U18: Hlinka Semis

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Scrubs, the likes of Brock Boeser, Nick Schmaltz, Kyle Okposo, Ryan Poehling, Casey Mittelstadt, Troy Terry....

Hyperbole doesn't add to your point.

What’s your point? The majority of these players will get nowhere near the NHL. This was nowhere near the best American team that could’ve been iced.

 

[MeHateHe]

What’s your point? The majority of these players will get nowhere near the NHL. This was nowhere near the best American team that could’ve been iced.

If history is any guide, most of Canada's players won't be NHL players either.

You keep claiming that the US team was a bunch of scrubs. That's demonstrably untrue.

 

[Czechboy]

What’s your point? The majority of these players will get nowhere near the NHL. This was nowhere near the best American team that could’ve been iced.

This scrub team won Bronze, right?

How poorly do you think of the Finn, Swedish, German, Slovak and Swiss team that didn't medal at all?

Didn't this team beat Finland and Sweden? Are they scrubs too?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

If history is any guide, most of Canada's players won't be NHL players either.

You keep claiming that the US team was a bunch of scrubs. That's demonstrably untrue.

It's a lot easier to speak on what they are now or in the immediate future. Trying to talk about what they may become 5 years from now is completely hypothetical. Right now, we know that this Canada team has between 5-10 first round picks. We know that the US team will have between 5-10 players drafted.

It's no comparison. The US team is a bunch of scrubs compared to the Canada players, and the overwhelming majority of them will not amount to anything in the NHL either. It's possible none of them do.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

This scrub team won Bronze, right?

How poorly do you think of the Finn, Swedish, German, Slovak and Swiss team that didn't medal at all?

Didn't this team beat Finland and Sweden? Are they scrubs too?

USA's expectations should typically be to win Gold any time we play. We aren't as good as Canada, but especially considering these tournaments have become so watered down without Russia, it's a situation where it's 4 countries competing for 3 medal spots, and then maybe the occasional threat of Czechs, Slovaks, or another country. It's really not that hard for these big countries to medal in these tournaments, and I think USA has shown that they have advanced past Sweden and Finland in producing talent. If you look at current NHL best on best rosters, this is the closest any team has been to matching Canada, and the country doing so is USA. Some have been arguing USA is currently better than Canada best on best. So with all due respect to all other teams, not getting at least silver is an underachievement, even if it's a team of back ups.

Are the Finnish and Swedish players scrubs? I think many of their fans were saying the players weren't at the expected standard. I remember reading multiple posts with that type of theme, so whether you think scrub is a little harsh, I think the point holds that most of these US players, along with probably most of the Finnish and Swedish players, were scrubs based on how they played at this tournament and where they project to go in the draft (hint: not picked). Yes, of course, a handful or two of players on each team are good and will be drafted. I think each nation though expects to field a medal competitor and to be fielding a team of players that will all (or almost all) be draft picks, not a team where a third of them get drafted and are struggling to make any positive impact in a junior hockey tournament where the majority of players they are facing are not going to reach the NHL.

 

[MeHateHe]

We know that the US team will have between 5-10 players drafted.

So you're saying that the US has such a wealth of players that maybe ten players that they consider "scrubs" will be drafted, and that there are 23 players under the age of 18 that are better than the those "scrubs." Because you said that the US team was a literal backup team. So none of those scrubs who will be drafted will be good enough to play on the US team at the spring U18 world championships, or at the 2024, 2025 or 2026 U20 tournaments? Wow. With that depth it's amazing the US hasn't won a senior men's tournament in the current era.

Of course you know this is all bullshit. You don't have to be a dairy farmer to know it's bullshit. Everyone knows it's bullshit.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

So you're saying that the US has such a wealth of players that maybe ten players that they consider "scrubs" will be drafted, and that there are 23 players under the age of 18 that are better than the those "scrubs." Because you said that the US team was a literal backup team. So none of those scrubs who will be drafted will be good enough to play on the US team at the spring U18 world championships, or at the 2024, 2025 or 2026 U20 tournaments? Wow. With that depth it's amazing the US hasn't won a senior men's tournament in the current era.

