he was as good a scorer as the likes of Kharlamov and Yakushev at their peak and you think he wouldn't have made a difference two years before that? I guess Kharlamov or Yakushev didn't make "much of a difference" either in 1972 in your opinion.



Orr came back to win the Norris in 72-73, 73-74 and 74-75, outscoring everybody in the NHL not named Phil Esposito - and in 74-75 he even outscored Esposito, winning another Art Ross Trophy. His impact would have been massive in 1972.



Only because you are Canadian. The Term 'B' national team is commonly used in Europe.

Tremblay did a few fancy spin-o-ramas in 1974, but he was a total non-factor in the series. In '74, Hull had one great game in Vancouver, when he scored a hat trick in the first period and probably had 4 or 5 points for the game. He would probably have made a difference in 1972, but not a decisive one based on the way he played just 2 years later. Orr was the biggest loss for Canada, but despite his subsequent Norris Trophies, he was never the same player after he blew out his knee before the '72 Series. He changed his game to become a dish out artist, as opposed to scoring on end-to-end rushes like he did before the injury. You can't just say "if this guy or that guy was there the series would have been totally different," because it usually doesn't pan out that way.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Still wondering, can anyone confirm why the Olympics changed their format after 1988 (In 1992) to go from each country playing each other and the one with the Best record gets the Gold (I think)?

The Olympics were a true round robin from 1948 to 1956. From 1964 to 1976 they had a round robin after elimination games cut the field in half. From 1980 to 1988 it was 2 groups followed by a medal round. In 1992 they also went to an elimination game format at the World Championships. This was to eliminate the possibility of teams clinching the Gold before their final games.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

There was a hybrid format which used a round robin/medal round to determine 2 sudden death finalists. It was used at the 1978 WJC & the 1997 Worlds.

 

[ashenhigh]

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".



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.

By that login then the World Cup, Champions League, FIFA club world cup, Fiba championships, any playoffs for any teams in any sport, isn't best on best, and thus nothing is. Although it would be awesome for every team to play each other, there simply isn't enough time to do a tournament like that in The Olympics. What defines best on best is when the best players in the world are in the same tournament playing each other... Currently the Olympics are a best on best competition.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

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.

They won 1-0 in the 1st round, lost 6-0 & 5-4 (OT) in the best 2-of-3 Final. A few months later (on European ice), against a Canadian team with only one player from the Canada Cup, they lost 8-2.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

If Czechoslovakia in the early 1970s wanted to be considered the equal of the Soviets & Canada, they should have followed this simple piece of advice. Don't lose to American college kids. By 4 goals. Twice.

 

[Yakushev72]

If Czechoslovakia in the early 1970s wanted to be considered the equal of the Soviets & Canada, they should have followed this simple piece of advice. Don't lose to American college kids. By 4 goals. Twice.

I think the two best teams in that era were Canada and the Soviets, but the Czechoslovaks were quite capable of beating either team on a given night. The Canadian team in the '76 Canada is considered to be the greatest Canadian hockey team ever, and the Czechoslovaks largely played Canada to a draw under circumstances that were most convenient for Cana

 

[markz*]

Good answers from lots of people but that facts I'm trying to convey is that "Best on Best" doesn't really exist (explained in my first post) and how to make is a "True" one.

1. Ice Size - Europeans prefer Big Ice (maybe not Sweden or Finland) and Canadian prefer Small Ice - Different game on Big Ice (as Said by Steve Yzerman)

2. Referees - NHL wouldn't agree to play in the Olympics unless their NHL Referees (vast majority are Canadian) were doing the Medal Rounds (biased as seen from the Canada Cups/World Cup) -

This also happened after the Soviets won the 1981 Canada Cup where the NHL/Hockey Canada banned European referee's so only Canadian NHL referee's could control it. Remember Alan Eagleson (convicted criminal)? He was charged with illegal activities with the Canada Cups.

3. If you win a competition (like the Olympics) and only face 3-4 of the Top 7/8 Countries, it's not a "True" Best-on-Best. If you don't play all the Best, It's not a "True" Best on Best.

If anyone has a problem with these 3 points (at the very least) and in correcting them - you'd probable wouldn't like the fair system, as I proposed (in my first post).

 

[Theokritos]

Referees - NHL wouldn't agree to play in the Olympics unless their NHL Referees (vast majority are Canadian) were doing the Medal Rounds

That's simply not true.

 

[1Gold Standard]

As the miasma of lies has reached epic proportions in this thread, where there is little to no regard for anything other than tom foolery, I'd thought I may as well add my opinion to the mix, in the game of hockey, Canada had no equal then and has no equal now. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Tell that to the East German ref in '72. If you don't agree with it, well hey it's all folklore now.

 

[Theokritos]

As the miasma of lies has reached epic proportions in this thread, where there is little to no regard for anything other than tom foolery, I'd thought I may as well add my opinion to the mix, in the game of hockey, Canada had no equal then and has no equal now. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Tell that to the East German ref in '72.

If every ill-informed statement was a lie (=intentional) then you were guilty of lying too: The refs in '72 were not from East Germany, they were from West Germany - you know, the one that actually was a parliamentary democracy and a NATO member. More precisely, Franz Baader (member of the German Hall of Fame) was from Füssen, traditional hockey town in conservative (=anti-Communist) Bavaria while Josef "Worse" Kompalla (member of the German Hall of Fame) was actually from Poland and had fled to West Germany in 1958 to escape Communist oppression.

So you stand exposed as a liar, don't you? No, you don't, because I believe your statement was ill-informed but not intentional.

 

[Past Considerations]

If anyone has a problem with these 3 points (at the very least) and in correcting them - you'd probable wouldn't like the fair system, as I proposed (in my first post).

My problem is that you have a problem with understanding realities. The time constraits of a short olympic tournament... how many times was that mentioned already?

Also there is no such thing as hybrid ice size (actual standard) and no ice is going to turn into such thing just by snapping fingers.

 

[1Gold Standard]

If every ill-informed statement was a lie (=intentional) then you were guilty of lying too: The refs in '72 were not from East Germany, they were from West Germany - you know, the one that actually was a parliamentary democracy and a NATO member. More precisely, Franz Baader (member of the German Hall of Fame) was from Füssen, traditional hockey town in conservative (=anti-Communist) Bavaria while Josef "Worse" Kompalla (member of the German Hall of Fame) was actually from Poland and had fled to West Germany in 1958 to escape Communist oppression.

So you stand exposed as a liar, don't you? No, you don't, because I believe your statement was ill-informed but not intentional.

Dude, everything in here is a lie and myth...every word of it... that was my point. For the purposes of this thread, the truth is anything I want it to be as that seems to be the starting point of everybody else around here. Kompella was an incompetent amateur ref, a manager of a disco with an apparent anti-Canadian agenda who was in the pocket of the Russians. There! That's my truth...