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

[McGuillicuddy]

Russia had Zubrus, a Lithuanian, in its 2004 World Cup's team. So, it was not team Russia that got beat, right?

And again since you missed it:

At any rate, the Soviet league won, so it could certainly be called a victory for Soviet hockey.

So, extending us the same courtesy, Canada won the 2004 WCH, so it can certainly be called a victory for Canadian hockey.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

son of a *****... Surely we can think of a reason to conclude that 2006 wasn't a best on best.

I propose we use one of Russia's excuses and say that Team Canada didn't pick it's best players therefore it wasn't a true best on best.

I think we should all put our heads together and help Russia come up with an excuse for 2006. It seems such a shame that they have every other tournament covered except this one. Let's think of it as our contribution towards helping our Russian comrads.

Has anyone got a video of their SF loss to Finland? There must be something there, a questionable call, a Fin sneaking something in their water, anything...

Come on people our Russian brothers need our help.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Look at all the clowns here...



Do you?
The only tournaments I talked about were the Canada Cups in 76, 87, and 91.
And for 76 and 91 it is not "because the Soviet hockey officials didn't select the right players", silly. How many times must I explain it to you?

I can make the same for you:

ChC79 - does not count because it was just an allstar game with players who never played with each other vs. players who were playing together year round for years.
CC81 - does not count because it was only one game in the final, not best of three. Also Canada lost all because Liut was terrible, and the referee was a Euro too.
WCs77-91 - don't count because Canada had to use minor leaguers and amateurs since all of its NHL players were busy. Canada is a democracy and so private business is most important.
WCoH96 - does not count because Canada lost to little brother. It was just a fluke.
Oly98 - does not count because games are not supposed to be decided by a shootout. Idiot coach did not let Gretzky shoot.
Oly06 - does not count since that dumb guy Gretzky picked the wrong players for the team. Crosby did not play but Russia had Ovechkin.





You said this not me...



Look who is talking... I am not ethnocentric like silly Canadian fans such as you.



They were never anywhere near the level of Koharski, Stewart, and Noeth - the true heroes of Canada in 1987.



Well this is an actual excuse used by many in Canada for 2006... Gretzky picking the wrong players.
Also I never used this excuse silly.

Wow I haven't seen the "I know you are but what am I" defence used since public school and yet you have pulled it out three times in one thread. I'd respond to this dribble, but there is really no point in discussing facts with someone who has no interest in being truthful.

 

[YMB29]

It was an all-star series between two leagues, and billed as such from Day One. A team with three Swedes is not Team Canada.

Of the three Swedes only Salming got enough ice time (Hedberg and Nilsson did not even play in game 2).
And no it was billed as the "Series of the Century" between Soviet and Canadian (or at least North American) hockey.

WCs77-91 - don't count because Canada had to use minor leaguers and amateurs since all of its NHL players were busy. Canada is a democracy and so private business is most important.

Really? Really?

This is what some of the posters here say...
Those excuses are what some here would say or have said, not necessarily what you would say.

'79 was, and always has been regarded as a match between leagues, not countries, and the Soviet league triumphed.

Again, this was not so.

The world championships suggestion really doesn't even deserve a response. Call them best-on-bests and get laughed out of any self-respecting hockey fan's house.

Well the point is if you consider all the Canada Cups best on best then why not all the WCs from 77 (when NHL players were allowed to play)?

There was an overwhelming Canadian contingent, but it's no more Team Canada than the Soviet league team would've been Team USSR if they had imported Novy, Bubla, and Martinek.

At any rate, the Soviet league won, so it could certainly be called a victory for Soviet hockey.

Yes and it was a major defeat for Canadian hockey, not just an NHL allstar loss. Do I have to bring up the quotes (from the players and commentators) again? This has been discussed many times...

LOL!

Never has the pot ever called the kettle so black.

So me refusing to accept your misconceptions about the USSR and international hockey = me being ethnocentric like you?

Wow I haven't seen the "I know you are but what am I" defence used since public school and yet you have pulled it out three times in one thread. I'd respond to this dribble, but there is really no point in discussing facts with someone who has no interest in being truthful.

You talking about facts and being truthful...

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

So me refusing to accept your misconceptions about the USSR and international hockey = me being ethnocentric like you?

Laughing at conspiracy theories and excuses of fans of Russian/Soviet Hockey is not being ethnocentric, it's laughing at fans, not the players. I have the upmost respect for European hockey players of the past and present and count many as amongst my favourite players I've seen. I've posted before that it's my belief that the 1981 Soviet team that won the Canada Cup is the best I've ever seen anybody play as a team. The just played incredibly well as a team.

