WJC: Everything Canada (goaltending, coaching, future)

[86Habs]

I agree that it does decide who has the best team.

It in no way decides which nation has the best depth.

But the winning team is the best team. The USA certainly had the best team this year from the goalie out. Very impressive squad, and made the Canadian team look weak by comparison.

But I would still take our best 500 junior players over the USA's or anyone else's.

The best player in the NBA for a few seasons was Canadian. But in terms of depth, I don't think our 50th best player would look very good against the 50 the best American player.

There's no way Bill Wellington was ever the best player in the NBA - he was just riding MJ's coat tails....

 

[Big Phil]

Sorry Big Phil, but your factually based comments are no match for Canada's recent fourth place at the WJC. For USA to surpass Canada for example, since that is the easiest comparison, they would need to basically double their NHL calibre players. At the elite player level, they would have to do more than double their production. It would be extremely difficult to do this in only 17 years. Other countries don't have the player numbers to take a legitimate shot at Canada. Anyone who thinks China is going to take over the spot should check out how they are doing in basketball, a sport which is actually quite popular in the country.

We played bad at the WJCs this year. I am disapointed with all of them except perhaps Nugent Hopkins. That being said, this team was littered with 1st round picks and future stars in the NHL. Ending up in 4th isn't going to change anything at all. You can't win them all and no one was ever scared for the future of Canadian hockey when we strung together 5 golds in a row on two non-consecutive occasions. Is this team a team with future AHL journeymen just because we didn't win? No. Look at the 1998 team, Canada's worst finish. Luongo, Lecavalier, Tanguay, Brewer, Van Ryn, Garon, Dumont, Ference, Cooke, Malhotra and Sarich are players on that team who had some impact in the NHL. You still have a couple of potential future HHOFers on that list. This team wasn't terrible, they just were the team that mailed it in after Canada won 5 in a row and after an overtime quarterfinal loss.

Even this 2013 version will have some great players come from it. RNH, possibly MacKinnon, Drouin, Huberdeau, Scheifele, Strome, etc. The team blew it but it isn't going to stop the droves of Canadians that enter the NHL year after year. I don't see any country coming close to overtaking this.

Lastly, Canada didn't win Gold in the WJC from 1998-'04. But they have a slew of players who are potential HHOFers and these are the losing teams:

Luongo, Lecavalier, Spezza, Heatley, B. Richards, Nash (longshot), Fleury, Getzlaf, Carter, M. Richards, Phaneuf (longshot).

I don't think the rest of the countries combined are any better than that, so despite the anger I have over the loss, we don't have to call Walter Cronkite here, we'll be fine.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The population arguments just don't hold water. I mean, shouldn't Russia have burried the likes of Canda, Sweden, Finland, Czechs, and Slovaks a long time ago due to their much greater population?

Canada has been producing the majority of elite players since the late 1800's, something quite drastic would have to occur in the near future for this to suddenly no longer be the case by 2030.

It's funny too that if Canada doesn't win a tournament, their place as the dominant hockey nation is all of a sudden called into question. Yet no other single country has had anywhere near the international success over the last decade. It's not Canada vs the World. If Canada is no longer the best, there needs to be an argument that another country is, not that the rest of the world combined is better.

The mentality in here seems to be that if Canada were to produce less than 50% of the NHL it would be like "Ha, there you have it, Canada is no longer #1!". But unless another country were to reach 50% (extraordinarily unlikely by 2030), why would it mean Canada was no longer the best? Again, it's not Canada vs the World.

 

[mahagga73]

wow. You got to be kidding right? Did that poster really said only a few players from the other junior teams would make Canada, the team that went home with no medal. ROTFLMAO

 

[86Habs]

wow. You got to be kidding right?

Yeah, yeah, of course. Forgot the

 

[mahagga73]

I am not sure why all the hate.

All things being equal, everyone on here from every nation should easily be able to agree that on any given year, Canada is in a position to compete for the gold medal.

The fact that they have so epically failed in the last few years (and especially the last two) means that there is something wrong that needs fixing.

This does not detract from the great tournaments or preparation that other teams are doing. In fact, it suggests Canada is NOT matching other nations with those aspects right now.

Some of you guys just come on here looking for trouble, honestly.

Thats the rub, just because Canada hasn't won gold for a few years does not mean they are doing anything wrong. It means the other teams like Sweden, Russia, USA are getting their acts in line with Canada. Some of the better sports teams never win anything due to luck, circumstance, whatever. They just haven't been good enough in the short tourney to take it lately, don't mean anything else.It's the hubris and gall to think that just because you are not winning every year there must be something wrong , that irks people to an extreme.