Of course you know this is all bullshit. You don't have to be a dairy farmer to know it's bullshit. Everyone knows it's bullshit.

It is a literal back up team. How do you not understand that? And I never said none of them will be drafted. I said to the contrary, so maybe you shouldn't put words in my mouth. Also, almost no chance any of these US players will play at the World Under 18's. Do you not understand how teams are selected for each tournament? That's the whole point of a roster like this. As for the World Juniors and Mens Tournaments, typically you don't see many non-NTDP players make two World Juniors. I would guess that none of these US players make two World Juniors. 1? Yeah, I think a few of them have a decent shot. Also possible that none make any. When you are picking from such a thin pool to begin with, it can end up being 0. Men's Worlds is almost entirely dependent on making the NHL, and there aren't many on this team with a good shot at that, so again, probably pretty low chances for the majority of them.

Your whole tone to your argument is semantics-based. I have little interest in going down that meaningless rabbit-hole any further.

 

[Czechboy]

USA's expectations should typically be to win Gold any time we play. We aren't as good as Canada, but especially considering these tournaments have become so watered down without Russia, it's a situation where it's 4 countries competing for 3 medal spots, and then maybe the occasional threat of Czechs, Slovaks, or another country. It's really not that hard for these big countries to medal in these tournaments, and I think USA has shown that they have advanced past Sweden and Finland in producing talent. If you look at current NHL best on best rosters, this is the closest any team has been to matching Canada, and the country doing so is USA. Some have been arguing USA is currently better than Canada best on best. So with all due respect to all other teams, not getting at least silver is an underachievement, even if it's a team of back ups.

Are the Finnish and Swedish players scrubs? I think many of their fans were saying the players weren't at the expected standard. I remember reading multiple posts with that type of theme, so whether you think scrub is a little harsh, I think the point holds that most of these US players, along with probably most of the Finnish and Swedish players, were scrubs based on how they played at this tournament and where they project to go in the draft (hint: not picked). Yes, of course, a handful or two of players on each team are good and will be drafted. I think each nation though expects to field a medal competitor and to be fielding a team of players that will all (or almost all) be draft picks, not a team where a third of them get drafted and are struggling to make any positive impact in a junior hockey tournament where the majority of players they are facing are not going to reach the NHL.

Last US gold at mens level was 1996. No world's, no Olympics, no non NHL Olympics, no world cups. Canada has won a lot of those since then.

The only gold in the 2000s they have is the HF best on best roster for a tournament that doesn't currently exist.

I agree the paper roster looks amazing (goalie edge for sure) but till the US win something consistently other than the U18 in April I'd hold off on should always expect gold.

The Czechs have won several world's and a best on best Olympics since the last US gold and we have absolutely sucked for almost two decades. Low bar to clear.lol

Don't get me wrong... It baffles me that the US doesn't win more often with such a tremendous talent base.

If this were soccer.. I'd say Canada is Brazil or Germany and US is England. Great roster.. great hype.. nothing to show for it at the senior level... and I don't mean it as a knock but if my country hadn't won a gold in over 25 years I'd probably be more humble.

 

[jj cale]

Last US gold at mens level was 1996. No world's, no Olympics, no non NHL Olympics, no world cups. Canada has won a lot of those since then.

The only gold in the 2000s they have is the HF best on best roster for a tournament that doesn't currently exist.

I agree the paper roster looks amazing (goalie edge for sure) but till the US win something consistently other than the U18 in April I'd hold off on should always expect gold.

The Czechs have won several world's and a best on best Olympics since the last US gold and we have absolutely sucked for almost two decades. Low bar to clear.lol

Don't get me wrong... It baffles me that the US doesn't win more often with such a tremendous talent base.

If this were soccer.. I'd say Canada is Brazil or Germany and US is England. Great roster.. great hype.. nothing to show for it at the senior level... and I don't mean it as a knock but if my country hadn't won a gold in over 25 years I'd probably be more humble.

