definitely agree with your order of things here. But the 50 year drought was a remarkable novelty, if you think about it. 50 years to the exact day! I liked the part about that Loonie that the Edmonton guys put in the ice. The guy had pulled one out of his pocket and it turned out to be from 1987, evoking Gretz to Lemieux of course, That was 2002. Not easy it is to find a fifteen year old coin in one's pocket.
The state of Canadian hockey after the 96 World Cup and 98 Olympic losses
- Thread starter dalewood12
- Start date
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,065
- 883
Is it just me, or am I the only one who saw the announcement live on TV on Saturday night prior to a Hockey Night in Canada game? I always assumed that's how most people saw it unfold. I can remember Bobby Clarke announcing it standing on the ice at Maple Leaf Gardens (I believe it was prior to a Leaf game) in November 1997. I can remember a friend of mine and I both liking the picks and then we sort of went down the list and said "Wait, did they pick Recchi?" I can remember that being my first reaction. Being in 1997 we didn't just have the information at our fingertips, so when the newspaper came the next day I remember dissecting the team and having a couple of head scratching moments.
Hard to believe. Nieds was on the 1996 World Cup team, the 2002 Olympic team, the 2004 World Cup team, NOT the 2006 team due to injury and then the 2010 team. I think sometimes we overrate him in a fanboy type of way but it is worth noting that whenever he played we did better, and other than 1996 we won. That defense in 1998 was excellent, but perhaps one of them (Desjardins or Foote?) should have been replaced to bring in Niedermayer who would have been a killer on the big ice.
Voight
#winning
Technically there was a reason... Bobby Clarke wanted to scout him and see how he played against elite competition
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,065
- 883
Technically there was a reason... Bobby Clarke wanted to scout him and see how he played against elite competition
It was just a bizarre thing because the media got in on it too. He played in the 1997 World Championships, big whoop! He had a 50 point season - his only one. He had a 43 point season otherwise. But this was a player whose selection did not make sense back then, or today. There was nothing - absolutely nothing - that justified his selection. If it was a defensive forward they wanted they should have picked Peca. Faceoff guy? Francis. Or Messier. This guy was in the middle of a 26(!) point season! On the worst team in the NHL. Why?
Some other selections I didn't like I can at least see what drew them to them. Chris Kunitz was Crosby's linemate and had scored a decent amount of goals in 2013 and 2014. We still left talent at home though while picking him. Even Todd Bertuzzi when on a major heater just before the 2006 Olympic selection that probably made them think that perhaps the "old" Bertuzzi was back. He never was. But he made the team.
Voight
#winning
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,065
- 883
I can understand him more because Canada always picks a player like him. There is always an energy-line type of guy with a lot of sandpaper, good defense, kills penalties, etc. A guy who will muck in the corners and create a bit of room out there for the more skilled guys. Morrow was that type. He was still an effective player at this point. Had a 74(!) point season in 2008 and a good playoff. It is one thing if you have several of these guys on the team and leave the skilled guys home. For example in 2006 we didn't need all of Smyth, Bertuzzi, Draper, Doan on the team when there was lots of skill left off. But in 2010 they basically built the perfect team and the lack of a true natural grinder is all that was left. We were just so stacked in every position so there was bound to be someone left off. Stamkos, St. Louis, Carter all come to mind as players that didn't make the team up front. But they still did need that grinder.
EpochLink
Canucks and Jets fan
Patrice Bergeron was on the 2010 team, people kept saying he's there as the 4th line centre with a right handed shot. I didn't mind Brendan Morrow to be honest, sandpaper in the bottom six.
The Panther
Registered User
The 1996 World Cup team felt a bit 'off', largely due to Sather coaching, I think. If there had been a younger, more contemporary coach (pref. not Crawford), the old guys would have played a bit less and the young guys would have played a bit more, and defensive players would have been better utilized. A 35-year-old entering his 19th pro season should not be the club's leading scorer.
That being said, the 1996 team was still just a bad bounce away from winning it all. The line-up had a few issues, but simply some smarter coaching would have won it. The players were basically good enough, even with several world-elite players missing.
The 1998 team was WAY off. This is the one where Hockey Canada obviously tried to build a BIG, tough team to compete with the Americans... who then choked and lost. Crawford used some odd line combinations, and certain players (Primeau, Corson, Linden, Zamuner) should never have been there. It had some old guys (Bourque, Gretzky, MacInnis, Stevens) and a bunch of young / prime guys who were lumbering and slow. And no one thought to practice the shoot-out.