I really have no misconceptions about the USSR and international hockey and I've always given it the respect it deserved. While the Canada Cups and World Cups were not perfect, until the last 4 Olympics it was the closest thing we've had to a best on best tournament. But hell getting a perfect tournament where every team has 100% of their best available talent and any home ice advantages are negated is pretty much impossible. Love them to reintroduce the World Cup format and alternate between NA and Europe.

 

[thomasincanada]

Well the point is if you consider all the Canada Cups best on best then why not all the WCs from 77 (when NHL players were allowed to play)?

Honestly.. the WC's don't count at all in my opinion since our best players didn't play. Neither did the olympics before 1998. You obviously discount the Canada Cups.. I disagree but can live with that for the sake of diplomacy.

So, can we say only true best on bests were the last 4 olympics? I can live with this since Canada is the only multiple winner of best on bests. Would you also agree that USSR and/or Russia have never truly won a best on best?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Russia had Zubrus, a Lithuanian, in its 2004 World Cup's team. So, it was not team Russia that got beat, right?

"Because of the existence of the USSR, players born during its time as a nation were able to choose whether to play for Russia, or their own country after the breakup."

So Lithuania was part of the USSR when Zubrus was born. Hardly the same thing. It's not like Sweden had just seceded from Canada and Hedberg, Nilsson, and Salming had been born in the pre-secession nation.

Of the three Swedes only Salming got enough ice time (Hedberg and Nilsson did not even play in game 2).
And no it was billed as the "Series of the Century" between Soviet and Canadian (or at least North American) hockey.

Not Canada. Believe it or not, national pride is a strong rallying point, and it's non-existent if you're playing for "Team NHL".

This is what some of the posters here say...
Those excuses are what some here would say or have said, not necessarily what you would say.

I think this example, and almost all of those that you've suggested, are straw mans dreamed up to make your contentions look less absurd.

Again, this was not so.

NHL All-Stars, slick.

Well the point is if you consider all the Canada Cups best on best then why not all the WCs from 77 (when NHL players were allowed to play)?

Because it's abundantly clear that the best from the Russian side weren't restricted by their livelihood from participating in the Canada Cup, as NHL players were from the WCs. An overwhelming amount of the best Russian players consequently played in the Canada Cups, and virtually none of Canada's best played in the WCs. Don't be obtuse.

Yes and it was a major defeat for Canadian hockey, not just an NHL allstar loss. Do I have to bring up the quotes (from the players and commentators) again? This has been discussed many times...

I'm sure the Canadians, and Swedes, were very disappointed in the loss. As Russians would've been if they had been the majority of a collective Eastern European team and lost. They were representing their style of play.

 

[jekoh]

"Because of the existence of the USSR, players born during its time as a nation were able to choose whether to play for Russia, or their own country after the breakup."

Not true, they only had that choice as long as they were citizens of Russia, which Zubrus is not. The World Cup of Hockey does not follow international eligibility rules and that's why Zubrus could play, it has very little to do with where he was born. He could have been allowed to play for the USA or Slovakia for all we know.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Not true, they only had that choice as long as they were citizens of Russia, which Zubrus is not. The World Cup of Hockey does not follow international eligibility rules and that's why Zubrus could play, it has very little to do with where he was born. He could have been allowed to play for the USA or Slovakia for all we know.

Just like Kasparaitis and Nabokov he was a player from a former Soviet republic who wanted to play for Russia. It wasn't until after the WCup that Zubrus decided he would rather play for Lithuania. Given that when Zubrus was born he was a citizen of the same country as the rest of the Russian players I don't really think it is that big a deal.

It's kind of funny that they were trying to accomodate Team Russia as much as possible and now people are trying to use this as another excuse why the tournament shouldn't count.

 

[VMBM]

Not Canada. Believe it or not, national pride is a strong rallying point, and it's non-existent if you're playing for "Team NHL".

The interview Larry Robinson gave [to Dave Hodge] between periods 1 & 2 of the 3rd game, truly and utterly destroys your argument (he said things like "I'm proud to be Canadian" and "you'd like to win for your country for sure").

Hey, I'm not comparing Challenge Cup to the 1972 Summit series and/or Canada Cup final(s), but it was certainly much more than some All-Star/exhibition series.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

The interview Larry Robinson gave [to Dave Hodge] between periods 1 & 2 of the 3rd game, truly and utterly destroys your argument (he said things like "I'm proud to be Canadian" and "you'd like to win for your country for sure").