Every day around here you more and more get the feeling from American posters comments that they feel the next best on best is not just theirs to lose but almost " locked up" I don't think p.b is one of them to be honest but i've seen plenty of others who seem to be thinking along those lines or at least giving indications of it.

Is it just me or are you and others getting that vibe from a lot of them?

I mean, as you mention here, no one is denying the talent but they haven't won anything at the senior level in almost 30 years now, I don't understand where the thinking is coming from. I dunno but these guys could be in for a massive letdown, in a one game winner take all there are plenty of teams that could beat them talented roster or not.

Even coaching could f*** those guys up or their plain old roster construction from their braintrust, USHA has a pretty good past record of just being incredibly off base at all levels.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Last US gold at mens level was 1996. No world's, no Olympics, no non NHL Olympics, no world cups. Canada has won a lot of those since then.

The only gold in the 2000s they have is the HF best on best roster for a tournament that doesn't currently exist.

I agree the paper roster looks amazing (goalie edge for sure) but till the US win something consistently other than the U18 in April I'd hold off on should always expect gold.

The Czechs have won several world's and a best on best Olympics since the last US gold and we have absolutely sucked for almost two decades. Low bar to clear.lol

Don't get me wrong... It baffles me that the US doesn't win more often with such a tremendous talent base.

If this were soccer.. I'd say Canada is Brazil or Germany and US is England. Great roster.. great hype.. nothing to show for it at the senior level... and I don't mean it as a knock but if my country hadn't won a gold in over 25 years I'd probably be more humble.

I think this narrative is deceiving.

I'll start with the Mens Worlds. USA never sends their best to the Mens Worlds. Every country other than Canada (who let's face it has more good players to pick from) has regular National Team players that play in Europe, and are regularly playing in these International tournaments throughout the year that helps team cohesion. American players are typically also less loyal to their country in trying to win a medal. Players from the European countries view it as important to help their country win these tournaments. American players don't care, unless it's the Olympics. Another issue that's arisen with American players is that a bunch of them end up finishing their degrees (because few of the good ones end up playing 4 years in college) during the summer, which makes it hard to recruit players to play at the tournament, and this is a challenge only the USA faces in big numbers. Put it all together, and you get a country that doesn't take the tournament seriously.

I'm not sure either why we should be putting it on the same level as Best on Best tournaments like the Olympics and WCH, although it's true we haven't seen many of those recently. I realize it's importance in Europe, but when the tournament has at most half of the best players (and truthfully it almost never has that many) it's hard to be using it as an important metric of who the best international hockey countries are. In the last 5 editions, we've had Latvia, Germany, and Switzerland medal. The last five best on best Olympics, we've gotten no one other than the big six medaling. When you get a tournament that allows for the smaller hockey countries to regularly medal, it tells you how watered down it is.

U18's isn't the only junior international tournament USA does well at. We have the most U20 Golds since 2010 other than Canada with four. Finland has three. Russia (they've missed a few tournaments) only has one, as does Sweden.

This is what the medal tallies look like at the U20 Worlds since 2010:

USA: 9 in 14
Canada: 10 in 14
Finland: 5 in 14
Sweden: 7 in 14
Russia: 9 in 12

USA is quite a bit ahead of Finland and Sweden in medaling. One behind Canada, and then the same as Russia (although in more tournaments), yet Russia only has 1 Gold compared to 4 for USA. So when you put it all together, USA essentially has the best record of the non-Canada countries in this tournament. U18 Worlds, I don't even need to elaborate much on the tallies there. The playing field isn't level, and I agree, but it's still the official U18 World Championship. No one other than the big 6 has medaled there since 2003. I think that's a better judge of hockey prowess than tournaments where Germany, Latvia, and Switzerland types of countries are medaling with regularity.

As for your soccer comparison, I think the England comparison is unfair. International soccer is so different from international hockey. International soccer sees a best on best tournament (with no real interruptions) every four years, and you could argue every 2 years at times (with Euros, Copa America, etc.). How many chances has USA even had to win a best on best tournament since 2000? Maybe like 5 or 6. And none in the last 6+ years. American hockey has only gotten better in that stretch. No one would've dared suggest we were close to as good as Canada 6 years ago. Now the comparison is taking place. So I'd say USA is more of a newer giant than an underachieving giant. The soccer comparison I'd use is France or Spain.