2002, everything fell into place. Well built team (though I could have done without Fleury at this point, but whatever.)
2006... Ugh. The first sign of trouble was when Gretzky (I think it was him) was telling the media that Yzerman was guaranteed a roster spot if he wanted it. Why...?? Yzerman was, like, 52 years old by then and could barely move. I think Gretzky still thought it was 1996. Half the team was 30 or older, and there was a dearth of talent. Joe Thornton should have been the guy to take charge offensively, but as we know he tended to choke in big moments. Plus, Wade Redden, Shane Doan, Ryan Smyth, Bryan McCabe, Todd Bertuzzi, Kris Draper, and old-Rob Blake do not an Gold-medal winning team make.
Anyway, yeah, there was some concern after 1998. I think people recognized the errors made, which had good results in 2002.
But I still can't really explain the 2006 club. It starts to have a country-club atmosphere about the player selections. "Here's one of MY guys..." "Now, here's one of MINE." "And one of MY guys...!"
That being said, the 1996 team was still just a bad bounce away from winning it all. The line-up had a few issues, but simply some smarter coaching would have won it. The players were basically good enough, even with several world-elite players missing.
The 1998 team was WAY off. This is the one where Hockey Canada obviously tried to build a BIG, tough team to compete with the Americans... who then choked and lost. Crawford used some odd line combinations, and certain players (Primeau, Corson, Linden, Zamuner) should never have been there. It had some old guys (Bourque, Gretzky, MacInnis, Stevens) and a bunch of young / prime guys who were lumbering and slow. And no one thought to practice the shoot-out.
2002, everything fell into place. Well built team (though I could have done without Fleury at this point, but whatever.)
2006... Ugh. The first sign of trouble was when Gretzky (I think it was him) was telling the media that Yzerman was guaranteed a roster spot if he wanted it. Why...?? Yzerman was, like, 52 years old by then and could barely move. I think Gretzky still thought it was 1996. Half the team was 30 or older, and there was a dearth of talent. Joe Thornton should have been the guy to take charge offensively, but as we know he tended to choke in big moments. Plus, Wade Redden, Shane Doan, Ryan Smyth, Bryan McCabe, Todd Bertuzzi, Kris Draper, and old-Rob Blake do not an Gold-medal winning team make.
Anyway, yeah, there was some concern after 1998. I think people recognized the errors made, which had good results in 2002.
But I still can't really explain the 2006 club. It starts to have a country-club atmosphere about the player selections. "Here's one of MY guys..." "Now, here's one of MINE." "And one of MY guys...!"
NordiquesForeva
Registered User
- May 30, 2022
- 753
- 849
My take:
1996
The 1996 Canadian team got outplayed by a U.S. team with (imho) slightly better talent and better coaching. They lost a tight, best-of-3 series in game 3. Not the end of the world. The roster wasn't bad per se; one can quibble with guys like Verbeek, Primeau, Odelein or Cote, but its not like there was a ton of talent waiting in the wings. Maybe Turgeon or Oates should have gotten a look, but would they have made a significant difference against a deep, physical American team?
My beef was with the line construction and allocation of playing time; Yzerman + Fleury were deployed on the 4th line despite being very effective late in the RR and the semi-final game vs. Sweden. Sather rode a largely ineffective Messier/Graves/Lemieux line combo, and had Damphousse + Linden on Gretzky's wings. Suboptimal.
1998
The 1998 team was pretty effective until they ran into the Czechs. The roster had too many physical checkers - Primeau, Corson, Linden, Zamuner...they needed one of those guys + Peca, with more speed on the wing. Replace Foote with Niedermayer on the back end. The 1998 team was slow, and they missed Kariya for the entirety of the tournament and Sakic in the semi-final.
The issue at the time was that there was no one really obvious that could push Clarke into better decision-making. The big names left at home - Messier, Francis, Oates, Turgeon - would do nothing to enhance team speed or ability to play on the international ice. Someone like Friesen may have been an inspired choice. At the end of the day, maybe this team wouldn't have beat the Czecks even with a complete roster overhaul.
2002
Good team, well constructed and coached. They could have done without Nolan - he was named as one of the original 8 members of the team after his Hart-level season in 2000 so couldn't be replaced - but that's a minor point.
