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

[Mr Kanadensisk]

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...

Doesn't meet criteria 2. Government powers over private industry are limitted in a free and open society and Hockey Canada has very little, if no, power over the NHL (especially considering most teams are in the US).

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

They did participate, just not with a full roster.

Slovakia did get screwed in '02, no doubt. I'm a big fan of the Slovaks, but I don't think they had the goaltending back then to have a real shot at the gold. Thankfully criteria 1 (6 top teams) is still met in '02, and thus for me it stands.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

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

2005 does not meet the majority laid out in criteria 3. The majority of the players in the top 6 teams did not attend, not just those for Canada but for all of the top 6. I see that you and a few others are trying to make this all about Canada and I'm interested to know why, please share.

 

[jcbio11]

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?

You do realize that Slovakia wasn't able to select its top players in both 98 and 02?

In 06 and 10 when they were able to roll its best players, they finished 5th and 4th respectively. So kinda makes you think what would have they been able to do in 98 or 02.

The system that didn't allow Slovakia to play its best players in Nagano and Salt Lake is the biggest disgrace ever.

Thus I refuse to acknowledge it as best on best. If it's best on best, ALL best teams should be present with its best players. Who can say what would have happened if Slovakia iced their best team during those Olympics?

 

[thomasincanada]

In 06 and 10 when they were able to roll its best players, they finished 5th and 4th respectively. So kinda makes you think what would have they been able to do in 98 or 02.

Slovakia is a strong hockey country, but if the best players from Russia, Sweden, Canada, The Czech Republic, the US & Finland all compete I'm calling it a best on best. It's unfortunate that Slovakia couldn't send the best but there are no asterisks beside these olympics and there shouldn't be.

 

[jcbio11]

Slovakia is a strong hockey country, but if the best players from Russia, Sweden, Canada, The Czech Republic, the US & Finland all compete I'm calling it a best on best. It's unfortunate that Slovakia couldn't send the best but there are no asterisks beside these olympics and there shouldn't be.

Really? Imagine if Czech rep, Sweden or Russia weren't able to ice its NHLers. Do you know how pathetic those teams would be without NHLers? And now imagine that it actually happened in 2010, that one of these countries was without its best players, because they were still in the NHL. There would be no asterisk next to the Olympics?

Slovakia has an impressive 9W - 4L record in the last two Olympics (wins include 2x over Russia, 2x over Sweden, 1x over USA). So maybe the less than impressive showing at two before that was caused by the inability to actually play our best players (again imagine Sweden or Russia without NHLers in Vancouver). There should definitely be an asterisk next to 98 and 02.

 

[YMB29]

I guess you disagree or can't read?

Maybe you can't read carefully...
If he is going to ignore the reasons for the USSR, then we should ignore the reasons for Canada too.

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.

Again read carefully, the coach was not allowed to pick the players he wanted. Tikhonov was chosen to coach the team for the tournament, not the head coach Kulagin, who did not allow for some players to go play.

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.

Again, it is not about roster selection... Player availability was limited due to the reasons you mentioned (players declined or there was interference from leagues/clubs).

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.

It is not about only one or two players declining for Russia...
If you make the same argument for Canada and the late 70's and 80's WCs, you have to accept it for other countries also.

 

[thomasincanada]

Slovakia has an impressive 9W - 4L record in the last two Olympics (wins include 2x over Russia, 2x over Sweden, 1x over USA). So maybe the less than impressive showing at two before that was caused by the inability to actually play our best players (again imagine Sweden or Russia without NHLers in Vancouver). There should definitely be an asterisk next to 98 and 02.

Why should there be an asterisk in our 2002 gold medal win because a team that hasn't won a medal in the last two olympics wasn't able to ice it's top team? Slovakia would not have beaten Canada or the US in 2002.

Slovakia plays the role of spoiler moreso than that of legit gold medal contender.

 

[YMB29]

Doesn't meet criteria 2. Government powers over private industry are limitted in a free and open society and Hockey Canada has very little, if no, power over the NHL (especially considering most teams are in the US).

"free and open society"
What does that have to do with anything?
Anyway, I know it does not meet criteria 2, but I was saying that if reasons are ignored for one country they should be ignored for others too.

