2002 vs. 2004 team

[Big Phil]

Here's an argument now that the World Cup is over and we again have proved as to who is on top of the Hockey world - again, I thought I'd compare the two teams. The 2002 Slat Lake Team Canada or the 2004 version.

For 2004: For one this team didn't lose a game. Yes they came close in the semis but as for every other game they appeared to be so much better than their opponents. In net you could argue that Brodeur is better now than in 2002. On defence without Blake and Pronger the defense was younger and less seasoned but still steady, not spectacular. Up front Heatley, Thornton, Lecavalier, St. Louis, Richards, Doan were all new. As was Marleau, Morrow, Maltby and Draper. Were they more explosive offensively? I'm proud of this group of guys but I couldnt help but think that when they beat the US 2-1 that it should have been 6-1. Only the games against Slovakia were more than 2 goals apart. This team was young but I thought they may have scored even more.

For 2002: This team was older and more seasoned. Yes they lost to the Swedes in the opener, but after that they never lost and looked unbeatable from the climatic Czech game on. Brodeur was still in net, and their defense had Blake and Pronger on there which was a big help. Up front it was an older team but I thought a little bit more offensive fire power. Hard to believe Eric Lindros was on that team but then again,was a good player at that time. That 2002 team had more offense from the back end, and up front and seemed to generate just a few more offensive chances. I put this team on any Top 10 list of all time teams, I cant say that about the 2004 team.

In conclusion, I compare the 2004 team to say the '91 or '84 Canada Cup team. Not bad company. I'll take the Salt Lake team by a little bit more. But I will say this, in 2006 or sya 2008 when Thornton, Lecavalier, Heatley, Richards, Bouwmeester etc. are in their primes I think it'll be one of the best teams ever assembled with '76 and '87.

Who's better 2002 or 2004?

Click to read more...

 

[Teezax]

Here's an argument now that the World Cup is over and we again have proved as to who is on top of the Hockey world - again, I thought I'd compare the two teams. The 2002 Slat Lake Team Canada or the 2004 version.

For 2004: For one this team didn't lose a game. Yes they came close in the semis but as for every other game they appeared to be so much better than their opponents. In net you could argue that Brodeur is better now than in 2002. On defence without Blake and Pronger the defense was younger and less seasoned but still steady, not spectacular. Up front Heatley, Thornton, Lecavalier, St. Louis, Richards, Doan were all new. As was Marleau, Morrow, Maltby and Draper. Were they more explosive offensively? I'm proud of this group of guys but I couldnt help but think that when they beat the US 2-1 that it should have been 6-1. Only the games against Slovakia were more than 2 goals apart. This team was young but I thought they may have scored even more.

For 2002: This team was older and more seasoned. Yes they lost to the Swedes in the opener, but after that they never lost and looked unbeatable from the climatic Czech game on. Brodeur was still in net, and their defense had Blake and Pronger on there which was a big help. Up front it was an older team but I thought a little bit more offensive fire power. Hard to believe Eric Lindros was on that team but then again,was a good player at that time. That 2002 team had more offense from the back end, and up front and seemed to generate just a few more offensive chances. I put this team on any Top 10 list of all time teams, I cant say that about the 2004 team.

In conclusion, I compare the 2004 team to say the '91 or '84 Canada Cup team. Not bad company. I'll take the Salt Lake team by a little bit more. But I will say this, in 2006 or sya 2008 when Thornton, Lecavalier, Heatley, Richards, Bouwmeester etc. are in their primes I think it'll be one of the best teams ever assembled with '76 and '87.

Who's better 2002 or 2004?

I say the 2004 team is better, for one we didn't have Cujo or Broken Belfour.

Doan over Nolan
Draper = Peca
Lecavalier over Nieuwendyk
Richards over Kariya
St. Louis over Fleury
Regehr over Macinnis

The only one I'd keep would be Stevey Y

 

[-_-]

I say the 2004 team is better, for one we didn't have Cujo or Broken Belfour.

Doan over Nolan
Draper = Peca
Lecavalier over Nieuwendyk
Richards over Kariya
St. Louis over Fleury
Regehr over Macinnis

The only one I'd keep would be Stevey Y

I almost completly agree with you... almost...

