How would you define an International "Best on Best" tournament?

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I thought it might be interesting to hear how people define what a "Best on Best" tournament is for the purpose of measuring elite level success.

Here is my criteria for a Best on Best:

1. Must have involved at least 6 of the top hockey nations.
2. All the teams were free to select their top players without intereference from any leagues or clubs.
3. The majority of the players invited participated in the tournament.

The following 11 tournaments meet my criteria:
'76, '81, '84, '87, '91 Canada Cups, '96, '04 World Cups, '98, '02, '06, '10 Olympics.

What are your criteria?

Click to read more...

 

[reckoning]

Do the 2005 World Championships qualify?

 

[K1984]

Do the 2005 World Championships qualify?

That didn't meet the 3rd criteria.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I wouldn't hesitate to include any tournament in which the majority of the top teams are predominantly made up of professional players; which includes any year when the only pros available were those who weren't still playing in a playoff series (NHL or otherwise). Level-wise and overall, they're still representative of top level talent, just not of the few "elite" who might not be able to participate.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

I wouldn't hesitate to include any tournament in which the majority of the top teams are predominantly made up of professional players; which includes any year when the only pros available were those who weren't still playing in a playoff series (NHL or otherwise). Level-wise and overall, they're still representative of top level talent, just not of the few "elite" who might not be able to participate.

Well if many of the elite players aren't playing in the tournament, it's not really best on best is it?

And if your only criteria is that the "majority of the top teams are predominantly made up of professional players" that is hardly a criteria at all. There are thousands and thousands of professional players in the world; being professional simply means making your living playing hockey.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well if many of the elite players aren't playing in the tournament, it's not really best on best is it?

And if your only criteria is that the "majority of the top teams are predominantly made up of professional players" that is hardly a criteria at all. There are thousands and thousands of professional players in the world; being professional simply means making your living playing hockey.

Exactly. And as long as your top players come from the top pro teams (world-wide), the result is a tournament that you could certainly consider "best on best", and it's up to the individual to decide whether they believe that needs an asterisk or not.

After all, if you dive into that semantics tank too deeply, you'll be confronted with conflicting opinions on which players should have been picked, and whether each team actually took all the best available players or the available players that make the best team; "Can a team without Martin St. Louis and Steven Stamkos really be considered the best Canada has to offer?" etc.

Are we talking about strength on paper being more important than whether or not the country sends its players of the best "calibre"?

If we're discussing which countries must participate in order to qualify, I guess it's most important that the top 4 (at least) ranked teams in the world (in any given year) are present. More is obviously better.

 

[greatgazoo]

The over-hype of Russia at this year's Olympics proves that the World Championships certainly is NOT a best on best tourney.

They (Soviet Union included) haven't won a true best on best since '81.

 

[jekoh]

2002 does not qualify.

 

[daver]

2002 does not qualify.

That goes without saying, as you obviously have chosen to do.

 

[jekoh]

That goes without saying, as you obviously have chosen to do.

I thought people on these boards were knowledgeable, my mistake.

Well some teams in 2002 could not ice their top players, so it's not best on best. 1998 too, btw.

 

[daver]

I thought people on these boards were knowledgeable, my mistake.

Well some teams in 2002 could not ice their top players, so it's not best on best. 1998 too, btw.

Please enlighten. I recall something about Slovakia in 2002.

 

[YMB29]

I thought it might be interesting to hear how people define what a "Best on Best" tournament is for the purpose of measuring elite level success.

Here is my criteria for a Best on Best:

1. Must have involved at least 6 of the top hockey nations.
2. All the teams were free to select their top players without intereference from any leagues or clubs.
3. The majority of the players invited participated in the tournament.

The following 11 tournaments meet my criteria:
'76, '81, '84, '87, '91 Canada Cups, '96, '04 World Cups, '98, '02, '06, '10 Olympics.

76, 91, 04 do not fit your criteria... unless you are applying it only to Canada.

They (Soviet Union included) haven't won a true best on best since '81.

So in what "true best on best" tournaments did the Soviet Union (not Russia) play since then according to you?

 

[jekoh]

Please enlighten. I recall something about Slovakia in 2002.

The NHL season wasn't stopped until the 2nd round, so teams in the first round could not use their NHLers, unless their NHL teams happened to have a day off. While Slovakia had the most NHLers, countries like Germany or Latvia were also affected to a lesser extent.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

76, 91, 04 do not fit your criteria... unless you are applying it only to Canada.

Please elaborate, why do you feel those tournaments don't meet these three criteria?

 

[Big Phil]

The OP pretty much hit the nail on the head. The first true best on best didn't happen until 1976. Prior to that I guess you can say that the top two countries in the world faced of against each other in the Summit series in '72 but when you include ALL countries, then no it wasn't until 1976.

So yeah the best on best were pretty much 1976, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010. No World Championships and certainly no WJC. The Worlds are a decent gauge but certainly not the best. Even in 2005 when all NHLers were available it wasn't the best gauge. Many of Canada's top players were not there. The Olympics prior to 1998 was NOT a best on best. If this is 1964 and Beliveau, Howe, Hull, Mikita etc. are playing the Russians then Canada wins for sure.