 

[LeftBackLegend]

I have a lot of time for this chap. Has a good head on his shoulders.

 

[PumpkinBombX]

It's probably been said but it was a lack if secondary scoring. Nuge factored in on 15/26 of Canada's total goals and 9/11 not including the Slovakia/Germany. If you weren't playing with rnh you weren't scoring.

 

[crunchyblack*]

Bad article. Once again a lot of talk about this mystical under performing, laying and egg, etc.

No mention of even a possibility of other countries having better hockey teams.

Nope, never, Canada always beats itself, under performs, selects the wrong players, is missing players, has a worse selection procedure than USA yada yada yada.

Excuses galore.

You seem to be forgetting that Canada beat Russia and the US in this tournament. They came into the Semi's unprepared for whatever reason, having a couple days off, getting cocky, coaching, who knows; but the weren't ready. They lost the bronze to Russia in a game that could have gone either way. Sure, Canada might not have been the best team in this tournament, but nothing Bob says in this article is untrue or can be categorized as an excuse.

The fact of the matter is that Canada wasn't good enough in this tournament when it mattered, none of their top players even showed up to the semi final game against the US. Is this because they picked the wrong players to play in the tourney, who knows, but if Bob thinks so, I'll take his word for it because he knows a **** ton more about Hockey and Junior hockey than me or any of the idiots above saying he's making excuses.

 

[crunchyblack*]

They dont even have the best players now. By 2030 most of the league will be American.

Care to expand on this?

 

[Rob]

I wouldn't be surprised if the US is the clear cut number one in a few years time. I even have them ahead of Russia right now.

 

[mikeo1]

I think it's quite interesting to see a canadian journalist try to reason for the loss. It's sort of common knowledge that canadians expect to win, for every loss there's an excuse from the outside. There's always something wrong with someone else winning. It becomes clear when Mckenzie goes over the last few years winners.

In 2010 and 2013 the US won, but they finished 7th in 2012.
In 2011 Russia won, but it was due to a "miracle comeback" in the 3rd.
In 2012 Sweden won, but it was their first win since 1981.

It's never that the other teams simply were better, there's always a but to diminish their achievement. Sort of like exceptions that confirm the rule of Canadian supremacy.

Though now there seems to be a slight shift in this mentality, albeit very minor. Now it's basically boiled down to the fact that Canada didn't utilize the player selection process efficiently enough. Kind of like: Canada lost, but if we just chose our coaches and players more carefully we would win. It's a bit more introverted reasoning rather than looking at what miracles the other teams pulled off. But still no true acknowledgement of defeat.

I think at some point people just need to accept the fact that Canada lost by being beaten by a better team, and no amount of retro-fitting or reorganizing will change that. I guess that kind of mentality comes with the territory as the "big daddy" of hockey in seasons passed.

Here in Sweden our overall mentality of our teams effort this year is basically:
"We came 2nd this year by being beaten by a superior team. We put in a valiant effort, but the opposition was simply better". You could never even begin to imagine those kinds of words being uttered by a Canadian. I think that's where the biggest gripe against Hockey Canada resides.

He had a "but" for Canada's win in 2009 too, but I guess its easy to lose track of his point (that success and blame in this tournament is often misattributed) when all you're concerned about is furthering your agenda.

And please, tell us more about how graceful and modest the Swedish people are.

 

[Atomos2]

Jones, Trouba, McCabe, Murphy and Gibson would all make Team Canada pretty easily. I don't know how you could watch the Tournament and argue against that. Take out Murphy, Rielly, Oullett, Reinhart and Subban.

and Hamilton.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

did anyone see the handshake line after the canada/russia bronze medal game. i didn't see it on any of the tsn broadcasts. if you have it recorded, can you upload it?

 

[DyerMaker66*]

I don't think there were too many people who expected Puempel to even be a candidate for this team. I got the impression from quick-reading the BM article that he was more suggesting it would have helped to carry a few extra players a little longer as part of the selection process, as a few teams did, rather than narrow down quickly from the selection camp wrap-up, as the standing tradition/policy is. Not that there was really any issue with the players chosen specifically. Just it would have given more flexibility, for example in the case of the suspension, or with injuries, without having to fly somebody new in who had already been "cut" (see McNeil vs. Hudon). Not as an issue for criticizing Canada's past process either, just as a hint at something to look forward in evolving the process for the future.