 

[jekoh]

Why should there be an asterisk in our 2002 gold medal win because a team that hasn't won a medal in the last two olympics wasn't able to ice it's top team?

Why should there be an asterisk in pre-98 olympics? Because a team which had not won for 50 years could not ice its best players?

Slovakia has a better record than Russia, the USA and Czechia in the last two Olympics, so of course Slovakia counts.

Slovakia would not have beaten Canada or the US in 2002.

Yeah right, and Belarus would not have beaten Sweden either.

 

[thomasincanada]

Why should there be an asterisk in pre-98 olympics? Because a team which had not won for 50 years could not ice its best players?

There is no asterisk at all, but nobody would say the pre 1998 olympics were best on best.

Slovakia has a better record than Russia, the USA and Czechia in the last two Olympics, so of course Slovakia counts.

Yeah right, and Belarus would not have beaten Sweden either.

They are a dangerous team - but their exlusion doesn't automatically mean a tournament isn't best on best if it includes all the other hockey powers. Bottom line is 6 out of 7 of the top teams were there, including the favourites to compete for gold. That's good enough for me.

 

[jcbio11]

There is no asterisk at all, but nobody would say the pre 1998 olympics were best on best.



They are a dangerous team - but their exlusion doesn't automatically mean a tournament isn't best on best if it includes all the other hockey powers. Bottom line is 6 out of 7 of the top teams were there, including the favourites to compete for gold. That's good enough for me.

6 out of 7 good enough? What would you be saying if Canada was forced to ice some sorry ass team composed of its players in Europe and Slovakia was there with its NHL stars? It would still be 6 out of 7. The bottom line is if it's supposed to be absolutely best on best, you have to have all 7 out of 7 top teams with its best players there. Just like it was in Torino and Vancouver.

 

[thomasincanada]

6 out of 7 good enough? What would you be saying if Canada was forced to ice some sorry ass team composed of its players in Europe and Slovakia was there with its NHL stars? It would still be 6 out of 7. The bottom line is if it's supposed to be absolutely best on best, you have to have all 7 out of 7 top teams with its best players there. Just like it was in Torino and Vancouver.

They finished dead last in a pool with some very weak teams in it. The other teams didn't have any NHLers on them either. Also unless I'm mistaken at least some of those guys would have been on the full Slovakian olympic team.

There are no asterisks beside Canada's win.

 

[Zine]

They finished dead last in a pool with some very weak teams in it. The other teams didn't have any NHLers on them either. Also unless I'm mistaken at least some of those guys would have been on the full Slovakian olympic team.

There are no asterisks beside Canada's win.

So when Canada doesn't have its best, a tournament isn't best on best....however, when Slovakia doesn't, the tournament is still 'good enough'?

How can you say this? It's a double standard.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

You do realize that Slovakia wasn't able to select its top players in both 98 and 02?

In 06 and 10 when they were able to roll its best players, they finished 5th and 4th respectively. So kinda makes you think what would have they been able to do in 98 or 02.

The system that didn't allow Slovakia to play its best players in Nagano and Salt Lake is the biggest disgrace ever.

Thus I refuse to acknowledge it as best on best. If it's best on best, ALL best teams should be present with its best players. Who can say what would have happened if Slovakia iced their best team during those Olympics?

I am a big fan of Slovakian hockey, so it pains me to say this, but I just don't think the Slovaks were good enough to negate these tournaments as best on best considering the other 6 teams that were involved. Yes I always want the Slovaks to be included, but for me they are still behind the other big six.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Again, it is not about roster selection... Player availability was limited due to the reasons you mentioned (players declined or there was interference from leagues/clubs).

I thought you said it had to do with a disagreement within the Soviet hockey management team. I think the big difference here is that the Soviet hockey federation had complete control over who they brought, even if they could not agree internally who they brought.

It is not about only one or two players declining for Russia...
If you make the same argument for Canada and the late 70's and 80's WCs, you have to accept it for other countries also.

Why do you keep refering to Canada? Except for the USSR and Czechoslovakia the WC and OG conflict with the NHL season effected all the big hockey nations.

