Does Canada still have the best Defence?

[Big Phil]

Now that our two best d-man Pronger and Blake are gone it makes the defence look a little weaker. I think Canada has the best group of forwards and the best goaltending core by far, but do we still have the best defence? I think we do, but lets break down our defence. On offence you have Niedermayer, Jovanovski, Redden, and Brewer can rush up ice as well. Stay at home solid types are Foote, Regehr. I'm assuming Bouwmeester and Hannan wont get much ice time.

We still have the Norris Trophy winner, but losing Pronger and Blake made us lose two Norris Trophy winning defensemen. Is anyone worried now? We'll still win I believe, but there isnt that much experience outside of 3 of our guys. You need quality d-men to win the tourny. In 1996 Bourque and MacInnis didnt play and our defence was woeful. In 1996 our best defenceman was Paul Coffey who had seen better years. Its still better now, but what concerns does this bring now?

Click to read more...

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Let me save all of us a bunch of trouble by proclaiming:

1) Canada has the best defense (on paper).
2) Canada has the best forwards (on paper).
3) Canada has the best goaltending (on paper).
4) Canada has the best team (on paper).
5) Canada has the most depth.

There's no doubt that, on paper, Canada should be the odds on favorite to win the World Cup. However, several other countries possess enough across the board to win, and anything can happen in a two week tournament. Carry on!

 

[Lionel Hutz]

Let me save all of us a bunch of trouble by proclaiming:

1) Canada has the best defense (on paper).
2) Canada has the best forwards (on paper).
3) Canada has the best goaltending (on paper).
4) Canada has the best team (on paper).
5) Canada has the most depth.

There's no doubt that, on paper, Canada should be the odds on favorite to win the World Cup. However, several other countries possess enough across the board to win, and anything can happen in a two week tournament. Carry on!

True on all counts.

There is enough parity among the top hockey nations that on any given day, any given country may bring the best game, and win the given day. Should be very entertaining.

Now keep the bragging in. Any team in this tournament, could win (except maybe Russia who has had so many cornerstones decline).

 

[arrbez]

as Rabid Ranger said, Canada still has the best D because of depth. there's not nearly as big a dropoff from 1-10 top canadian defensemen as there would be with the other countries

and as he also said, it's all on paper at this point

 

[McThome]

THe Swedes defense is starting to look awefully comparable though, now!

 

[Rabid Ranger]

THe Swedes defense is starting to look awefully comparable though, now!

I don't get the paranoia being expressed about Sweden's defense. Yes, it has some nice top-end talent, but I don't think it's anything that people should gush over.

 

[Epsilon]

I don't get the paranoia being expressed about Sweden's defense. Yes, it has some nice top-end talent, but I don't think it's anything that people should gush over.

When you line up the best defenseman in the NHL, four other guys who are number 1s on their teams (and only one of those, Tarnstrom, plays for a junk team), and some decent depth players, there is plenty to like. Not to mention all the top guys have played together for a while and are familiar with the system defense they use.

 

[Jovo Cop]

Not too sound ignorant but other than Lidstrom and Ohlund ..what other top D-men do the swedes have ????
I think it might be a good thing that some of the young blood get a shot ..i think Canadas biggest problem at times is we go with guys too long .I would of love to of seen Nash on this team ..hes a pure goal scorer something we seem to frown on in our players .
How many high scoring juniors dont get a sniff because they dont know how to backcheck????I think its hurt us in the last number of World juniors where guys like Spezza and Crosby hardly saw any ice .
I give the russians credit ..they play their stallions and they are winning Junior Gold .The American Gold was a what it was ..a fluke .If not for Fleury wed be the Golden boys .

 

[Rabid Ranger]

When you line up the best defenseman in the NHL, four other guys who are number 1s on their teams (and only one of those, Tarnstrom, plays for a junk team), and some decent depth players, there is plenty to like. Not to mention all the top guys have played together for a while and are familiar with the system defense they use.

Like I said, I have no problem with the top four. Very solid, and Lidstrom is arguably the best defenseman in the league. However, the rest of the group is suspect, and as for Tarnstrom, being a number one on Pittsburgh equals a number three elsewhere. The chemistry factor is valid, but that's a quality other teams, such as the United States, possess as well.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Not too sound ignorant but other than Lidstrom and Ohlund ..what other top D-men do the swedes have ????
I think it might be a good thing that some of the young blood get a shot ..i think Canadas biggest problem at times is we go with guys too long .I would of love to of seen Nash on this team ..hes a pure goal scorer something we seem to frown on in our players .
How many high scoring juniors dont get a sniff because they dont know how to backcheck????I think its hurt us in the last number of World juniors where guys like Spezza and Crosby hardly saw any ice .
I give the russians credit ..they play their stallions and they are winning Junior Gold .The American Gold was a what it was ..a fluke .If not for Fleury wed be the Golden boys .

1) Kim Johnsson and Mattias Norstrom are both very good defenseman, and would be number "1" on several teams.