 

[Czechboy]

Every day around here you more and more get the feeling from American posters comments that they feel the next best on best is not just theirs to lose but almost " locked up"


Is it just me or are you and others getting that vibe from a lot of them?

I mean, as you mention here, no one is denying the talent but they haven't won anything at the senior level in almost 30 years now, I don't understand where the hubris is coming from. I dunno but these guys could be in for a massive letdown, in a one game winner take all there are plenty of teams that could beat them talented roster or not.

It's hard ...I think the US program is amazing and I like most the US posters on here!

But yes.. I get the impression from some that it is a 2 dog race. I get the Canadian confidence as they have a gold at everything imaginable (even a U18 recently)... Most the hlinkas
.. 3 of the last 4 U20s... Constant Skoda finalist and last 2 or 3 best on bests.

Despite a galactic all world US roster. (And it would be damn impressive).. My view hasn't changed... Canada by a small edge and nothing about Finland, Sweden or the US winning a best on best would surprise me. Hot goalie, shooter on a heater, bad bounce, bad call, delay of game penalty all can decide a elimination game amongst the big 5.

 

[jj cale]

It's hard ...I think the US program is amazing and I like most the US posters on here!

But yes.. I get the impression from some that it is a 2 dog race. I get the Canadian confidence as they have a gold at everything imaginable (even a U18 recently)... Most the hlinkas
.. 3 of the last 4 U20s... Constant Skoda finalist and last 2 or 3 best on bests.

Despite a galactic all world US roster. (And it would be damn impressive).. My view hasn't changed... Canada by a small edge and nothing about Finland, Sweden or the US winning a best on best would surprise me. Hot goalie, shooter on a heater, bad bounce, bad call, delay of game penalty all can decide a elimination game amongst the big 5.

I like most of their posters too and really respect their knowledge of the game but i'm just getting these vibes. I expect the daggers to come out for what I said and I understand that but i'm just saying what I feel i'm seeing a lot. But I can take it, i'm a big boy.

I agree they have every reason to be confident but holy moly, like you said, this isn't a two horse race and it sure as hell isn't a one horse dash.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Every day around here you more and more get the feeling from American posters comments that they feel the next best on best is not just theirs to lose but almost " locked up" I don't think p.b is one of them to be honest but i've seen plenty of others who seem to be thinking along those lines or at least giving indications of it.

Is it just me or are you and others getting that vibe from a lot of them?

I mean, as you mention here, no one is denying the talent but they haven't won anything at the senior level in almost 30 years now, I don't understand where the thinking is coming from. I dunno but these guys could be in for a massive letdown, in a one game winner take all there are plenty of teams that could beat them talented roster or not.

Even coaching could f*** those guys up or their plain old roster construction from their braintrust, USHA has a pretty good past record of just being incredibly off base at all levels.

I'm not one of the people that would have USA ahead of Canada, but I also think it's unfair to use the stat that USA hasn't won anything at senior mens level in almost 30 years. I think the World Championships isn't a relevant talking point when speaking about a best on best tournament. It's nowhere close to the best players that every country can field. There isn't a top country that is fielding their best team.

So we should be accurate that we're only speaking about the three WCH's (1996, 2004 and 2016), and then Olympics (am I wrong that we've only seen 5 best on best in that span with '98, '02, '06, '10, and 14?). That's like 8 tournaments. We aren't speaking about that many, and international hockey has changed a lot in 30 years. USA is better than 30 years ago. Czechia isn't as good as 30 years ago. Russia probably isn't either. Sweden and Finland might be a little better too.

