WJC: Greatest Collapse or Greatest Comeback

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
It is BOTH the Greatest Collapse and comeback all into one. A collapse combined with a hungry and willing team.

I have a thread on the History board debating when a team in a championship game had a worse meltdown. This includes all sports. There is nothing remotely close to this in the Super Bowl. Nothing in the NBA. The Stanley Cup final clinching game never saw this. There were a couple meltdowns in the WJC gold medal games of the past but not quite at this level. The only thing comparable would be..........

the 1986 Red Sox. Coming one strike away from winning the World Series two different times while up by 2 runs only to let the Mets rack up a few singles, followed by a wild pitch and the "Buckner" incident.

The 2002 Giants, letting the Angels come back in a game seemingly in the bag for the Giants in Game 6. A 5-0 lead in the bottom of the 7th inning. That's criminal.

Nothing else in team sports approaches that in my mind. This collapse was the worst I have ever witnessed in a championship game - at least in hockey because the 1986 Red Sox - wow!

On the flip side it was still a wild comeback. Being down 3-0 in the 3rd period and winning the game not only not needing overtime but winning by 2 goals.

This comeback is very similar to the Monday Night Miracle in 1986 (Flames vs. Blues) except it did not decide the Cup.
 

Evil Romano

Registered User
Jan 3, 2011
65
0
Bassano Vicenza
While it was a great comeback, it only occurred because of the collapse.

I find this argument rather insignificant and mostly relative. I would assume, then, that this goes out to every team who has a great comeback? Or is it only a collective "collapse" when it happens to Canada? IMO, this was a great comeback. Enough said. I don't care if the Canadians "stopped playing" - the Russians were the better team.

And they have proven themselves to be able to get back in the game. Dangerously.
 

Pyke*

Guest
I find this argument rather insignificant and mostly relative. I would assume, then, that this goes out to every team who has a great comeback? Or is it only a collective "collapse" when it happens to Canada? IMO, this was a great comeback. Enough said. I don't care if the Canadians "stopped playing" - the Russians were the better team.

And they have proven themselves to be able to get back in the game. Dangerously.

The Russians were the better team for the last 15 minutes; and that was enough.
 

Evil Romano

Registered User
Jan 3, 2011
65
0
Bassano Vicenza
The Russians were the better team for the last 15 minutes; and that was enough.

That's hockey. You should know - how many times haven't the Canadians played a team good enough to win, but in the end the other team "collapses" and you win nonetheless; due to your eager and will to win? Your games against the Americans are usually the same way, more or less.
 

Pyke*

Guest
That's hockey. You should know - how many times haven't the Canadians played a team good enough to win, but in the end the other team "collapses" and you win nonetheless; due to your eager and will to win? Your games against the Americans are usually the same way, more or less.

Yeah I'm not sure that example is as fair as you think it is.

I'm not entirely against your premise, but ultimately Canada fell apart for some reason (fear, nerves, whatever) and Russia capitalized. While I give full marks for Russia being able to pick up on the chance, I don't think Russia - for all their skill - would have been able to come back had Canada had some decent goaltending; the game would not have been 3-2 at the 17:00 minute mark and it would have been a very different game.

I realize (based on several of your posts) you're strongly on one side of this issue - so I don't expect you to agree, but meh. Just my point of view.
 

Evil Romano

Registered User
Jan 3, 2011
65
0
Bassano Vicenza
Yeah I'm not sure that example is as fair as you think it is.

I'm not entirely against your premise, but ultimately Canada fell apart for some reason (fear, nerves, whatever) and Russia capitalized. While I give full marks for Russia being able to pick up on the chance, I don't think Russia - for all their skill - would have been able to come back had Canada had some decent goaltending; the game would not have been 3-2 at the 17:00 minute mark and it would have been a very different game.

I realize (based on several of your posts) you're strongly on one side of this issue - so I don't expect you to agree, but meh. Just my point of view.

Blaming the goaltender is not really an original excuse, but okay. That argument can be used in every game, and for every team. "If Canada hadn't gotten that first goal..." Quick goals are always a problem, not only on the Canadian goaltender - it changes the whole game. Plus, maybe the Russians want to blame their not so highly skilled goalie last year for their loss when you won the shootout...

And I do find that as a fair example. You can't possibly mean that whenever you lose, it is a "collective collapse" and that's it. Many teams have "stopped playing hockey" the last 15 minutes of a game, it is not something new. The situation gets reversed. It happens. Your burden-of-proof is that you would have won if Russia hadn't beat your goalie with those two quick goals right into the third period. I can say the same about your game against the Americans - or your 6-3 win against the Russians! You can always find excuses, wherever you look.

And while your at it, why don't you blame your defense? Or Cameron?
 

hammerwielder

Registered User
Jan 6, 2008
205
0
Canada
Epic collapse.

