Russians seem to have short memories

Status
Not open for further replies.

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Okay I saw the whole game last night. First off someone on TSN mentioned this and he was dead on: "The Russians were robbed of a goal not a gold medal!" The first ten minutes of the game Russia was dominating, Malkin looked sharp and Canada looked on their heels. then they started to hit. Then came two goals, two of them soft especially the first one. After that Malkin was shut down and Russia almost looked out of the game even just before their "goal" in the second.

That goal being disallowed is not why they lost. Why dont people worry about as to why their goalie allowed a pair of soft goals. Or as to why Malkin couldnt take out Steve Downie on the first goal. Yes it woudl have been 2-1, but even that goal barely squeaked through. You think Staal and Parent would have just sat back and let Malkin come to them? No way. It was just one goal and the final was 5-0 by the way. Could it have changed the game? I just dont think the Russians had enough motivation to win. A goal or no goal it still would have been like a 4-2 or 5-2 game for Canada. Just look at how the game was going at that time. Russia's goaltending and lack of play by Malkin were why they lost. Plus Canada's concept of playing as a team helped them win. I'm sorry it went that way really, Canadians hate to win that way but its not like it was in OT or anything, and you still have to admit that the better 'team" won. But here's some old controversy's that are much worse that have gone against us!

WJC Gold Medal game '02 - Be honest the Russian goalie (I forget his name he was the back up) intentionally pushed the net off with about three seconds to go while Canada was frantically trying to tie it up with a scramble in fornt of the net. The buzzer goes and no penalty shot is awarded and Canada's Brad Boyes goes ballistic. Did the goalie knwo he did that? Yes. How do I know? He looked over at the ref just before he took off his gloves and celebrated. He sure knew he was guilty. but is that why we lost? No way. We had an extremely talented team there that was one of our best ever, but the reason why we lost is because we had a mental breakdown in the second period. 4 of the 5 goals Lecalire allowed went between his legs. That folks is why we lost. Plus going against a vey good Russian team as well. No penalty shot. That's not fair. but hey where were we for the first 59 minutes?


1996 World Cup final Can/USA Game 3 - This one needs no explanation. Hull ties the goal with a high stick with about three minutes left in the game and it ignites the Americans and they score the winner 43 seconds later. Is that why we lost? hardly. We peppered the Americans especially in the second period. It should have been 5-1 by the end of the second but it wasnt. Who cares if Hull scores an illiegal goal then? But Mike Richter stopped shot after shot after shot even when we had sure goals. that is why we lost. then in the third the Americans took over.

So you see, we have had much worse in tighter games before. But if a team is so good they shouldnt let that beat them. They should be ahead two or three goals if they are truly better. Dont forget how the officiating is in the WJC. A clean bodycheck is a penalty for crying out loud! Who do you think that benefits? Not Canada. yet year after year we go through it and we are always there at the podium, often in Gold. You see the great teams dont let marginal calls kill them. And believe me I wish I could have changed the goal back form last night but as a team, including goaltending, Canada was just a bit better.
 

Den

Registered User
Aug 9, 2005
6,037
2
Stockholm
www.recdir.com
I also agree. The no-goal is overblown too much. It would be a closer but a lost game, probably. So, see you on the European ice next December :D
 

Macman

Registered User
May 15, 2004
3,447
408
Den said:
So, see you on the European ice next December :D

Of Canada's 12 world junior golds, six were won on big ice. In this case, size doesn't matter.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
Many of the people going on about how Russia whines are the same types who were whining bitterly after the shootout in 1998 and about the referee in the 2002 woman's olympic finals.
 

Den

Registered User
Aug 9, 2005
6,037
2
Stockholm
www.recdir.com
Macman said:
Of Canada's 12 world junior golds, six were won on big ice. In this case, size doesn't matter.

Considering that not every second tourney was played in Europe, looks like it does.
WJC played in NA: 10. Canadian wins: 6. Ratio: 6/10=3/5.
WJC played in Europe: 20. Canadian wins: 6. Ratio: 6/20=3/10.
 

Macman

Registered User
May 15, 2004
3,447
408
Den said:
Considering that not every second tourney was played in Europe, looks like it does.
WJC played in NA: 10. Canadian wins: 6. Ratio: 6/10=3/5.
WJC played in Europe: 20. Canadian wins: 6. Ratio: 6/20=3/10.

Well, there's more at play here than simple long division. If you're going to go back 30 years, then you should also take into account the fact Canada didn't send all-star teams for five of the first six years of the tournament and four of those five years were played in Europe. We used to send the Memorial Cup champs the year after they won the Memorial Cup. Canada can win anywhere and the numbers prove it. Three of their five straight golds in the '90s were won in Europe.
 
Last edited:

Chuck28

Registered User
Jan 3, 2006
16
0
but you also have to consider that the Canadian Junior program was given more attention at the same time that more of these tournaments were being played in North America.
 