So in conlcusion this is how who has won the most best on bests:
Canada - 7
Russia - 1
USA - 1
Czech - 1
Sweden - 1

 

[YMB29]

Like I said, this is all from Canada's perspective...

Please elaborate, why do you feel those tournaments don't meet these three criteria?

CC 76 - Problems with criteria 2 and 3 for the Soviets; USSR did not have all of its best players.
CC 91 - Same situation for the USSR again and Czechoslovakia.
WCoH 04 - Many Russian players declined to play (criteria 3) and this might have been true for other countries too.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Like I said, this is all from Canada's perspective...



CC 76 - Problems with criteria 2 and 3 for the Soviets; USSR did not have all of its best players.
CC 91 - Same situation for the USSR again and Czechoslovakia.
WCoH 04 - Many Russian players declined to play (criteria 3) and this might have been true for other countries too.

Please elaborate further.

In '76 and '91 what prevented the Soviets from bringing the players they wanted, or what Soviet players were invited and declined to play?

As for '04 please name who you think declined to play and how you feel this represented a majority of the players.

 

[YMB29]

CC 76 - Head coach of the USSR Kulagin did not let some of the best players go play for a team coached by Tikhonov.

CC 91 - Only three players who recently left for the NHL played for the Soviet team. Most probably refused, and some were not taken. Don't know why Bykov and Khomutov did not play... Kamensky was injured and Bure was not taken since he refused a new contract with CSKA.

WCoH 04 - It is explained well here: sports.espn.go.com/nhl/worldcup04/columns/story?id=1873211

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Responsible

CC 76 - Head coach of the USSR Kulagin did not let some of the best players go play for a team coached by Tikhonov.

CC 91 - Only three players who recently left for the NHL played for the Soviet team. Most probably refused, and some were not taken. Don't know why Bykov and Khomutov did not play... Kamensky was injured and Bure was not taken since he refused a new contract with CSKA.

WCoH 04 - It is explained well here: sports.espn.go.com/nhl/worldcup04/columns/story?id=1873211

The rest of the world is not responsible for the internal problems/rivalries in the Soviet Union / Russia or the unwillingness of players to play for "Mother Russia".

They had the choice to send their best. They chose not to. Of course if the Soviets/Russians had won it would have been another story.

 

[YMB29]

Well Canada had a chance to send all of its best to the WCs since 1977, so I guess it was a Canadian/NHL problem and all those WCs count...

 

[jekoh]

Well Canada had a chance to send all of its best to the WCs since 1977, so I guess it was a Canadian/NHL problem and all those WCs count...

Particularly in 2005, but for some reason they still don't count it.

 

[finchster]

Well Canada had a chance to send all of its best to the WCs since 1977, so I guess it was a Canadian/NHL problem and all those WCs count...

2. All the teams were free to select their top players without intereference from any leagues or clubs.

I guess you disagree or can't read?

Anyway as for 76, if players were free and the coach made decisions based on politics or bad/poor relationships, then 76 was a best on best. Just because a coach picked a bad team doesn’t mean the national team is exonerated.

 

[Zine]

If we're judging in terms of player participation, a tournament can't be a true best v best if every elite country isn't represented by their best players.....it's as simple as that.

'76, '91, '98, '02, '04 would likely be eliminated in this scenario.
Soviets send B teams to 1976 and 1991 and Russia sent very weakened 2004 team.
Slovakia didn't even participate in 1998 and 2002.

And a few questionable roster picks and/or injuries doesn't constitute a 'weakened roster'.....that happens to everybody in every tournament.
I'm talking about numerous key players not playing (Soviet instances) and/or whole countries not represented (Slovakia).

My opinion anyway.

 

[jekoh]

Slovakia didn't even participate in 1998 and 2002.

They did participate, just not with a full roster.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

CC 76 - Head coach of the USSR Kulagin did not let some of the best players go play for a team coached by Tikhonov.

CC 91 - Only three players who recently left for the NHL played for the Soviet team. Most probably refused, and some were not taken. Don't know why Bykov and Khomutov did not play... Kamensky was injured and Bure was not taken since he refused a new contract with CSKA.

WCoH 04 - It is explained well here: sports.espn.go.com/nhl/worldcup04/columns/story?id=1873211

As I think you know all these tournaments still meet three criteria laid out in the original post. I think what this boils down to is that in '76 and '91 you were unhappy with the roster selections made by the Soviets. I understand where you are coming from, but I certainly wouldn't make post tournament satisfaction with roster selection a criteria for whether or not it was a best on best. Everyone second guesses their teams roster after they lose, so I don't think that is one we can use.

As for the '04 WCup there were 208 players in the tournament. Of that I believe around 10 may have been asked to play and declined which gives a participation rate of around 95%. This is way above the "majority" laid out in criteria 3, and criteria 1 & 2 are okay also. I think what you are saying is that because your team had more people decline than anyone else then the whole tournament should be written off (which is kind of funny because you accused me of making this all about Canada). The truth is that there have been many times where some players have declined, such as Lemiuex in '91 and '98 and Roy in '02, but as long as the tournament is attended by the majority of invities and meets criteria 1 & 2, then I think it should count.