Hahaha yeah right...
Would they have been better? Most likely but there's no reason to think that the Swedes would have done any better than a non-depleted US team which despite the score wasn't close.
GDT: Gold Medal Game • Feb. 23 • Sweden vs. Canada • Part IV
- Thread starter Frederick Stanley
- Start date
- Status
Would they have been better? Most likely but there's no reason to think that the Swedes would have done any better than a non-depleted US team which despite the score wasn't close.
Most likely Sweden would have been not only better with H. Sedin and Zetterberg but relativity better the opposition. That is because Sweden does not really have much in depth behind theses two centres while for example Canada got heaps of elite Centres.
So does who think it will not matter in a positive way for Sweden with injuries being void are actually bashing for example Canada's depth and they seldom mean to do that as many of those posters (a small percentage of the Canadian posters) are the most rah-rah Canadian posters.
RED ARMY EAST
Registered User
Sweden
If those guys play, the score doesn't change. There was no breaking through that brck wall, just ask Karlsson!
Hahaha yeah right...
If those guys play, the score doesn't change. There was no breaking through that brck wall, just ask Karlsson!
Well there was a lose puck fluttering behind Price before Canada scored. That one could as easily gone in as staying outside - no one knew where it were. The historiography of this game seems to be very much that of the third period which Canada won 4 vs 13 shots (as opposed of the the other two periods which Canada won with measly 23 vs 20). Once can of course discuss quality of shots too, which Canada had more of. but as my first sentence suggest Sweden was just some bad luck away from the leading goal.
I think it is safe to say that Zetterberg and H.Sedin matters more than the replacements. I mean it is really not up for discussion. Canada won, congratulations (as I have posted so many times to fend of defensive/aggressive Canadian posters) but it would have felt much better to been defeated with the best players on ice than as it was now. Anyway, it is what it is.
Last edited:
Those young silly people thinking one game determines all outcomes should put there skill into use and play hockey instead. Maybe that would make canadian juniors win a medal this decay.
Those young silly people thinking one game determines all outcomes should put there skill into use and play hockey instead. Maybe that would make canadian juniors win a medal this decay.
That or if Canada's best u20 players like mackinnon etc went to the wjc would also help.
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
Those young silly people thinking one game determines all outcomes should put there skill into use and play hockey instead. Maybe that would make canadian juniors win a medal this decay.
They've won three. Two silvers (2010, 2011) and a bronze medal (2012). If you're going to chirp I would suggest you employ some semblance of accuracy.
You know, I think it flew over all of our heads that this is the 20th anniversary year of the 1994 Winter Olympic gold medal final between Sweden and Canada -- the game that spawned the iconic Forsberg shootout moment.
Those young silly people thinking one game determines all outcomes should put there skill into use and play hockey instead. Maybe that would make canadian juniors win a medal this decay.
Canada: 2014 Olympic Champion
Sweden: Not
Honest question for Swedish posters:
Do you trust Canadian refs to ref a fair game now? Or did you find the officiating lopsided?
Do you trust Canadian refs to ref a fair game now? Or did you find the officiating lopsided?
tape to tape
Registered User
- Nov 26, 2011
- 1,148
- 0
How is this question even relevant? Did Team Canada choose the ref, or did the IIHF?
You know, I think it flew over all of our heads that this is the 20th anniversary year of the 1994 Winter Olympic gold medal final between Sweden and Canada -- the game that spawned the iconic Forsberg shootout moment.
It was mentioned by numerous posters in earlier editions of this thread. It was played up on various social media networks. My two (at the time annoying, but now disheartened) swedish co-workers drove me up the wall with texts of forsberg with the gold...
Did you miss the discussion prior to the game? Swedish fans were going nuts over there being a Canadian ref in the finals.
It wasn't chosen by TC, but that wasn't the point.
tape to tape
Registered User
- Nov 26, 2011
- 1,148
- 0
They have no point, and that is the point. The ref was chosen by the IIHF. The game was played on an IIHF sized rink in Europe.
The officiating had as much to do with the outcome of this game as NASA did.
I have never questioned their professionalism and your post might thus not be directed towards me. Any game between states should be reffed by refs from a neutral country, nothing against Canada in particular. That is the way it is in other sports and it isn't really an outrageous proposal.
I agree, the ****storm that would of happened in Canada had it been Swedish refs would of been insane.
I still can't believe they allowed it to happen, no matter the outcome.
Who cares about the Swedish replacements? That is Sweden's problem. Stamkos and Tavares were big losses and are better players than any of the Swedish players who could not play last Sunday. Maybe if we had a healthy Stamkos on the first line instead of Kunitz (who missed great chances in a lot of the games) this tournament would have been a blowout for Canada. Everyone can play the "what if game". Sweden's replacements and lack of depth is not Canada's problems. Injuries happen. Canada was hurt a lot by injuries/no shows in the 1996 World Cup (Mario Lemieux, Bourque, Patrick Roy, Ron Francis, Al Macinnes, Kariya, etc.). Same with in 1998- when we had no Lemieux, Kariya and Sakic to count on in the shootout. Canada never complained and dealt with the outcome. Sweden got dominated and that is the way it is. Enjoy your Silver Medal and see you in 4 years- the next best on best tournament, which the WHC every Spring is not.
Swooosh....
Tedious answers. I basically replied to a post which said that it was impossible for Sweden to score and that Sweden's injuries mattered more for the team than Canada's. Then you get posts which really don't follow suit.
I took some steps to state (something which I don't really hold entirely true) that Sweden would be defeated anyway, and congratulated Canada once again so very properly (I also gave Canada the quality of shots, nice of me). Just do avoid these kinds of basal and predictable woodwork answers.
Sure I can give a proper replay then, congratulation to a win in a not the best vs best tournament. But it wasn't really that which I did state, but now we are at the basement of the discussion level - rah-rah.
Last edited:
Coog
Registered User
Are you still on about this? Canada won fair and square and it's not much to say about that. The Canadian refs did a good job. See you in four years, hopefully in the final.
azcanuck
Registered User
Canada's depth is a positive. Most of these countries produce a few elite players and cant afford an injury. Canada produces enough players so that our B and C squads would have won Olympic golds.
After every championship in every sport there is the usual litany of "what if's" like what if that puck that slid by Price actually went in? LOL.
Canada had the puck 9/10's of the time in all the games. And when the opposition had it Canada's huge mobile All-star defense munched those little swedish/american players up no problem.
Canada once again proved despite two MAJOR injuries to two of the best in the NHL that no country is even close to it in hockey. THREE GOALS ALLOWED IN THE TOURNAMENT!!!! WHOLLY CRAP ARE WE GREAT!!!
After every championship in every sport there is the usual litany of "what if's" like what if that puck that slid by Price actually went in? LOL.
Canada had the puck 9/10's of the time in all the games. And when the opposition had it Canada's huge mobile All-star defense munched those little swedish/american players up no problem.
Canada once again proved despite two MAJOR injuries to two of the best in the NHL that no country is even close to it in hockey. THREE GOALS ALLOWED IN THE TOURNAMENT!!!! WHOLLY CRAP ARE WE GREAT!!!
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: Atlantic Division Final: (1) Panthers vs. (2) Bruins- Latest: Aussie Bruin
-