2) The U.S. win at the WJC's this year wasn't a fluke, and it's ignorant to suggest that was the case. Fluery played a part in the U.S. victory, but the U.S. was considered a pre-tournament favorite, and played up to that level.

 

[Epsilon]

Not too sound ignorant but other than Lidstrom and Ohlund ..what other top D-men do the swedes have ????
I think it might be a good thing that some of the young blood get a shot ..i think Canadas biggest problem at times is we go with guys too long .I would of love to of seen Nash on this team ..hes a pure goal scorer something we seem to frown on in our players .
How many high scoring juniors dont get a sniff because they dont know how to backcheck????I think its hurt us in the last number of World juniors where guys like Spezza and Crosby hardly saw any ice .
I give the russians credit ..they play their stallions and they are winning Junior Gold .The American Gold was a what it was ..a fluke .If not for Fleury wed be the Golden boys .

Johnsson (Philadelphia) and Norstrom (Los Angeles) are #1s on their respective teams.

As for putting on young guys "just because", the USA is learning why that isn't such a great idea right now, over in Athens. James, Anthony, and Wade were put on the basketball team because they will sell jerseys and provide hype, but Redd, Miller, and Battier would have been much better selections, even if they arn't as sexy. Experience counts for a lot, and the World Cup isn't the place for Canada to be trotting out guys just to show them off. Let them get NHL experience and then make the team ready to contribute, instead of having to learn as they go.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Johnsson (Philadelphia) and Norstrom (Los Angeles) are #1s on their respective teams.

As for putting on young guys "just because", the USA is learning why that isn't such a great idea right now, over in Athens. James, Anthony, and Wade were put on the basketball team because they will sell jerseys and provide hype, but Redd, Miller, and Battier would have been much better selections, even if they arn't as sexy. Experience counts for a lot, and the World Cup isn't the place for Canada to be trotting out guys just to show them off. Let them get NHL experience and then make the team ready to contribute, instead of having to learn as they go.

That seems to be the minority opinion around here. The U.S. has gotten raked over the coals by many for bringing a veteran roster to this tournament.

 

[Epsilon]

That seems to be the minority opinion around here. The U.S. has gotten raked over the coals by many for bringing a veteran roster to this tournament.

Yeah well, look where "here" is. I for one think Russia is smart by replacing their dropouts with experienced international vets like Kovalenko instead of still-growing 18 year old kids like Malkin.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Yeah well, look where "here" is. I for one think Russia is smart by replacing their dropouts with experienced international vets like Kovalenko instead of still-growing 18 year old kids like Malkin.

ITA. I actually think Russia has a better "team" now than when their roster was orginally named.

 

[arrbez]

2) The U.S. win at the WJC's this year wasn't a fluke, and it's ignorant to suggest that was the case. Fluery played a part in the U.S. victory, but the U.S. was considered a pre-tournament favorite, and played up to that level.

the WJC wasn't a fluke at all. it really could have gone either way if fleury had played well, but he didnt and the more experienced american team won. but, c'est la vie, if i'm not mistaken Canada should be the strong favourite for next year

but back on topic, sweden does have good D-men throughout the lineup, but i'd take Canada's over them still. before schneider was replaced with the uncredible hulk, i would have taken the american D over them as well. physical presence counts for a lot in this tournament IMO, which is obviously a north american strength

 

[Reilly311]

The American Gold was a what it was ..a fluke .If not for Fleury wed be the Golden boys .

Oh right, because Canada wins when the game ends 3-3.... :lol

 

[hockeyfan125]

Hmm

Lidstrom vs. Niedermayer
Ohlund vs. Jovanovski
Norstrom vs. Foote
Tarnstrom vs. Brewer
Johnsson vs. Redden

I'd say its a pretty comparable top five.

 

[arrbez]

Hmm

Lidstrom vs. Niedermayer
Ohlund vs. Jovanovski
Norstrom vs. Foote
Tarnstrom vs. Brewer
Johnsson vs. Redden

I'd say its a pretty comparable top five.

Lidstrom + Ohlund VS. Niedermayer + Foote

This matchup could be a wash on both fronts. IMO Lidstrom isn't the second coming of Bobby Orr that many people make him out to be. Top 5 in the world for sure, but I'm not sure if he's so much better than Niedermayer, or even better at all anymore (niedermayer was absolutely incredible all year, and deservingly got the Norris). Ohlund - Foote is a tough one to guage. I think Foote is the best player in the league from a purely defensive standpoint, but Ohlund definitly has more offensive upside, and is also great defensively. If I had to give an edge, it would be to Sweden, but it's a tiny tiny one

Norstrom + Johnsson VS. Jovanovski + Redden

To me, this is where Canada's defense takes over. Both Jovanovski and Norstrom are physical guys. Jovo gets caught gambling sometimes, but his size, skating ability, and offensive talent put him well ahead of Norstrom. Redden is the most underrated defenseman in the league IMO. He almost never panicks, is smooth, consistant, has a great shot, and is a clear step above Johnsson because of his ability to withstand the physical game. I honestly can't see Johnsson stacking up well against a big strong player like Thornton, Jagr or Tkachuk. I think he'd be manhandled in the corner