This was completely different from Russia's two previous "comeback" games. They had needed only two late in the third to send the Finland game to overtime, where it was anybody's game. The one-goal deficit against Sweden was nothing especially when Sweden had gone ahead only a minute before and in addition the Russians had earlier blown their own 2-0 lead.

Five goals in the last 15 minutes after being shut out 3-0 after the first 45 minutes is obviously completely different, indeed unprecedented. While it may look like a comeback on paper and on the score sheet its nothing but a total collapse when viewed at ice level as it can only happen if there is a defensive/offensive/psychological implosion of epic proportions.

It's not like these teams weren't familiar with each other and the Russians unleashed some sort of unknown offensive weapon. To the contrary these teams or relatively close variations thereof had played each other for 23 previous periods during the past two months and nothing remotely resembling this type of event had happened on either side. Maybe it was pressure after the two quick goals; the Canadians had been a good third-period team all tournament and seemed stunned by the turn of events. Whatever the case, it seemed as though they simply left the ice or stood in place and let the Russians freewheel like never before. The Canadians themselves were at a loss to describe what had happened. They were a better team than they showed and the players will have to face the music for a long time -- hello Bill Buckner -- but that's the way it is when 15 first-rounders collectively spit the dummy.
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Oh, listen to yourself.

This was completely different from Russia's two previous "comeback" games. They had needed only two late in the third to send the Finland game to overtime

Against Canada they only needed three, and they had the whole period to do this.

The one-goal deficit against Sweden was nothing

:shakehead

Canada was good in third periods cause they weren't really tested. Except by Swedes, and we know how that played out. Russia has totally overrun them in the third.

They were a better team than they showed.

Every losing team around the world has used this argument. Ever.

This was a comeback. Yes, Canada ran out of gas, but Russia proved FOR THREE TIMES IN A ROW that they are the KOMEBACK KINGS.
 

Evil Romano

Registered User
Jan 3, 2011
65
0
Bassano Vicenza
It's not like these teams weren't familiar with each other and the Russians unleashed some sort of unknown offensive weapon. To the contrary these teams or relatively close variations thereof had played each other for 23 previous periods during the past two months and nothing remotely resembling this type of event had happened on either side. Maybe it was pressure after the two quick goals; the Canadians had been a good third-period team all tournament and seemed stunned by the turn of events. Whatever the case, it seemed as though they simply left the ice or stood in place and let the Russians freewheel like never before. The Canadians themselves were at a loss to describe what had happened. They were a better team than they showed and the players will have to face the music for a long time -- hello Bill Buckner -- but that's the way it is when 15 first-rounders collectively spit the dummy.

I beg to differ. I think the Russians speed, their team spirit, the fact that they got an ultimatum - fight or be fought - led them to his victory; and slowly (or quickly :D) showed the Canadians who was more eager to bring home the trophy - not the Canadian "collapse" itself. The collapse was simply a result of the Russians well-played hockey and fighting spirit. They showed their will to win the second the puck touched the ice. The Russians are individually awesomely skilled and talented - something they most likely were told to display as a team. And they did. And the Canadians couldn't handle it.

Throughout the tournament, the Russians only played individually, and not as a team. Now they showed the Canadians what real "Russian Hockey" is really about - to fight until the fat Canadian lady cries.

You simply were not expecting the Russians to play hockey, and look where it got you.
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Here's another argument against "collapse." Insert Norway for Russia. Can you see Canadians "collapsing" and Norway scoring five times? Me neither. Russia made it happen. Shock and awe, baby.
 

Alberta tough

Registered User
Sep 3, 2008
2,668
202
Still on top!
Here's another argument against "collapse." Insert Norway for Russia. Can you see Canadians "collapsing" and Norway scoring five times? Me neither. Russia made it happen. Shock and awe, baby.

Another way to look at it is did Russia collapse in the Olympics or was Canada just way better?
 

MontrealHabitant

Registered User
Mar 9, 2008
1,994
14
Montreal
I beg to differ. I think the Russians speed, their team spirit, the fact that they got an ultimatum - fight or be fought - led them to his victory; and slowly (or quickly :D) showed the Canadians who was more eager to bring home the trophy - not the Canadian "collapse" itself. The collapse was simply a result of the Russians well-played hockey and fighting spirit. They showed their will to win the second the puck touched the ice. The Russians are individually awesomely skilled and talented - something they most likely were told to display as a team. And they did. And the Canadians couldn't handle it.

Throughout the tournament, the Russians only played individually, and not as a team. Now they showed the Canadians what real "Russian Hockey" is really about - to fight until the fat Canadian lady cries.

You simply were not expecting the Russians to play hockey, and look where it got you.

The whole "OMG Russia deserves FULL credit" argument doesn't work - we all understand that Russia we're willing to put up a fight and they did, this isn't the problem.