Mostly the BM article just pointed out the fallacies of those criticizing/hindsighting the various fall-guys in the 4th place finish. I didn't read at all that he was saying anything negative against any aspect of this team, its selection, coaching, players, or about any other teams in the tournament. Just pointing out that Team Canada fans are basically silly to overreact in any of the standard ways we've already seen. Politely. We *are* assclowns as WJC Team Canada fans, collectively, generally, basically.

I agree with the bolded.

I personally would've selected Morrow and Puempel (and I believe I stated such in a previous thread). Aside from that, I also felt that the coaching was lacking: The one right move they made was to the first line. Other moves I completely disagreed with. Spott seems like your typical NFL coach, with his "it'll work eventually!" mindset, rather than adapting to the situation.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

It's a fair article. I do put more blame on Spott that he does because I felt he was lacking in key areas, at least as far as the tourney was concerned, but I do agree with the sentiment.

Oh, and to the european posters who ***** about the article, let's make one thing clear: it was not that we lost and didn't medal that made me take notice: it was the fact that come medal time, Canada looked like absolute garbage. The Americans had a great team, but you can't tell me that they are 5-1 better than us. They may have won because they were the better team, in the overall meaning of the word, but for them to beat ANY powerhouse by that much suggests the opposing team underperformed badly. Canada has not lost to a team like that in god knows when, in a game where they looked closer to Latvia than Russia. It was a fair loss, but the manner in which the players played was concerning.

That's my point of view: Not that they would've automatically won, but they'd have looked far better. It was a result of his system more than of the players.

 

[Sentinel]

Canada's goaltending and coaching sucked. What else is there to discuss? I don't think any other country is obnoxious enough to claim they had better forwards/defense.

Don't know what tourney were you watching. Russia had better forwards (they beat Canada 5-on-5 in both games) and US had a MUCH better defense.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Did you read the second part of my post? A guy like McCabe probably wouldn't have even been in Canadian camp, and Murphy would have been akin to Derrick Pouliot or Ryan Sproul. Canada realistically only had two spots open and if Jones and Trouba were Canadian, it's possible only one of them made the team.

Hindsight is 20-20, McCabe and Murphy had great tournements but there's no chance they would have made the Canadian team if we ignore tournement performances.

I don't get how after the tournament anyone could still try to claim with a straight face that 5 or 6 of the top Junior aged Defensemen in North America are Canadian. Maybe you're not too familiar with NCAA hockey up in Canada which I understand but McCabe has been terrific all season.

Maybe you're talking about politics of selection and all and such but I think the USA Defensemen proved this tournament how legit they are. I don't care how high of draft picks guys like Rielly, Hamilton, and Reinhart were.. I'll take the American group any day.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's funny how sporadic Canada's Gold Medals come at this tournament. They win 5 in a row. They don't win for 7 straight years. They win another 5 in a row. Then they lose 4 in a row.

You'd think they'd win a year, lose a year like that but apparently Canada goes hard and either wins big or fails big.

 

[Atomos2]

I don't get how after the tournament anyone could still try to claim with a straight face that 5 or 6 of the top Junior aged Defensemen in North America are Canadian. Maybe you're not too familiar with NCAA hockey up in Canada which I understand but McCabe has been terrific all season.

Maybe you're talking about politics of selection and all and such but I think the USA Defensemen proved this tournament how legit they are. I don't care how high of draft picks guys like Rielly, Hamilton, and Reinhart were.. I'll take the American group any day.

It's amazing how a six game stretch on international ice can create such a definitive drastic change in mindset. I guess all those WJC scoring stars like Jerry D'amigo and Danny Krysto must feel like superstars to you.

 

[cloak]

It's funny how sporadic Canada's Gold Medals come at this tournament. They win 5 in a row. They don't win for 7 straight years. They win another 5 in a row. Then they lose 4 in a row.

You'd think they'd win a year, lose a year like that but apparently Canada goes hard and either wins big or fails big.

lol. 14 medals in a row. 5 gold in a row X2. this is the most consistent junior dominance you will see in your lifetime.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's amazing how a six game stretch on international ice can create such a definitive drastic change in mindset. I guess all those WJC scoring stars like Jerry D'amigo and Danny Krysto must feel like superstars to you.

How about Justin Pogge?

Rate all NA Junior-aged Defenseman for me. The Canadian Defense was awful in 4 out of 6 games (Germany, Slovakia, USA semifinal, Russia bronze medal game). Try to explain it away with random variance all you want. Others see that 2012 was called a weak draft all year and it was reflected by a lot of the Canadian players on D.

 

[WarriorofTime]

lol. 14 medals in a row. 5 gold in a row X2. this is the most consistent junior dominance you will see in your lifetime.