Hey, I'm not comparing Challenge Cup to the 1972 Summit series and/or Canada Cup final(s), but it was certainly much more than some All-Star/exhibition series.

Damn, I thought it was in the bag when Myskin started game 3.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

I thought we already dealt with the Challenge Cup. We agree that it's not quite a Canada-Russia best-on-best, but that it was a victory by Russia over a largely Canadian team and, as such, a victory for Soviet hockey.

I have no problem with this. We can't win all the time, but we win more than anybody else and I'm happy with that.

 

[YMB29]

Laughing at conspiracy theories and excuses of fans of Russian/Soviet Hockey is not being ethnocentric, it's laughing at fans, not the players.

Conspiracy theories??
Considering a tournament best on best only based on whether Canada had all of its best and not other countries, or refusing to admit that Canada had advantages in the Canada Cup is not being ethnocentric?

While the Canada Cups and World Cups were not perfect, until the last 4 Olympics it was the closest thing we've had to a best on best tournament.

That does not automatically make every Canada Cup a best on best tournament.

But hell getting a perfect tournament where every team has 100% of their best available talent and any home ice advantages are negated is pretty much impossible.

In the Canada Cup they did not try to negate any advantages...

Honestly.. the WC's don't count at all in my opinion since our best players didn't play. Neither did the olympics before 1998. You obviously discount the Canada Cups.. I disagree but can live with that for the sake of diplomacy.

Then you would agree that Canada Cups where the Soviets did not have many of their best don't count also?

So, can we say only true best on bests were the last 4 olympics? I can live with this since Canada is the only multiple winner of best on bests. Would you also agree that USSR and/or Russia have never truly won a best on best?

I did not say that all the Canada Cups or other tournaments don't count.

I think this example, and almost all of those that you've suggested, are straw mans dreamed up to make your contentions look less absurd.

Not dreamed up... But they were a response to the ones Kanadensisk made up.

Because it's abundantly clear that the best from the Russian side weren't restricted by their livelihood from participating in the Canada Cup, as NHL players were from the WCs.

There were restrictions and problems for the Soviets. Fact is all the best were not there, but you are trying to make excuses for Canada by saying its players had a valid reason while the Soviets did not.

An overwhelming amount of the best Russian players consequently played in the Canada Cups, and virtually none of Canada's best played in the WCs. Don't be obtuse.

You are the obtuse one here.
Some of the players who played for Canada in the 1982 WC:
Gretzky, Gainey, Lowe, Clarke, Sittler, Vaive, Barber, B. Smith, Ciccarelli, Gartner, Hawerchuk, Propp, Reinhart, Hartsburg
1989:
Patrick, Babych, Carlyle, Verbeek, S. Stevens, G. Anderson, Muller, Bellows, Yzerman, Hawerchuk, Dineen, Messier, McLean, Burke, Fuhr

I'm sure the Canadians, and Swedes, were very disappointed in the loss. As Russians would've been if they had been the majority of a collective Eastern European team and lost. They were representing their style of play.

The Swedes not so much...
For Canada it was about as bad as game 1 in 72 or the 81 final.
This explains it well:
"It was billed as “no excusesâ€â€”both countries had access to their best players, and it was in the middle of the hockey season. Of course, we had the enormous advantage of playing on the smaller NHL ice surface at Madison Square Garden in New York, but that said, it was considered a series that would show the world who was really number one."
http://vintageleafmemories.blogspot.com/2010/02/as-canada-celebrates-demolition-of-team.html

The interview Larry Robinson gave [to Dave Hodge] between periods 1 & 2 of the 3rd game, truly and utterly destroys your argument (he said things like "I'm proud to be Canadian" and "you'd like to win for your country for sure").

Did not he also say that this game was more important than game 7 of the Stanley Cup final, or something like that?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Considering a tournament best on best only based on whether Canada had all of its best and not other countries, or refusing to admit that Canada had advantages in the Canada Cup is not being ethnocentric?

YMB29

In the original post of this thread I listed 11 tournaments that I felt best measured the quality of the top players from each country.

Please list for us the top 11 (or more) mens tournaments that you feel were the best measure of the quality of the each countries top players.

For some reason I have a feeling you will either ignore this question or make an excuse why you won't answer it, but I figured it was worth asking anyway.

 

[YMB29]

You are asking me to list what tournaments I think were "best on best"? Tournaments measure the quality of teams, not necessarily the quality of the top players...
Like I said the only tournaments on your list that I think should not be there are CC76, CC91, and WCoH04.
This is as far as the USSR and Russia are concerned; I can't speak for all the other teams.