As for the discussion about it being a two horse race, I've never looked at it as a one horse race for Canada, so even if USA became as good as Canada (we aren't yet), I don't think it'd be a two-horse-race. I would characterize it as a 5/6 horse race (maybe 4 at times if no Russia). Some teams are better than others, but thats natural with sports. I don't for a second believe that it'd be a shock if Finland knocked off Canada at a best on best tournament, or even Czechia knocked off Canada. These teams are all fielding the best players in the world, and in knockout tournaments you are going to see fluctuations from game to game.

 

[Czechboy]

I think this narrative is deceiving.

I'll start with the Mens Worlds. USA never sends their best to the Mens Worlds. Every country other than Canada (who let's face it has more good players to pick from) has regular National Team players that play in Europe, and are regularly playing in these International tournaments throughout the year that helps team cohesion. American players are typically also less loyal to their country in trying to win a medal. Players from the European countries view it as important to help their country win these tournaments. American players don't care, unless it's the Olympics. Another issue that's arisen with American players is that a bunch of them end up finishing their degrees (because few of the good ones end up playing 4 years in college) during the summer, which makes it hard to recruit players to play at the tournament, and this is a challenge only the USA faces in big numbers. Put it all together, and you get a country that doesn't take the tournament seriously.

I'm not sure either why we should be putting it on the same level as Best on Best tournaments like the Olympics and WCH, although it's true we haven't seen many of those recently. I realize it's importance in Europe, but when the tournament has at most half of the best players (and truthfully it almost never has that many) it's hard to be using it as an important metric of who the best international hockey countries are. In the last 5 editions, we've had Latvia, Germany, and Switzerland medal. The last five best on best Olympics, we've gotten no one other than the big six medaling. When you get a tournament that allows for the smaller hockey countries to regularly medal, it tells you how watered down it is.

U18's isn't the only junior international tournament USA does well at. We have the most U20 Golds since 2010 other than Canada with four. Finland has three. Russia (they've missed a few tournaments) only has one, as does Sweden.

This is what the medal tallies look like at the U20 Worlds since 2010:

USA: 9 in 14
Canada: 10 in 14
Finland: 5 in 14
Sweden: 7 in 14
Russia: 9 in 12

USA is quite a bit ahead of Finland and Sweden in medaling. One behind Canada, and then the same as Russia (although in more tournaments), yet Russia only has 1 Gold compared to 4 for USA. So when you put it all together, USA essentially has the best record of the non-Canada countries in this tournament. U18 Worlds, I don't even need to elaborate much on that. The playing field isn't level, and I agree, but it's still the official U18 World Championship. No one other than the big 6 has medaled there since 2003. I think that's a better judge of hockey prowess than tournaments where Germany, Latvia, and Switzerland types of countries are medaling with regularity.

As for your soccer comparison, I think the England comparison is unfair. International soccer is so different from international hockey. International soccer sees a best on best tournament (with no real interruptions) every four years, and you could argue every 2 years at times (with Euros, Copa America, etc.). How many chances has USA even had to win a best on best tournament since 2000? Maybe like 5 or 6. And none in the last 6+ years. American hockey has only gotten better in that stretch. No one would've dared suggest we were close to as good as Canada 6 years ago. Now the comparison is taking place. So I'd say USA is more of a newer giant than an underachieving giant. The soccer comparison I'd use is France or Spain.

I was positive I'd get a bunch of Jr results. Can you do the rundown for senior results? Czechs very well may have better senior results and, again, we have been bad for a long time.

No.one sends their best roster to the skodas. Not the Czechs, Swedes, Finn's or Canada.

Agree winning that is not an indication of world domination
.. but we didn't send our best isn't a good reason when no.one does (outside of the nation's out of top 8 who may not have an NHLer).

I've been hearing the us is taking over since 1996. This is not a new nation to the aegument. I just haven't seen it at the senior level.

How many best on bests since 1996? 1998, 2002, 2004 world cup, 2005 world's (lockout year), 2006, 2010, 2016 world Cup. So that is 6 or 7 chances. Depending how you feel about Vienna in 2005.

Ftr.. at best on best
.. I don't see a big difference between USA, Sweden and Finland. I'm also dying to see the new generation of Finns at a best on best as they haven't had a crack at one and produced an amazing generation of players.

