Russia Defeats Canada on All Levels in 2011

[roto]

entertaining thread. So using the OP's logic, Finland destroys Russia and Sweden at the men's level of hockey. Such an argument is flawed. In Canada's case, they are the reigning champions of hockey and you will have to wait til Sochi before you can prove otherwise.

Yes, it's flawed to say to that Finland now destroys Sweden and Russia. The funny thing is that in the same paragraph you say that olympic tournament proves something. WTF? Canada beats Russia in one game and you're telling it proves something? Tournament in Vancouver proved that Canada's olympic team was the best team of that specific tournament of 4-7 games per team. That's the only thing it proves. It's just a short tournament, not a 82-game regular season.

If olympic tournament really proves something:
2010: Finland(3) > Sweden, Russia, Czech, Slovakia
2006: Finland(2) > Russia, Canada(7), USA, Czech, Slovakia etc
(2004: Finland(2) > Sweden, Russia, USA, etc.)
2002: Belarus(4) > Sweden, Finland(8), Czech
1998: Finland(3) > Kanada(4), USA, Sweden

Finnish team had better results in Vancouver than Sweden and Russia, and destroyed them in WC, but it doesn't prove anything else than that Finland can squeeze out quite nice effort from not-so-shiny material in short tournaments. Or did tournament rankings of Torino prove that Switzerland(6) was destroying Canada(7) between 2006-2010?

My point is that even best-of-best tournaments prove nothing. They're nice to watch, but that's all. Same applies to WC: they're nice to watch, but prove nothing. Long-term trends tell something at least about the smaller ice hockey countries: Swiss and Germans are often able to hang on with big nations, for example.

As for the Russian juniors beating the Canadian juniors, good job! But it doesn't mean your Russian juniors are superior. Our best junior eligible players are too elite for juniors and are in the NHL at 18. The tournament is fun to watch, but proves nothing.

This is quite funny, too. NA people usually bash WC because all the best players aren't participating and you value WJC higher than WC. Then when you don't win WJC, it's not significant because the best players are in NHL. There's one thing that I agree: WJC proves nothing more than other short tournaments (WC, olympics).

 

[Canuck21t]

Yes, it's flawed to say to that Finland now destroys Sweden and Russia. The funny thing is that in the same paragraph you say that olympic tournament proves something. WTF? Canada beats Russia in one game and you're telling it proves something? Tournament in Vancouver proved that Canada's olympic team was the best team of that specific tournament of 4-7 games per team. That's the only thing it proves. It's just a short tournament, not a 82-game regular season.

If olympic tournament really proves something:
2010: Finland(3) > Sweden, Russia, Czech, Slovakia
2006: Finland(2) > Russia, Canada(7), USA, Czech, Slovakia etc
(2004: Finland(2) > Sweden, Russia, USA, etc.)
2002: Belarus(4) > Sweden, Finland(8), Czech
1998: Finland(3) > Kanada(4), USA, Sweden

Finnish team had better results in Vancouver than Sweden and Russia, and destroyed them in WC, but it doesn't prove anything else than that Finland can squeeze out quite nice effort from not-so-shiny material in short tournaments. Or did tournament rankings of Torino prove that Switzerland(6) was destroying Canada(7) between 2006-2010?

My point is that even best-of-best tournaments prove nothing. They're nice to watch, but that's all. Same applies to WC: they're nice to watch, but prove nothing. Long-term trends tell something at least about the smaller ice hockey countries: Swiss and Germans are often able to hang on with big nations, for example.


This is quite funny, too. NA people usually bash WC because all the best players aren't participating and you value WJC higher than WC. Then when you don't win WJC, it's not significant because the best players are in NHL. There's one thing that I agree: WJC proves nothing more than other short tournaments (WC, olympics).

The more a tournament is important, the more significant a win is. Winning one Olympic gold is like winning 4 WHC golds.

 

[PaulieVegas]

Big Yak 72 how are you? I don't necessarily disagree with any of the statements that you make. Hard work has often led to the defeat of more talented teams.

My only point was to ask PaulieVegas a straight yes or no question as to what he thought.

Fine, I'll just echo his answer, how are we supposed to know if they would have won or not? Was the team you had in Buffalo not good enough to win? Canadians always do this, if you win you're the best and if you lose you find an excuse of justification, and one of your favorite all-time excuses is to play the "we didn't have our best players" card.

 

[Rob]

Fine, I'll just echo his answer, how are we supposed to know if they would have won or not? Was the team you had in Buffalo not good enough to win? Canadians always do this, if you win you're the best and if you lose you find an excuse of justification, and one of your favorite all-time excuses is to play the "we didn't have our best players" card.

Why does everyone always overgeneralize.

Anyway didn't hear that excuse trotted out in Turin. The team just stunk.

 

[Theokritos]

The African teams doesn't pay their players the salaries, the top European clubs do. So it's Barca, Chelsea, Real Madrid etc. that takes the risk without the reward by letting them participate in their continents tournament. Why ?? because it's the morally correct thing to do.