 

[tommygunn]

This explains it well:
"It was billed as “no excusesâ€â€”both countries had access to their best players, and it was in the middle of the hockey season. Of course, we had the enormous advantage of playing on the smaller NHL ice surface at Madison Square Garden in New York, but that said, it was considered a series that would show the world who was really number one."
http://vintageleafmemories.blogspot.com/2010/02/as-canada-celebrates-demolition-of-team.html

For the millionth time, it was the NHL All-Stars vs. the Soviet National Team.

Just to humour you though... regarding the "both countries had access to their best players" comment... you actually believe that Team NHL had access to Wayne Gretzky et. al that were playing in the WHA at the time? Wow..

 

[VMBM]

For the millionth time, it was the NHL All-Stars vs. the Soviet National Team.

Just to humour you though... regarding the "both countries had access to their best players" comment... you actually believe that Team NHL had access to Wayne Gretzky et. al that were playing in the WHA at the time? Wow..

Even if they had, I very much doubt he would have been chosen, as he was just 18 (and barely even that) at the time. And how many WHA players would have actually made it to the team? Hmmm, Marc Tardif?

It was the best Canadian players vs. the best Soviet players, no matter what the terms were.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

This is as far as the USSR and Russia are concerned; I can't speak for all the other teams.

Sorry, I thought you were knowledgable of international hockey, not just Russian/Soviet hockey. Sorry to ask something you didn't know the answer to.

 

[tommygunn]

Even if they had, I very much doubt he would have been chosen, as he was just 18 (and barely even that) at the time. And how many WHA players would have actually made it to the team? Hmmm, Marc Tardif?

It was the best Canadian players vs. the best Soviet players, no matter what the terms were.

Are you and YMB29 the same person?

Anyways.. the facts are that it wasn't the best Canadian players, nor did they have access to the country's best players. Facts can sometimes get in the way of someone's wishful thinking and distorted reality.

Tardif, Real Cloutier, and yes Gretzky would have easily made a Team Canada lineup over a guy like Don Marcotte.

Not to mention (with apologies to the 3 Swedes) what having an all-Canadian team would have done for the chemistry of the team...

I'm a HUGE fan of the Soviet teams from that era.. have a plethora of memorabilia relating to it. It's obvious a few on here are huge fans as well.. but, continually calling it a Canada-USSR series does more harm to your arguments on here, than it does good and people will eventually stop taking your comments seriously if it's repeated time after time..

 

[Big Phil]

Just thinking back to a quote, didn't Tretiak consider the Canada Cups to be a more prolific victory over the Olympics? This would make me believe he too realized he wasn't truly the best in the world until he defeated the best Canadian team. This should end any argument some people had that the Canada/World Cups were not best on best.

Also in the World Cup in 1996 Canada did not have a lot of great players there. Lemieux, Bourque, Roy, Francis, MacInnis, Kariya were players that were not on the team because of injury, lack of interest and not being picked. That being said Canada still had a very good team and that tournament still featured the best players in the world from each country. USA's victory IMO does not get diminished

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Also in the World Cup in 1996 Canada did not have a lot of great players there. Lemieux, Bourque, Roy, Francis, MacInnis, Kariya were players that were not on the team because of injury, lack of interest and not being picked. That being said Canada still had a very good team and that tournament still featured the best players in the world from each country. USA's victory IMO does not get diminished

Bingo. I was a young man at the time and I remember trying to dismiss that painful loss to the USA with just about any reason I could think of, (our best players weren't there..Messier shouldn't have been thrown out of that faceoff...etc.). Now that I'm older and (I hope) wiser I believe Canada lost the 96 WCH fair and square and the USA deserve full value for that victory. Same story applies for the loss in Nagano.

Without naming names, I encourage a handful of you here to grow up/man up as well, and accept when you have been beaten fairly.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Bingo. I was a young man at the time and I remember trying to dismiss that painful loss to the USA with just about any reason I could think of, (our best players weren't there..Messier shouldn't have been thrown out of that faceoff...etc.). Now that I'm older and (I hope) wiser I believe Canada lost the 96 WCH fair and square and the USA deserve full value for that victory. Same story applies for the loss in Nagano.

Without naming names, I encourage a handful of you here to grow up/man up as well, and accept when you have been beaten fairly.