I'm not complaning about St-Louis or saying that he's overrated... I love the passion he has and i think he is an increadible player, one of the best offensive weapon in the world right now BUT Theo Fleury was huge for Canada in 2002 and that ''edition of Theo Fleury'' (God knows we had a lot of different Theo Fleury across the years) is the perfect pest you want to have on your team to disturb the opposition (just like Ville Nieminem or Jason Blake in this year's World Cup) ... i would take the Fleury of 2002 on my ''GOAT'' Team Canada for sure because I think he would bring a lot to the team... only because we have a lot of offensive talent but we're missing a pest (Doan is some kind of pest but I don't think he's the kind of guy that can wake up angryness in others like Fleury). I would take Fleury and play him along with guys like Draper, Thornton and Doan... or maybe with a guy like Gagné (who i think has played very good in the WCH 2004, am i the only one ?) Anyway I'm not saying St-Louis doesn't deserve to be there, he does, I'm only saying Fleury would be as important to the team as St-Louis and that we can not compare the two cause they're not the same kind of player (except for their height) !

Let say I'm agreeing with you at 98 % ! Have a nice day !

 

[Mountain Dude]

I would say that the 2004 team is far better. We could role 4 strong lines, all of which produced at some point during the tournament.

In 2002, the Lindross, Smytty, and Nolan was a total liability, they cost us so many goals, and never produced anything.

 

[Kravitch]

2002. So far it's been the only time this century when ALL of Canada's best played together. Besides, the 2002 Gold Medal game has been named the #3 greatest moment in international hockey by THN.

The only ones ahead it are The Miracle on Ice (#2) and the Summit Series (#1).

 

[Lexicon Devil]

re

The 2002 team seems to have been elevated beyond what they actually were. What great games did that team actually play?

- Brutal loss to Sweden
- Unimpressive one-goal win vs. Germany
- Unimpressive tie vs. Czech Republic
- Decent win vs. Finland
- Win vs. Belarus
- Great performance vs. US

So, basically, they only played one really impressive game. Obviously you want your team to get better as the tournament goes on, and they did, but should we really discount their performance before the finals? What if they had to play the Russians and Swedes in the quarters and semis? Would they have even made it to the finals?

The 2004 team, on the other hand, was never behind in a single game. I don't think the 2004 team is a wonderful team for the ages or anything, but in every game but one they simply outclassed their opposition.

 

[Big Phil]

I think that if Pronger and Blake were on the team then you could say that 2004 is better. They did win every game, but to compare it fairly, the 2002 team hit its peak in the playoffs. That team that played against USA at Salt Lake at that time is arguably better than the team that finished off Finland.

 

[Masao]

2002. So far it's been the only time this century when ALL of Canada's best played together. Besides, the 2002 Gold Medal game has been named the #3 greatest moment in international hockey by THN.

The only ones ahead it are The Miracle on Ice (#2) and the Summit Series (#1).

In my opinion, the Canada Cup 87 kick 2004, 2002, 1980 and 1972's collective asses all the way to the moon and back.

72 was unbelievable, I grant, and so was 1980 because no one thought the US even had a chance... but in 1987 you had Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky, both in their primes, playing together. If I had a choice of which series I'd prefer to watch on video for the week, I would consider it a felony to pass Lemieux and Gretzky in favor of Mahovlich/Esposito/Kharlamov or Lindros/Sakic/whatever.

I've watched the 72 series on DVD and yes, it was the most intense hockey I've seen... but nothing can beat BOTH Lemieux and Gretzky tearing everything apart

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I'd probably pick the 2002 team over the 2004 team. Yes they had some more veteran players who don't put up as many points as some of the youngins on the 2004 team, but they have veteran savvy that the 2004 team just didn't have.

The '87 Canada Cup team, however, will stand as the best of all time for me.

~Canucklehead~

 

[H/H]

The 2004 team was definitely more exciting, especially the excellent group of young forwards. The defensemen were a bit lacking at times.

 

[Kravitch]

didnt the '87 team start on the wrong foot just like the 2002 team?

 

[balddog66]

I've seen comparisons between the 72 team and 87, using the hall of fame criteria...how would this work for the 2002 & 2004 teams...how many of these players will be in the hall of fame...too early to tell...and of course some people think of players as they are today, rather than how they played in 2001-2002...etc...

 

[Masao]

didnt the '87 team start on the wrong foot just like the 2002 team?

Well, they lost their first game 9-4 against the Russians (with Mario scoring 4 goals)

But it was a pre-cup game so it didn't count in the stats.