I do get the roster and program is amazing though.

On a friendly note... I'm 100.minutes from camp which is Lake placid! Lots of US hockey love here.

 

[jj cale]

I'm not one of the people that would have USA ahead of Canada, but I also think it's unfair to use the stat that USA hasn't won anything at senior mens level in almost 30 years. I think the World Championships isn't a relevant talking point when speaking about a best on best tournament. It's nowhere close to the best players that every country can field. There isn't a top country that is fielding their best team.

So we should be accurate that we're only speaking about the three WCH's (1996, 2004 and 2016), and then Olympics (am I wrong that we've only seen 5 best on best in that span with '98, '02, '06, '10, and 14?). That's like 8 tournaments. We aren't speaking about that many, and international hockey has changed a lot in 30 years. USA is better than 30 years ago. Czechia isn't as good as 30 years ago. Russia probably isn't either. Sweden and Finland might be a little better too.

I'm not sure we can throw out all those whc's pb. I understand the realities of the u.s at that event in terms of their star players participation but i've seen both Canada and Finland win gold with lesser teams in terms of roster talent then the u.s has sent to that thing on some occasions.

I mean talent is one thing..............getting it done under all circumstances is quite another and to be frank the u.s has just flat out failed to do that at the senior level since 1996. Hence why any overconfidence should be straight out done away with.


It rarely serves anyone well.

 

[cg98]

Last US gold at mens level was 1996. No world's, no Olympics, no non NHL Olympics, no world cups. Canada has won a lot of those since then.

The only gold in the 2000s they have is the HF best on best roster for a tournament that doesn't currently exist.

I agree the paper roster looks amazing (goalie edge for sure) but till the US win something consistently other than the U18 in April I'd hold off on should always expect gold.

The Czechs have won several world's and a best on best Olympics since the last US gold and we have absolutely sucked for almost two decades. Low bar to clear.lol

Don't get me wrong... It baffles me that the US doesn't win more often with such a tremendous talent base.

If this were soccer.. I'd say Canada is Brazil or Germany and US is England. Great roster.. great hype.. nothing to show for it at the senior level... and I don't mean it as a knock but if my country hadn't won a gold in over 25 years I'd probably be more humble.

Wanna know whats crazier? The last “World Championship” gold the US won was in 1980, at the Olympics when that tournament was considered the World Championship tournament for the year. They then discontinued this practice shortly after and hold both the Olympic and IIHF World tournaments in the same year independently. Before that, they won the 1960 “World Championship” Olympic tournament.

You’d have to go back all the way to 1933 when the US last won a true independent World Championship tournament outside of the Olympic circuit. Almost a whole century ago. Its simply incredible and baffling how US hockey has succeeded at every level in the modern era except the Senior Mens level. They have sent some damn good teams to the World Championships with US superstars pre-COVID for a few years, especially in anticipation for the 2022 Olympics, and all they have to show for it is a few bronze medals and quarterfinal exits. Simply astonishing. They are quite literally the Toronto Maple Leafs of the international mens level.

 

[jj cale]

Having said all this It's only a matter of time before the u.s does take home the bacon at a best on best event again and at other senior tournaments, they are simply too good now not to.


I don't want to come off sounding like too much of a negative nancy around here.

I just felt a little " woah, hold your horses" was kind of overdue around here.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I was positive I'd get a bunch of Jr results. Can you do the rundown for senior results? Czechs very well may have better senior results and, again, we have been bad for a long time.

No.one sends their best roster to the skodas. Not the Czechs, Swedes, Finn's or Canada.

Agree winning that is not an indication of world domination
.. but we didn't send our best isn't a good reason when no.one does (outside of the nation's out of top 8 who may not have an NHLer).

I've been hearing the us is taking over since 1996. This is not a new nation to the aegument. I just haven't seen it at the senior level.

How many best on bests since 1996? 1998, 2002, 2004 world cup, 2005 world's (lockout year), 2006, 2010, 2016 world Cup. So that is 6 or 7 chances. Depending how you feel about Vienna in 2005.