2004
Good team, well constructed and coached. Really a continuation of the 2002 team with some new talent making significant contributions (Thornton, Luongo, Lecavalier). I don't remember much about this tournament aside from the brawl in the U.S. game and thinking that Canada had this one in the bag from the get-go.
2006
Poorly constructed team, with Gretzky going to the well once too often with guys like Smyth, Doan, Bertuzzi, Foote, Draper, etc. One of our worst best-on-best teams. Actually, likely our worst. In my opinion though, the biggest gap on that team was defense as Niedermayer was injured and didn't play in the tournament, Pronger and Blake weren't 100%, and players like Regehr and McCabe (and the forwards highlighted above) were poorly-suited to the international ice.
Much has been made of the exclusion of Crosby, Staal and Spezza and this is an obvious point regarding this team. Boyle should have been selected to replace Niedermayer as well. And it wouldn't have hurt to have a winger or two (Kariya and Marleau come to mind) that could spread the ice a bit. On top of all of that, the offensive leadership of the team - Thornton, St. Louis, Lecavalier, Iginla, Sakic - were largely ineffective for a variety of reasons. I remember thinking the most effective players on the team were Gagne and Nash who, no surprise, were natural wingers with great speed and had experience playing on the larger ice surface.
1996
The 1996 Canadian team got outplayed by a U.S. team with (imho) slightly better talent and better coaching. They lost a tight, best-of-3 series in game 3. Not the end of the world. The roster wasn't bad per se; one can quibble with guys like Verbeek, Primeau, Odelein or Cote, but its not like there was a ton of talent waiting in the wings. Maybe Turgeon or Oates should have gotten a look, but would they have made a significant difference against a deep, physical American team?
My beef was with the line construction and allocation of playing time; Yzerman + Fleury were deployed on the 4th line despite being very effective late in the RR and the semi-final game vs. Sweden. Sather rode a largely ineffective Messier/Graves/Lemieux line combo, and had Damphousse + Linden on Gretzky's wings. Suboptimal.
1998
The 1998 team was pretty effective until they ran into the Czechs. The roster had too many physical checkers - Primeau, Corson, Linden, Zamuner...they needed one of those guys + Peca, with more speed on the wing. Replace Foote with Niedermayer on the back end. The 1998 team was slow, and they missed Kariya for the entirety of the tournament and Sakic in the semi-final.
The issue at the time was that there was no one really obvious that could push Clarke into better decision-making. The big names left at home - Messier, Francis, Oates, Turgeon - would do nothing to enhance team speed or ability to play on the international ice. Someone like Friesen may have been an inspired choice. At the end of the day, maybe this team wouldn't have beat the Czecks even with a complete roster overhaul.
2002
Good team, well constructed and coached. They could have done without Nolan - he was named as one of the original 8 members of the team after his Hart-level season in 2000 so couldn't be replaced - but that's a minor point.
2004
Good team, well constructed and coached. Really a continuation of the 2002 team with some new talent making significant contributions (Thornton, Luongo, Lecavalier). I don't remember much about this tournament aside from the brawl in the U.S. game and thinking that Canada had this one in the bag from the get-go.
2006
Poorly constructed team, with Gretzky going to the well once too often with guys like Smyth, Doan, Bertuzzi, Foote, Draper, etc. One of our worst best-on-best teams. Actually, likely our worst. In my opinion though, the biggest gap on that team was defense as Niedermayer was injured and didn't play in the tournament, Pronger and Blake weren't 100%, and players like Regehr and McCabe (and the forwards highlighted above) were poorly-suited to the international ice.
Much has been made of the exclusion of Crosby, Staal and Spezza and this is an obvious point regarding this team. Boyle should have been selected to replace Niedermayer as well. And it wouldn't have hurt to have a winger or two (Kariya and Marleau come to mind) that could spread the ice a bit. On top of all of that, the offensive leadership of the team - Thornton, St. Louis, Lecavalier, Iginla, Sakic - were largely ineffective for a variety of reasons. I remember thinking the most effective players on the team were Gagne and Nash who, no surprise, were natural wingers with great speed and had experience playing on the larger ice surface.