 

[Vladiator]

My fouth criterium:

4. The competition must be independent of any influence from a single league and/or a country.

 

[jcbio11]

They finished dead last in a pool with some very weak teams in it. The other teams didn't have any NHLers on them either. Also unless I'm mistaken at least some of those guys would have been on the full Slovakian olympic team.

There are no asterisks beside Canada's win.

You don't get it, do you? Other teams didn't have NHLers on the team because they didn't actually have NHLers. Their best teams possible were iced. Slovakia had superstars in NHL which weren't able to play, had they had their best players available, those teams wouldn't stand a chance.

I agree with the other poster about the double standard.

 

[jcbio11]

I am a big fan of Slovakian hockey, so it pains me to say this, but I just don't think the Slovaks were good enough to negate these tournaments as best on best considering the other 6 teams that were involved. Yes I always want the Slovaks to be included, but for me they are still behind the other big six.

Yet they still finished 4th in the last (true best on best) Olympics and were only Demitra's super chance in final seconds away from going into OT where anything could have happened against Canada in the semis. They finished above Czech rep, Sweden and Russia, also actually defeating two of those teams in the tourney. The other true best on best Olympics they went perfect 5 - 0 in the group stage, defeating USA, Sweden and Russia only to lose against Czech rep in the crucial QFs. (Czech rep is almost like an automatic loss for Slovakia even if they iced the doctors). But somehow they are still behind the other big six? I'd like to have this explained to me...

The way I see it, when any of the big 7 have its top players available, any nation can defeat any other nation on any given day. See last two Olympics for examples.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The bottom line is if it's supposed to be absolutely best on best, you have to have all 7 out of 7 top teams with its best players there. Just like it was in Torino and Vancouver.

Why seven though? Why isn't six enough? On the other hand, why not eight or nine?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

My fouth criterium:

4. The competition must be independent of any influence from a single league and/or a country.

Since the NHL still has influence on the OG, then I'm guessing by your criteria there has never been a best on best tournament. Why do I get the feeling that the acusations of Canada cheating and conspiring to fix the CC and WCup are next. I still can't get over how evil we were to organize a tournament where all the best players had the opportunity to play. Bad Canada, bad, bad Canada.

 

[jcbio11]

Why seven though? Why isn't six enough? On the other hand, why not eight or nine?

Well someone mentioned 6 out of 7, so I naturally assumed he meant any 6 out of following 7 - Canada, USA, Czech rep., Slovakia, Russia, Sweden, Finland. Now do you really want me to answer why it's these seven and not some other 7, or why it can't in any case be 8 or 9?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Yet they still finished 4th in the last (true best on best) Olympics and were only Demitra's super chance in final seconds away from going into OT where anything could have happened against Canada in the semis. They finished above Czech rep, Sweden and Russia, also actually defeating two of those teams in the tourney. The other true best on best Olympics they went perfect 5 - 0 in the group stage, defeating USA, Sweden and Russia only to lose against Czech rep in the crucial QFs. (Czech rep is almost like an automatic loss for Slovakia even if they iced the doctors). But somehow they are still behind the other big six? I'd like to have this explained to me...

The way I see it, when any of the big 7 have its top players available, any nation can defeat any other nation on any given day. See last two Olympics for examples.

Look Slovakia had a dream tournament, but I think 4th is about the best they will ever do. Belarus has finished 4th as well.

 

[jcbio11]

Look Slovakia had a dream tournament, but I think 4th is about the best they will ever do. Belarus has finished 4th as well.

They never did worse than 5th when they had its best players, but somehow they are behind the top 6 teams according to you? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. They are undefeated against both Russia and Sweden (two matches vs both) when they had their best players. They defeated USA once out of one try. Slovakia has shown it can defeat anyone on any given day (when able to ice best players like in Torino and Vancouver), just like any other of the top 7 countries. It's not like they fluked out one win against a top team and that got them the 4th place.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Well someone mentioned 6 out of 7, so I naturally assumed he meant any 6 out of following 7 - Canada, USA, Czech rep., Slovakia, Russia, Sweden, Finland. Now do you really want me to answer why it's these seven and not some other 7, or why it can't in any case be 8 or 9?

No, my question is: why isn't the best six enough? Why does it have to be the best seven?