Beating Canada 3 out of 4 games in '96 was possibly the single biggest international acheivement of any team outside of Canada. People can say what they will about the CCup/WCup but we always sent our best team and our players cared a lot about winning. In hindsight beating us three times was pretty unbelievable.

 

[Zine]

Just like Kasparaitis and Nabokov he was a player from a former Soviet republic who wanted to play for Russia. It wasn't until after the WCup that Zubrus decided he would rather play for Lithuania. Given that when Zubrus was born he was a citizen of the same country as the rest of the Russian players I don't really think it is that big a deal.

It's kind of funny that they were trying to accomodate Team Russia as much as possible and now people are trying to use this as another excuse why the tournament shouldn't count.

His point was equating the circumstances of the Challenge Cup to the World Cup (a tourney Canadian supporters always legitimize).

If team Russia is still “Russia” despite having a non-citizen player (a player who never had any connection to Russia), the same holds true for the Challenge Cup…….especially when only 1 Swede played significant time.
In this instance, the only difference between Team Canada and Team NHL was semantics of team name.


Edit: To make it clear, unlike Kasparaitis and Nabokov (ethnic Russian) who have citizenship and were developed by Russian teams during Soviet era, Zubrus has no connection to Russia proper.
It would be like a Slovak developed in Košice without Czech citizenship playing for Czech.

 

[Zine]

Anyways.. the facts are that it wasn't the best Canadian players, nor did they have access to the country's best players. Facts can sometimes get in the way of someone's wishful thinking and distorted reality.

Tardif, Real Cloutier, and yes Gretzky would have easily made a Team Canada lineup over a guy like Don Marcotte.

Right, but 1 or 2 players missing shouldn't make a difference......especially when those players likely wouldn't have been key players. This happens in every tournament.

It's hardly like Fetisov missing 1984 Canada Cup....or a whole team (Slovakia) missing a tournament.

Not to mention (with apologies to the 3 Swedes) what having an all-Canadian team would have done for the chemistry of the team...

I doubt taking Salming out of the line-up would have done much in terms of changing chemistry.

 

[VMBM]

Are you and YMB29 the same person?

*IRONY ALERT*
Sure we are. Have got nothing better to do with my life, you know. Are you and Mr Kanadensisk the same person?

Anyways.. the facts are that it wasn't the best Canadian players, nor did they have access to the country's best players. Facts can sometimes get in the way of someone's wishful thinking and distorted reality.

Tardif, Real Cloutier, and yes Gretzky would have easily made a Team Canada lineup over a guy like Don Marcotte.

Not to mention (with apologies to the 3 Swedes) what having an all-Canadian team would have done for the chemistry of the team...

Bolded. I guess if you tell that to yourself hard enough, it becomes a 'fact'. Anyway, it really is a ridiculous claim. Yes, the best Canadian players at the time were on that team. Don Marcotte? What, he played like 1 game (the last one). That's what Tardif, Cloutier and the 17-18 year old Gretzky would have been at best; substitute players. Sidney Crosby did not make it to Team Canada in the 2006 Olympics (BECAUSE HE WAS STILL SO YOUNG), even though he was already undoubtedly better than some of the players who played. A guy like Marcel Dionne did not play in '72, although he was on the roster. BTW, the Soviets were missing Fetisov, Maltsev and later Valeri Kharlamov and Vladimir Golikov too.

And well, let's just say that I value the opinion of a guy like Larry Robinson (who did feel he was playing for his country), and the media people like Irvin ("we beat them in '72 and '76, now they've beaten us"), Orr, Hodge, Meeker etc.

I'm a HUGE fan of the Soviet teams from that era.. have a plethora of memorabilia relating to it. It's obvious a few on here are huge fans as well.. but, continually calling it a Canada-USSR series does more harm to your arguments on here, than it does good and people will eventually stop taking your comments seriously if it's repeated time after time..

Good for you! [that you are a HUGE fan]

You know, I'm not claiming that we should call NHL All Stars [now afterwards] Team Canada, and like I've said, the Challenge Cup definitely is NOT on the same level with Canada Cups nor 1972 Summit Series.

However, I'm not too crazy about the way some of you try to sweep that series under the carpet, so to speak. One can certainly bring it up, when we are discussing - or arguing whatever - about the superiority of Canadian or Soviet hockey. For the record, I don't think Soviet hockey ever surpassed Canadian hockey, as in that they had more great players or that the Soviet league was better than the NHL, but the fact seems to be that in 1978-83 (when Soviet hockey was at its strongest with the little exception in '80), the Canadians could not assemble a team that could beat the Soviets with any regularity, or at least there is little proof of it.