Bryanbryoil

Pray For Ukraine
Sep 13, 2004
85,954
34,076
Den said:
I also agree. The no-goal is overblown too much. It would be a closer but a lost game, probably. So, see you on the European ice next December :D

Imagine a guy like Cogliano on the bigger ice surface!!! :amazed: :amazed:
 

Den

Registered User
Aug 9, 2005
6,037
2
Stockholm
www.recdir.com
Macman said:
Well, there's more at play here than simple long division. If you're going to go back 30 years, then you should also take into account the fact Canada didn't send all-star teams for five of the first six years of the tournament and four of those five years were played in Europe.We used to send the Memorial Cup champs the year after they won the Memorial Cup.

That's your problems. Are you gonna hit our boys less because they have jetleg??

Canada can win anywhere and the numbers prove it. Three of their five
straight golds in the '90s were won in Europe.

See, we all can find excuse. For instance, I can hypothetically counter this by saying that Canada was so succesfull in early-mid 90 because Russia was wallowing in crap, the economy was in shambles, and the hockey system was destroyed, hockey was matter #10000 on their minds, and blah-blah-blah. But I won't - who cares what we were doing, Canada was very succeful at that time. And on this note, let me keep our early, Memorial Cup era, multiple golds. Don't take me wrong, of course Canada can win it anywhere. Or not, for that matter.
 

Den

Registered User
Aug 9, 2005
6,037
2
Stockholm
www.recdir.com
Chuck28 said:
but you also have to consider that the Canadian Junior program was given more attention at the same time that more of these tournaments were being played in North America.

This is actually, something I don't like. Why not rotate it more equally? I understand, revenues and stuff, but WJC first of all is a sports event, not a business venture...
 

Mr. Hab

Registered User
Nov 17, 2004
6,704
0
Montreal
It is only fair to write: if a goal would NOT have counted for Canada the same way it didn't for Russia (supposed to be 2-1), I guarantee you that most Canadians would have gone ballistic.
We all should admit IT might have made a difference. We will never know...
Maybe it would have been 3-2 or 4-2 Canada, maybe 3-2 or 4-3 for Russia? :dunno:
It could have changed the game's momentum...maybe Justin Pogge's confidence would have slipped after letting in a goal? Maybe not? It really bugs me that this kind of thing has to happen, especially in such important games/finals (but it happens!).
Anyways... in the end Canada won the gold medal.
To be honest, before the tournament began I felt USA had (by far) the best talent...on paper! Anyways...

Right now it is 15 gold medals for Russia:clap::clap:,
12 gold medals for Canada:clap:.
Russia is still #1 in WJC.

3 gold medals in a row for Canada can change that!!;)

All I know is that these WJC sure are fun!! And (besides Canada!) thanks to the Russians, Americans, Czechs, Slovaks, Finns, Swedes, Belarussians...'cause we can all enjoy great and very competitive/entertaining "Under 20 International" hockey!!:handclap::):handclap:
 

Steveorama

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
4,093
34
Oakville, ON
Visit site
Den said:
This is actually, something I don't like. Why not rotate it more equally? I understand, revenues and stuff, but WJC first of all is a sports event, not a business venture...
Naive.
Sports events like this only happen as long as the business side is successful.
Tell Europeans to actually start attending some WJC games, then we can start seeing more tourneys awarded to European cities!
 

Den

Registered User
Aug 9, 2005
6,037
2
Stockholm
www.recdir.com
Steveorama said:
Naive.
Sports events like this only happen as long as the business side is successful.
Tell Europeans to actually start attending some WJC games

Yeah, I know, I know. WJC is quite behind the Worlds in popularity in Europe. From what I see on the Russian boards now, it actually is less popular than the ECC.
 

Mr. Hab

Registered User
Nov 17, 2004
6,704
0
Montreal
Den said:
Well, formally it's 12. Kind of.

Russia/CIS/Soviet Union = 15 gold medals
Russia+CIS+Soviet Union = 15 gold medals
no? yes? (I double-checked on TSN!!!!)

Canada = 12 gold medals


To tell you the truth...I wish Czech Republic and Slovakia would just get together again (so much more talent if they were united again).
And Belarus, Kazhakstan...should all be with Russia (as one)...so much more talent on one team...(and not just 'cause I would have loved to see Kostitsyn and Malkin play together!! ;)).
 

Den

Registered User
Aug 9, 2005
6,037
2
Stockholm
www.recdir.com
Mr. Hab said:
Russia/CIS/Soviet Union = 15 gold medals
Russia+CIS+Soviet Union = 15 gold medals
no? yes? (I double-checked on TSN!!!!)

Canada = 12 gold medals


To tell you the truth...I wish Czech Republic and Slovakia would just get together again (so much more talent if they were united again).
And Belarus, Kazhakstan...should all be with Russia (as one)...so much more talent on one team...(and not just 'cause I would have loved to see Kostitsyn and Malkin play together!! ;)).

Well, it was not an official tournament before 77. The official count starts from 77, and then it's 12
 

Kaizer

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
4,574
428
Berlin, Germany
Den said:
Well, it was not an official tournament before 77. The official count starts from 77, and then it's 12
But Canada participated too ... but it was unofficial ... but Canada participated too ... but it was unofficial ... and so on ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->