Tarnstrom + Ragnarsson VS. Brewer + Regehr

Ragnarsson and Regehr are both similar to me because they're both relied on to be stay at home specialists. Niether has much in the way of offense, although Regehr does have a pretty good shot. He's also more physical and punnishing as well. Tarnstrom has way better offensive talents than Brewer, but he's a definite weak link without the puck on this Swedish D. Brewer is much better defensively (which is simply average), and has a great phyisical presense when he isn't over-commiting


So that's my breakdown of possible Defense pairs. After the first pair, Canada is clearly the better squad

 

[Jovo Cop]

Oh right, because Canada wins when the game ends 3-3.... :lol

How do you get 3-3 ..the Osullivan goal was a great goal that probably no one stops ..thats 3-2 ..the kesler goal and the winning goal were terrible that should never of went in ..thus 3-2 canada and Gold .

To take it back even further i thought Fleury choked the previous year also in the gold medal game .

The reason i said fluke win was because how moldy those two goals were ..definite FROMAGE on Fleurys part .However that is hockey but i am not convinced that if Canada played the US in a best of 7 that the US would of won .

 

[Lionel Hutz]

Hmm

Lidstrom vs. Niedermayer
Ohlund vs. Jovanovski
Norstrom vs. Foote
Tarnstrom vs. Brewer
Johnsson vs. Redden

I'd say its a pretty comparable top five.

Speaking as a Pens fan, I love Tarnstrom, but he is a big defensive liability, put aside that he plays for the Pens and he is still a liability.

IMO, Canada's D does not have that type of liability.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I definately don't think they would have won in a seven games series.All tournament long i heard how the U.S was the big favourite in that tournament with all their returning players but once the games got under way it was clear Canada had the strongest team.I was kinda surprised,the U.S basically had one good line and three effective defensemen,Canada had four strong lines and a dandy defense corp.Ya gotta give credit to the U.S team for gutting that win out but Canada had no-one but themselves to blame for letting that one slip away,the game was theirs to lose and they found a way to lose it.For me it was a lack of confidence in Fleury that did them in,they had no confidence in the guy and played scared because of it in the final period which nine times out of ten leads to disaster and it did there.I think it was Durochers only real bad move the whole tournament not facing reality that Fleury just was'nt sharp for these games and it was time to go with another keeper.To me, that Canadian team would beat that U.S squad 7 or 8 times out of ten.It was the first junior championship win for the U.S but i think i've seen lots of teams the U.S have sent over that were better than that team but they've got the hardware so what can i say?

Leading up to the final game it was reported that all the fans at the game were saying Canada was going to smoke the U.S as people felt the initial hype surrounding the U.S team was over-rated and that the best hockey being played in the tourney was by Canada.For two periods those fans were dead on.Then came the melt down. I reallt liked the fact the U.S did'nt give up in that game and showed a lot of fortitude but in my opinion Canada had a stronger team and good goaltending would have assured us victory. Oh well, thats hockey.Fleury played awful last year,too bad. I may get a lot of flack for this by U.S fans but it's just the way i saw the games.

You know what I find hilarious? The fact that a Canadian poster is whining about Canada's loss in the gold medal game of the WJC's in a thread about Canada's defense at the World Cup, two totally unrelated events. Can't we just move on?

 

[arrbez]

*cough cough* so yeah, how about defense eh...

 

[Lionel Hutz]

cough cough, still looks ok but with losing blake and Pronger tough to say it's the best in the tournament,we'll soon find out.

Why don't you take it to PM, or better yet accept that one of you is Canadian and one is American, and you will never agree; and its probably not worth debating off topic in every thread until one or both of you get banned?

 

[ZDogg]

Speaking as a Pens fan, I love Tarnstrom, but he is a big defensive liability, put aside that he plays for the Pens and he is still a liability.

IMO, Canada's D does not have that type of liability.

Jovanovski has some defensive issues... but as long as he doesn't try to over achieve and park infront of the net like he doesd on the Canucks I think we should be fine. Also, Regehr is alot better than many people give him credit for, his size and speed will be a definite asset with Blake and Pronger out.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

why don't we just concentrate on talking hockey and be able to give our opinions whether you or anyone else really likes it or not.i don't see why we would get banned for most of that stuff.i've seen a lot worse on these boards thats for sure.By the way, what do you think of our defense? i just saw us taking flack for our conversations(which in all honesty is our business right?)Your views on the defense would be more interesting for me.thanks

Um, I gave my opinion on Canada's defence, a couple of times in this thread, you're hijacking the thread and arguing about Canada's performance in the WJHC b/c the other thread got closed. That is not the topic of this thread.

So, if you want to discuss Canada's defence, this is the place. If you wish to discuss the WJHC, maybe you should take it outside (pun intended).