Except it hasn't been consistent. It's been sporadic. Win a bunch in a row, lose a bunch in a row. Bronze or Silver are failing for Canada since they are Gold Medal favorites every tournament. You would expect that they would alternate Gold-Silver-Gold-Bronze-Gold-Gold-No Medal-Gold or something like that but it's one big streak one way followed by one the other.

 

[Blind Gardien]

I don't get how after the tournament anyone could still try to claim with a straight face that 5 or 6 of the top Junior aged Defensemen in North America are Canadian.

I think there's a difference between evaluating the actual performance post- tournament and then trying to imagine how a pre-tournament camp would have gone. Obviously one team's D massively outperformed the other's in the actual tournament, and that would change everybody's perspective subsequently. But going in, based on evaluations over several years (which can partially be distilled into things like NHL draft positions), there is a different perspective. Hamilton was mediocre. Rielly and Reinhart weren't very useful. Murphy was mostly awful. But those are some high-end NHL draft picks there, and that status was not arrived at overnight, it would have been hard for players with lower status to displace them in a mini selection camp alone. It was hard for Frankie Corrado to do so too. Pre-tournament perspective is different than post-tournament.

Maybe you're talking about politics of selection and all and such but I think the USA Defensemen proved this tournament how legit they are. I don't care how high of draft picks guys like Rielly, Hamilton, and Reinhart were.. I'll take the American group any day.

And, would you take McCabe over Hamilton for your NHL team's prospect cupboard now? I'm not suggesting that's a ludicrous idea either, maybe you would. Just illustrating the perspective differences.

It's also interesting to me that Harrington and Wotherspoon were probably the most "stable" guys for Team Canada, the guys who really did their jobs IMHO, and have the lowest prospect profiles from the team Canada D as well. (Ouellet was also pretty "neutral/decent" in his performance, I thought). I don't think that means Hockey Canada should always prefer 2nd round picks over 1st round picks. More like it was "just one of those things", it just worked out like that in a 6-game mini-tournament for the specific individuals involved.

Heading into the tournament, I probably would only have taken Trouba (maybe Jones) from the US defense onto Team Canada too. Of course now, afterwards, I'd take the whole US group instead. I don't see how that's controversial or should surprise anybody. It doesn't necessarily reflect on how good the individuals are relative to eachother, or their prospect values.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think there's a difference between evaluating the actual performance post- tournament and then trying to imagine how a pre-tournament camp would have gone. Obviously one team's D massively outperformed the other's in the actual tournament, and that would change everybody's perspective subsequently. But going in, based on evaluations over several years (which can partially be distilled into things like NHL draft positions), there is a different perspective. Hamilton was mediocre. Rielly and Reinhart weren't very useful. Murphy was mostly awful. But those are some high-end NHL draft picks there, and that status was not arrived at overnight, it would have been hard for players with lower status to displace them in a mini selection camp alone. It was hard for Frankie Corrado to do so too. Pre-tournament perspective is different than post-tournament.


And, would you take McCabe over Hamilton for your NHL team's prospect cupboard now? I'm not suggesting that's a ludicrous idea either, maybe you would. Just illustrating the perspective differences.

It's also interesting to me that Harrington and Wotherspoon were probably the most "stable" guys for Team Canada, the guys who really did their jobs IMHO, and have the lowest prospect profiles from the team Canada D as well. (Ouellet was also pretty "neutral/decent" in his performance, I thought). I don't think that means Hockey Canada should always prefer 2nd round picks over 1st round picks. More like it was "just one of those things", it just worked out like that in a 6-game mini-tournament for the specific individuals involved.

Heading into the tournament, I probably would only have taken Trouba (maybe Jones) from the US defense onto Team Canada too. Of course now, afterwards, I'd take the whole US group instead. I don't see how that's controversial or should surprise anybody. It doesn't necessarily reflect on how good the individuals are relative to eachother, or their prospect values.

I wouldn't take McCabe over Hamilton. But then, you're comparing Canada's top Defenseman (granted he had a bad tournament but he still showed the skills offensively and defensively necessary to be a good NHL DMan) with the USA's third. I would take Seth Jones over Hamilton though. And a case could easily be made for Trouba. For some reason that seems ludicrous to people even though Trouba was drafted at the exact same spot as Hamilton and has been great at Michigan.. Some people are blinded by OHL pride however.

Back to McCabe, I would say at the present he is better than Rielly and Reinhart which is my point. Those guys might be better longterm.. after all, they are a year younger than McCabe. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rielly have a great tournament next year like Subban and Pietrangelo did after subpar 18 year old showings. Reinhart too if he's there (which might be tough since he'll be suspended the first three games).