This:

Clubs do not "let" their players go to international tournaments. They are forced to allow them if the player wants to as long as it falls on a FIFA international date. It has nothing to do with "morals." If the teams, and therefore the league that team is in, want to remain a member of FIFA, they HAVE to let their players go.

FIFA is more powerful than the IIHF. Not one single football league can afford to snub the FIFA - not the Premier League, not the Bundesliga, not the Primera Division, not the Serie A. In Ice Hockey, it's different. The NHL is powerful enough to say no to the international federation. It's not about different morals, but about different power relations.

And either way, I haven't heard of these players who weren't allowed to go by their NHL team. All I hear is about players declining invitations because they don't care, are tired, slightly injured, want to have a vacation, don't want to travel, etc.

Thomas Vanek for example.
First Day: Vanek says: "Count me in for the World Championship. Very excited to play for Austria."
Second Day: Sabres say: "Vanek is injured. He's not going to play in the World Championship."
Third Day: Vanek says: "I'm sorry. I want to play, but the Sabres say I'm injured and have to stay away from the rink."

 

[canuck2010]

Fine, I'll just echo his answer, how are we supposed to know if they would have won or not? Was the team you had in Buffalo not good enough to win? Canadians always do this, if you win you're the best and if you lose you find an excuse of justification, and one of your favorite all-time excuses is to play the "we didn't have our best players" card.

Still don;t see a yes or no. Just the same old crap.

My guess is the team in Buffalo wasn't good enough to win since they didn't.

 

[canuck2010]

Fine, I'll just echo his answer, how are we supposed to know if they would have won or not? Was the team you had in Buffalo not good enough to win? Canadians always do this, if you win you're the best and if you lose you find an excuse of justification, and one of your favorite all-time excuses is to play the "we didn't have our best players" card.

Still don;t see a yes or no. Just the same old crap.

My guess is the team in Buffalo wasn't good enough to win since they didn't.

 

[PaulieVegas]

Still don;t see a yes or no. Just the same old crap.

My guess is the team in Buffalo wasn't good enough to win since they didn't.

What the heck do you want me to say? It's not a question you can answer "yes" or "no" to. You asked if I thought Canada would have won with Seguin, Kane, etc. The answer is: I don't know! Would they have been better on paper? Yes. Would they have won the tournament? No one knows. Lots of good teams on paper don't win.

BTW, don't know if it was you or someone else saying Canada would have been better with Fowler. Fowler's American. Probably wasn't you that said it though, you know your stuff better.

By my point, which is totally belabored by now, is that if Canada is as deep as Canadians boast, then it should matter if you don't have your absolute best 20 on the ice. It would be like the USA losing a baseball game and saying, "We only lost because Roy Halladay didn't play and we had to start Tim Linsecum instead." Do you think that excuse would fly?

 

[Stoneberg]

So the beat they B squad at the WJC's, the B squad at the U18's and the D squad at the WHC.

Congrats.

 

[RewBicks]

Quick, name me the prominent Russian NHL players left in the playoffs?

At this point, there's one, MAYBE two elite Russian forwards in the entire league whose salary I would want to pay to go to the trenches for me. You know who the first one is, the second one may never be as good as he was two years ago, time will tell.

 

[RewBicks]

What the heck do you want me to say? It's not a question you can answer "yes" or "no" to. You asked if I thought Canada would have won with Seguin, Kane, etc. The answer is: I don't know! Would they have been better on paper? Yes. Would they have won the tournament? No one knows. Lots of good teams on paper don't win.

BTW, don't know if it was you or someone else saying Canada would have been better with Fowler. Fowler's American. Probably wasn't you that said it though, you know your stuff better.

By my point, which is totally belabored by now, is that if Canada is as deep as Canadians boast, then it should matter if you don't have your absolute best 20 on the ice. It would be like the USA losing a baseball game and saying, "We only lost because Roy Halladay didn't play and we had to start Tim Linsecum instead." Do you think that excuse would fly?

More like "we only lost because sometimes teams lose games in one-game elimination tournaments".

**** happens. Doesn't change the fact that Canada remains the dominant talent producing nation in the world.

 

[RusskiyHockey]

More like "we only lost because sometimes teams lose games in one-game elimination tournaments".

**** happens. Doesn't change the fact that Canada remains the dominant talent producing nation in the world.

I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to challenge that fact. Regardless of that, it's not like Canada has (or should have) a monopoly over hockey and its various competitions.

 

[RewBicks]

I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to challenge that fact. Regardless of that, it's not like Canada has (or should have) a monopoly over hockey and its various competitions.

Sure, I agree with that entirely. Neither of those facts is inconsistent with the other, contrary to what some posters in this thread would have you believe. It is to be expected that Canada will lose from time to time - there's a ton of talent coming out of other countries, certainly more than enough to put together teams that can beat them on any given day in a one-loss elimination tournament.

 

[canuck2010]

What the heck do you want me to say? It's not a question you can answer "yes" or "no" to. You asked if I thought Canada would have won with Seguin, Kane, etc. The answer is: I don't know! Would they have been better on paper? Yes. Would they have won the tournament? No one knows. Lots of good teams on paper don't win.