Ftr.. at best on best
.. I don't see a big difference between USA, Sweden and Finland. I'm also dying to see the new generation of Finns at a best on best as they haven't had a crack at one and produced an amazing generation of players.

I do get the roster and program is amazing though.

On a friendly note... I'm 100.minutes from camp which is Lake placid! Lots of US hockey love here.

I think results at lower age groups tend to suggest the fluctuations between nations. If you are having success in lower age groups, you are probably producing good players and they should eventually be playing for your Mens Senior team. However, we can discount that, if you'd like. When speaking at Mens Senior tournaments, the only thing I insist is that we only count best on best. If you want to say let's discount the junior international tournaments, fair enough. I don't think it's fair to take these mens senior tournaments where teams send like 30% of their best players as indicative of mens senior international hockey.

And with the best on best, there's been like maybe 8 of them in the past 30 years. It's not that many, and the USA wasn't as good 30 years ago as now, regardless of medals. So I think we're dealing with quite a small sample in senior mens best on best tournaments, and I think this has also been something that's more recent. If we have a bunch of best on best tournaments in the next ten years and USA underachieves, have at it with that view. I think it's a little too premature of a view for now though, considering the circumstances.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I'm not sure we can throw out all those whc's pb. I understand the realities of the u.s at that event in terms of their star players participation but i've seen both Canada and Finland win gold with lesser teams in terms of roster talent then the u.s has sent to that thing on some occasions.

I mean talent is one thing..............getting it done under all circumstances is quite another and to be frank the u.s has just flat out failed to do that at the senior level since 1996. Hence why any overconfidence should be straight out done away with.


It rarely serves anyone well.

It's not that I'm saying USA doesn't underachieve in these tournaments. They should be having more success. I'm just not sure why this tournament matters towards a discussion of the relative level of each hockey nation.

It's not a USA themed point either. Why should tournaments with a random sprinkling of players from each nation (clearly nowhere near the best group each team can field) be indicative of the level of each of the top nations in hockey when we have significantly less flawed measurements like talent of the players and best on best results?

 

[jj cale]

It's not that I'm saying USA doesn't underachieve in these tournaments. They should be having more success. I'm just not sure why this tournament matters towards a discussion of the relative level of each hockey nation.

It's not a USA themed point either. Why should tournaments with a random sprinkling of players from each nation (clearly nowhere near the best group each team can field) be indicative of the level of each of the top nations in hockey when we have significantly less flawed measurements like talent of the players and best on best results?

That's a valid point.

My inclusion of it is in showing a theme when it comes to the u.s at the senior levels since 1996, no matter the roster whether not that talented, pretty talented or very talented........................they have failed to get it done for 28 years now.


They are simply in no position to be overly confident going into the next best on best at the senior level despite the talent on hand, which I think I see a lot of their fans being at present. Other teams have had more success in that time frame despite being less talented many times, Finland comes to mind.


Just a slight reality check is probably in order among some fans. Talent is great, winning with it means a lot more.

Until it's done, chickens probably shouldn't be counted before hatching.

 

[Czechboy]

I think results at lower age groups tend to suggest the fluctuations between nations. If you are having success in lower age groups, you are probably producing good players and they should eventually be playing for your Mens Senior team. However, we can discount that, if you'd like. When speaking at Mens Senior tournaments, the only thing I insist is that we only count best on best. If you want to say let's discount the junior international tournaments, fair enough. I don't think it's fair to take these mens senior tournaments where teams send like 30% of their best players as indicative of mens senior international hockey.

And with the best on best, there's been like maybe 8 of them in the past 30 years. It's not that many, and the USA wasn't as good 30 years ago as now, regardless of medals. So I think we're dealing with quite a small sample in senior mens best on best tournaments, and I think this has also been something that's more recent. If we have a bunch of best on best tournaments in the next ten years and USA underachieves, have at it with that view. I think it's a little too premature of a view for now though, considering the circumstances.

For the Junior argument... I'd agree but the US buck that trend. Eg. The U18 is a stomping ground for them. The U20 has very good results with some insanely great teams.