Let me repeat : You can not justify giving 5 goals in the 3rd period of the gold medal game when you are up by 3 and that simply goes for ANY TEAMS at a high level, it doesn't matter if its Sweden, USA, Russia, Canada, Finland etc.

It's an epic collapse, it just made history and so did the canadian kids - for bad reasons.
 

Kenobody

Registered User
Aug 17, 2007
389
12
43.88°N 79.3°W
Just curious how the esteemed HF posters see the Gold medal game.

The Greatest Collapse in Junior Hockey
or
The Greatest Comeback in Junior Hockey.

1991 WJC: Finland was beating USSR 4-0 in the third period when the Soviets stormed back and scored 5 goals to lead 5-4 with under 30 seconds left.....but then Finland scored to tie the game 5-5.
 

OneMoreAstronaut

Reduce chainsaw size
May 3, 2003
5,495
5
I find this argument rather insignificant and mostly relative. I would assume, then, that this goes out to every team who has a great comeback? Or is it only a collective "collapse" when it happens to Canada? IMO, this was a great comeback. Enough said. I don't care if the Canadians "stopped playing" - the Russians were the better team.

You said it yourself, your argument relies on an incorrect assumption. To your question: Not at all. If the winning team begins to play awfully after playing strongly, then they've collapsed. Canada played awfully in the 3rd period. I don't deny that Russia was the better team in the 3rd - however, that fact is entirely contingent on the fact that Canada collapsed. If both teams had simply played great in that period, then the game may not have ended up as it did - it could have, but the collapse ensured it.

The collapse paved the way for the comeback. Without it, the comeback may not have been possible.
 
Last edited:

Bardof425*

Guest
People need to stop blaming individuals for this collapse. It takes a village to choke this badly; up 3 in the gold medal game.
 

NewEnglandSportsFan*

Guest
they are both the same thing. However, being positive as always, it was a sweet comeback if you must pick one.
 

Evil Romano

Registered User
Jan 3, 2011
65
0
Bassano Vicenza
The whole "OMG Russia deserves FULL credit" argument doesn't work - we all understand that Russia we're willing to put up a fight and they did, this isn't the problem.

Let me repeat : You can not justify giving 5 goals in the 3rd period of the gold medal game when you are up by 3 and that simply goes for ANY TEAMS at a high level, it doesn't matter if its Sweden, USA, Russia, Canada, Finland etc.

It's an epic collapse, it just made history and so did the canadian kids - for bad reasons.

And that's not my point. You are desperately trying to "justify" your loss by claiming that you lost simply because you did not want to win - not because the Russians put up an awesome fight. There is a severe difference. Of course in terms of losing, this could be beheld as an "epic collapse" - but simultaneously as an "epic comeback", on the other hand.

Fact of the matter is, you would never - and I mean NEVER (seemingly) - claim that if Russia had a 3 goal advantage, and the Canadians scored 5 goals in the third period, that this was a "great collapse". You would simply say that the genuine, real and notorious "Canadian heart and passion" got you back in the game, and that you started playing like Canadians. Not the other way around. That, my friend, is my point. The paradoxical nature of it. You wouldn't say, "we won simply because the Russians "collapsed". And you know you wouldn't.

You said it yourself, your argument relies on an incorrect assumption. To your question: Not at all. If the winning team begins to play awfully after playing strongly, then they've collapsed. Canada played awfully in the 3rd period. I don't deny that Russia was the better team in the 3rd - however, that fact is entirely contingent on the fact that Canada collapsed. If both teams had simply played great in that period, then the game may not have ended up as it did - it could have, but the collapse ensured it.

The collapse paved the way for the comeback. Without it, the comeback may not have been possible.

And why did Canada collapse? They didn't just, suddenly, "collapse" - it was (IMO) a result of the highly "fit-for-fight", hungry and speedy Russians. The Russians started playing real hockey and as a team, and you evidently couldn't handle it. That's my opinion. Could you have handled it today? Maybe, probably, but obviously not during the final.
 

OneMoreAstronaut

Reduce chainsaw size
May 3, 2003
5,495
5
And why did Canada collapse? They didn't just, suddenly, "collapse" - it was (IMO) a result of the highly "fit-for-fight", hungry and speedy Russians. The Russians started playing real hockey and as a team, and you evidently couldn't handle it. That's my opinion. Could you have handled it today? Maybe, probably, but obviously not during the final.

The Canadian team collapsed, not me. Seeing you talk like this proves to me that I'm the only one seeing this from an objective viewpoint. You're associating the two of us with the teams, whereas I am only seeing what occurred.

Canada collapsed because they stopped skating hard, fighting for the puck, started letting the Russians into prime shooting positions, etc. The Russian comeback began shortly after.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->