BTW, don't know if it was you or someone else saying Canada would have been better with Fowler. Fowler's American. Probably wasn't you that said it though, you know your stuff better.

By my point, which is totally belabored by now, is that if Canada is as deep as Canadians boast, then it should matter if you don't have your absolute best 20 on the ice. It would be like the USA losing a baseball game and saying, "We only lost because Roy Halladay didn't play and we had to start Tim Linsecum instead." Do you think that excuse would fly?

Fair enough Paulie. I accept your argument and agreed with much of it.

Canada doesn't need it's A team to win the WC or the WJHC but other countries have improved to the point that we won't win with a C team either. I think that's great because as a fan I just enjoy the game and want to see good competitive hockey. I would rather lose with the team that we had this year than send people that don't want to be there. As a Canadian I want to see Canada win every game they play but obviously they won't. All that it means for me is that I can't wait until next year, WC, WJHC, U17, U18 doesn't matter just bring it on.

Yeah I recall someone listing Fowler as a Canadian, too bad he's not, good player.

Oh and by the way as an Orioles fan I'd be happen to have either Halladay or Linsecum pitching tonight.

Cheers

 

[Merydian]

Fair enough Paulie. I accept your argument and agreed with much of it.

Canada doesn't need it's A team to win the WC or the WJHC but other countries have improved to the point that we won't win with a C team either. I think that's great because as a fan I just enjoy the game and want to see good competitive hockey. I would rather lose with the team that we had this year than send people that don't want to be there. As a Canadian I want to see Canada win every game they play but obviously they won't. All that it means for me is that I can't wait until next year, WC, WJHC, U17, U18 doesn't matter just bring it on.

Yeah I recall someone listing Fowler as a Canadian, too bad he's not, good player.

Oh and by the way as an Orioles fan I'd be happen to have either Halladay or Linsecum pitching tonight.

Cheers

If you need to win WC, don't send your team at all.
It's justs one more excuse to explain one more loss against russians. Another tams was not the best too. If you cannot gather 2 teams strong enough to win the tournament, don't even try to call yourself as a best hockey country. Just one of.

 

[canuck2010]

If you need to win WC, don't send your team at all.
It's justs one more excuse to explain one more loss against russians. Another tams was not the best too. If you cannot gather 2 teams strong enough to win the tournament, don't even try to call yourself as a best hockey country. Just one of.

Based on the number of players that decided not to play this year I think we could have raised two teams that could have won the WC.

What's this, other people saying that their countries don't have their best teams. Too funny.

 

[RorschachWJK]

Based on the number of players that decided not to play this year I think we could have raised two teams that could have won the WC.

What's this, other people saying that their countries don't have their best teams. Too funny.

Well, Finland didn't have any of it's top goalies (I'd consider Vehanen somewhere around 4-6). Only the bottom one of the top six defenders (missing: Timonen, Lydman, Salo, Pitkänen, Vatanen). Of forwards, we were missing Ville Leino, Valtteri Filppula, Jussi Jokinen, Olli Jokinen, Saku Koivu, Lauri Korpikoski and Sean Bergenheim.

You could say we had our B-team, if that. Regardless, it was a great Team and a great tourney.

 

[canuck2010]

Well, Finland didn't have any of it's top goalies (I'd consider Vehanen somewhere around 4-6). Only the bottom one of the top six defenders (missing: Timonen, Lydman, Salo, Pitkänen, Vatanen). Of forwards, we were missing Ville Leino, Valtteri Filppula, Jussi Jokinen, Olli Jokinen, Saku Koivu, Lauri Korpikoski and Sean Bergenheim.

You could say we had our B-team, if that. Regardless, it was a great Team and a great tourney.

Agreed on all points. Very happy to see Finland win. Congrats

 

[RorschachWJK]

Agreed on all points. Very happy to see Finland win. Congrats

Thanks man! See you next year!

 

[PaulieVegas]

More like "we only lost because sometimes teams lose games in one-game elimination tournaments".

**** happens. Doesn't change the fact that Canada remains the dominant talent producing nation in the world.

You're right, it is a one-game elimination tournament. And under that format the best team doesn't always win. But the problem is you Canadians only bring that up when you lose, when you win it's not an issue. If Canada wins, you fly the flag and brag about your greatness. If you lose, we get the "it's a one-game elimination tournament" garbage.

2002 Olympics is a great example. Canada played like butt until the final. Got smoked by Sweden, beat a sorry German team by only 1, could only manage a tie against the Czechs, beat by 1 the same Finland team the USA trounced 6-0. But you won the gold medal game and all that gets swept under the rug. You were not very good that tournament (did you know Canada was a -1 in goal differential coming into the semis?). But you win one game against an American team that had been stellar throughout the entire tournament when you were not, and you're somehow better.

2010 Olys, same thing. You win the Gold and you're suddenly better. Never mind the fact that in two games against the USA you went 1-1 and got outscored 7-6 on your home ice.

But when Canada loses a one-and-done game, we hear all about how it's "just one game." Seems like a different set of rules applies to you guys.