Canada vs. Russia 1998 Gold Medal game: Who wins?

[Hanji]

Canada has long had a history of going with the established veterans for major international tournaments, especially in the Olympics. 1998 was actually the one time they passed on the star veterans and went with role playing young players. It did not end well. Mark Messier or Rob Zamuner? Really? In 2002, Gretzky went with an insanely veteran team anchored by the finest collection of leaders and proven champions you will see on one ice surface. He was not messing around. The team was headlined by Mario, Sakic, Yzerman, Pronger, Niedermayer, and MacInnis, but there was so much extra depth. Nieuwendyk, Shanahan, Kariya, Blake, Peca, even some grit in Nolan and Fleury, among others. Gretzky said in 2006 that Joe Thornton was one of the last names he left off. His decision to bring Iginla and Gagne worked out brilliantly. They flanked Joe Sakic, which bodes well for any young player in a high-pressure situation. But it seemed that after that veteran team won Gold, Gretzky went too far in 2006. It is obscene to think that Draper, Bertuzzi, and Foote made that team, and who did not. Yzerman bought into the youth movement in 2010, and it paid off. Babcock did for Crosby, by placing him on a line with Iginla, what Quinn did for Iginla in 2002 by putting him with Sakic. I always thought it was ironic how Sakic set up Iginla in the 2002 GMG and Iginla set up Crosby in 2010.

With a team full of captains it matters little who's wearing the C. It's a formality. I guarantee Gretzky had more authority in the 1998 lockerroom than Lindros. Players aren't stupid.

 

[jcbio11]

I am old enough to remember this tournament well.

A few things have to be said here.

The outcome of these short tournaments is extremely unpredictable. I would guess that if you held a similar tournament three times in a row that you would have a different set of finalists each time. Canada was a big pretournament favourite, even on the betting lines if I recall, and there is no question that they had the best team on paper. However that does not guarantee anything.

I have to give the Czech's credit that by playing the trap they caught everyone off guard and that is why they won, not because of Hasek or Jagr or any other player they had. Nobody was expecting that with each country's most talented players available that anyone would play trap hockey. Let's face it the trap is the way to win when you have less talent and the Czech's were very smart to use it.

In the end all I can say is thank god for the shootout because if any other top teams had played the trap I believe those games would still be going to this day.

That's just pathetic excuse making for Canada. Czechs won the tourney because they were the best.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

That's just pathetic excuse making for Canada. Czechs won the tourney because they were the best.

The Czech's played well and deserved to win. I just find it funny that people get way carried away with the meaning of winning one single game elimination tournament. I think you would acknowledge that very few of the Czech players would have made Team Canada that year. Jagr and Hasek for sure, beyond that I don't know if anyone else would make it.

 

[JackSlater]

The Czech's played well and deserved to win. I just find it funny that people get way carried away with the meaning of winning one single game elimination tournament. I think you would aknowledge that very few of the Czech players would have made Team Canada that year.

Wait a second... are you trying to say that the results of a one game elimination tournament with hardly any preparation are not necessarily completely demonstrative of who the best teams are? That's crazy.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Wait a second... are you trying to say that the results of a one game elimination tournament with hardly any preparation are not necessarily completely demonstrative of who the best teams are? That's crazy.

Ya, go figure. How about this one. In a league you can see that a great team loses 40% of their games and a terrible team wins 40% of theirs.

It couldn't be that from the results of a single game that there is a 40% chance of reaching a 100% wrong conclusion as to who the better team is.

 

[Zine]

The Czech's played well and deserved to win. I just find it funny that people get way carried away with the meaning of winning one single game elimination tournament. I think you would acknowledge that very few of the Czech players would have made Team Canada that year. Jagr and Hasek for sure, beyond that I don't know if anyone else would make it.

Really?....remember it wasn't NHL ice.

Like somebody already noted, Canada lacked depth in 1998 (innate talent for big ice). It was a slow team. I'd have taken a whole host of Czechs over Zamuner, Corson, Linden, Primeau, etc. Even guys like Pronger, Foote, Shanahan were always noticeably less effective when forced to rely on mobility and anticipation instead of strength and power.

 

[finchster]

Really?....remember it wasn't NHL ice.

Like somebody already noted, Canada lacked depth in 1998 (innate talent for big ice). It was a slow team. I'd have taken a whole host of Czechs over Zamuner, Corson, Linden, Primeau, etc. Even guys like Pronger, Foote, Shanahan were always noticeably less effective when forced to rely on mobility and anticipation instead of strength and power.

Bingo, I hope Hockey Canada understands this going into Sochi. I guess the best example is Chris Pronger, in 2010 he did well, but in 2006 looked totally out of place on the big ice. I am not sure if Hockey Canada in 1998 really understood building a team for big ice, they didn’t seem too in 2006 either.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Really?....remember it wasn't NHL ice.

Like somebody already noted, Canada lacked depth in 1998 (innate talent for big ice). It was a slow team. I'd have taken a whole host of Czechs over Zamuner, Corson, Linden, Primeau, etc. Even guys like Pronger, Foote, Shanahan were always noticeably less effective when forced to rely on mobility and anticipation instead of strength and power.

When you have the depth that Canada has the roster selections are always going to be second guessed when you lose. Canada's roster was more than good enough to win, even on the big ice. They did lose to the gold medalists in a shootout after all.

 

[Zine]

I'm not second guessing Clarke's roster selections, or saying Canada couldn't win.
However, contrary to what you stated, I think any reasonable person could deduce (from simply watching 1998 olympics) that there were numerous Czechs good enough to make Team Canada when played on big ice.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I'm not second guessing Clarke's roster selections, or saying Canada couldn't win.
However, contrary to what you stated, I think any reasonable person could deduce (from simply watching 1998 olympics) that there were numerous Czechs good enough to make Team Canada when played on big ice.

I was basing this on each players career to that point and most importantly their play in the year preceding the Olympics, however I give up, from now on I will base everything on single game performances.

I'd like to begin by saying that based on the Canada - Russia game from the last Olympics there were no Russian players good enough to play for Team Canada.

 

[Zine]

I'm not basing it on 1 game. I'm looking at the tournament as a whole, other big ice games players have played in, how players looked on the ice, and simple common sense.

FACT: Using a player's NHL effectiveness as the means of assessing their talent for the big ice is faulty logic.
But then again, your "Canada had the most talent, but anybody can win 1 game" excuse falls by the wayside when forced to admit this.
Unlike 2010 when pitted on NHL ice, I really don't believe Canada, top to bottom, was the most talented team in '98. Great top-end talent, but lacked depth for big ice play.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

your ability to objectively evaluate Canadian talent is beyond criticism