That has been going on for awhile now but I don't see senior results. Also, the Czechs just lost 3-2 in OT to Canada at U20 and Hlinka but I don't think it will be a big 6 soon and maybe never.

6 or 7 best on best tourney since 1996 is a lot of opportunity IMO.

The thing we disagree on the most is how much US hockey has improved. The 1996 and 1998 rosters probably had a dozen HOFers on them. Insanely stacked with amazing forwards, great goalies and elite D. Which is how I'd describe them today as well. They e always had great rosters at best on best and have had elite NHLera for a long time now. I don't see them as an uprising nation.. I see them as an elite hockey factory and have seen that for decades.

 

[Czechboy]

Wanna know whats crazier? The last “World Championship” gold the US won was in 1980, at the Olympics when that tournament was considered the World Championship tournament for the year. They then discontinued this practice shortly after and hold both the Olympic and IIHF World tournaments in the same year independently. Before that, they won the 1960 “World Championship” Olympic tournament.

You’d have to go back all the way to 1933 when the US last won a true independent World Championship tournament outside of the Olympic circuit. Almost a whole century ago. Its simply incredible and baffling how US hockey has succeeded at every level in the modern era except the Senior Mens level. They have sent some damn good teams to the World Championships with US superstars pre-COVID for a few years, especially in anticipation for the 2022 Olympics, and all they have to show for it is a few bronze medals and quarterfinal exits. Simply astonishing. They are quite literally the Toronto Maple Leafs of the international mens level.

It is truly insane to me
.. especially because I am now at camp in Lake placid and feeling all miracle on ice!

I really do think the US program is amazing... But the results are confusing. I stick to they are England.lol

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The thing we disagree on the most is how much US hockey has improved. The 1996 and 1998 rosters probably had a dozen HOFers on them. Insanely stacked with amazing forwards, great goalies and elite D. Which is how I'd describe them today as well. They e always had great rosters at best on best and have had elite NHLera for a long time now. I don't see them as an uprising nation.. I see them as an elite hockey factory and have seen that for decades.

I don’t disagree about the amount of high level players, but what’s changed is the depth. Back then, there were some excellent players but they all came from the same states (Minnesota, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York). Now you have players from Arizona (Matthews), Florida (Hughes brothers), Missouri (Tkachuk brothers), California (Robertson), and plenty of states where players back in 1996 and 1998 weren’t coming from. Back then, USA was not talked about as anywhere near Canada. That has only changed in recent years, and the main reason is that the depth I mentioned has the USA in a spot where they are good at all positions, even if not the best at any of them.

 

[Mathieukferland]

this isn't a two horse race

Canadian hockey is guilty of of this too occasionaly (it’s some insecurity or something that people especially in English Canada have I don’t know) but often in the context of international tournaments Americans are so fixated on beating Canada and almost discard every other team; I can’t recall any other team management saying publicly they constructed their roster to beat one other team as was the case in 2016 with Dean Lombardi or most recently at the Halifax WJC with vanbiesbroock and pecknold. Often, as was the case in 2016, if you build a team to beat only one team, you forget international hockey has many good countries and is not “two horse race” as you say. As a result the USA lost to every team at that tournament

 

[jj cale]

Canadian hockey is guilty of of this too occasionaly (it’s some insecurity or something that people especially in English Canada have I don’t know) but often in the context of international tournaments Americans are so fixated on beating Canada and almost discard every other team; I can’t recall any other team management saying publicly they constructed their roster to beat one other team as was the case in 2016 with Dean Lombardi or most recently at the Halifax WJC with vanbiesbroock and pecknold. Often, as was the case in 2016, if you build a team to beat only one team, you forget international hockey has many good countries and is not “two horse race” as you say. As a result the USA lost to every team at that tournament

We are certainly guilty of this for sure on occasion, with the caveat of course is that we have the history behind us of having a reason to be over confident while the u.s doesn't.

You pointed out something here that both teams will have to be careful of...............getting fixated on thinking it's a two horse race and preparing simply for each other, that would be a huge mistake for both teams.