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,065
- 883
One thing to note, and I might be picking on the old Oilers here and I don't want to, but Messier is on the ice for the tying goal by Hull in 1996 and the next shift Gretzky is on the ice for Amonte's winner. Claude Lemieux had just fanned on a shot on a 2-on-1 prior to the Hull goal. Not sure I can blame Messier much on the goal, Claude Lemieux had rifled the puck around the boards right to Leetch waiting for it. But Gretzky did have an opportunity to clear the puck out of the zone prior to the Amonte goal and didn't. Some others made mistakes too. Linden on that same shift got thrown right off the puck by the smaller Smolinski and Damphousse sort of tagged team Amonte with Gretzky and chased him leaving Derian Hatcher all by himself and Amonte dished it to him and he took the shot which led to Amonte getting the rebound. Both Gretzky and Damphousse went after Amonte and then they both went after Hatcher, leaving Amonte open.
I can remember Fleury had returned from rehab and in reality he is a great pick for that team, or any Team Canada, but I can remember his erratic behaviour in the 2002 season and it did lead people to wonder if he was mentally prepared for the Olympics. I was sincerely hoping all would be good and I think it did go well, simply because Fleury did tend to wear the Canadian crest proudly.
1996 and 1998 we were right there, and mistakes were made from the top to the bottom, but Canada still played good enough to win both times. It could have happened. But I still have trauma from 2006.
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,065
- 883
On defense things started to look really thin when Bourque and MacInnis didn't play. MacInnis had an injury, Bourque just didn't want to. Check this out, just look at how much prettier and stacked our defense looks with these guys there:
Bourque-Desjardins
Coffey-MacInnis
Stevens-Niedermayer
Blake
Instead you have Cote and Odelein and while Foote was okay he still gets caught in a numbers game. Pronger would have been excellent against that physical U.S. team. We could have used him. Not sure why he wasn't there.
And you are right, our forward lines were out of whack. You needed a natural sniper on Gretzky's wing. I know that Damphousse played incredible in that Game 3, but overall you have to have at least one sniper on that line. Put Fleury up there or something. I liked the Shanahan-Lindros-Sakic line. That line should have taken over the whole tournament and for whatever reason it didn't. They played alright, but Lindros should have made his statement. I don't know up front who we needed that was available. Recchi comes to mind as someone who could have been on the right flank. Oates and Turgeon probably aren't able to keep up with the physical play, and we already had an old Gretzky getting beaten up.
You are right about Friesen. He is the one guy who had the speed on that big ice. I remember having him on my team simply for that reason. I didn't even begin to think about Corson or Zamuner.
The Panther
Registered User
I don't disagree, and this is what I was talking about when I said there were coaching problems. I remember watching the rubber-match Gold medal game (in my friend's fiancee's parents' house in Calgary). Sather was crazy to have Gretzky / Damphousse out for that shift in the defensive zone.
I mean, it's a game of inches. A couple minutes prior, you will recall Coffey's pass to Gretzky, who basically had a wide-open net for the series winning goal... Instead, the puck bobbles off his stick.
I don't think I was too emotionally invested in 1998 (I kind of have only marginal interest in Olympics at the best of times).
The 2006 team, I was overseas at the time, but I remember thinking: "This team is not good."
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,574
- 5,200
2006 if we remove the Canada vs Italy (participated like Japan in 1998)
Canada
5-1 Germany
0-2 Swiss
0-2 Finland
3-2 Czech
0-2 Russia
2W-3L, 8GF vs 9GA, shutout 3 times, the only convincing win was against Germany for all the tourney. They lost with .920-.930% goaltending from Brodeur-Luongo... it was not some getting burned by some bad goals in a single elimination tourney, they did not score at all.
Sundin-Zetterberg-Sedin-Forsberg was not weaker than Thornton-oldSakic-Lecavalier-Draper.
Lidstrom-Jonsson-Kronwall-Ohlund vs international ice Pronger, Redden, old Blake, Foote, Regehr, ....
Lundqvist as good as anyone.
Datsyuk-Kovalev- Malkin/Ovechkin/Kovalchuk not a worst top end of talent-strength-skating-size mix than Canada team for sure, so it was Canada forward dept that needed to be better and their best players at least matching up.
USA was getting old by then, that was a tourney without easy excuse to find, we only have the Niedermayer missing being a good one.
Last edited:
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,065
- 883
I guess with Sather he just wanted to roll who was hot. Gretzky was hot in that game, he had plenty of chances. Damphousse was very much hot in that game. They could have scored and won the game 3-2 right on that shift, who knows. I guess since the US perked up and dominated that shift in the Canadian zone we can look at the mistakes the Gretzky/Linden/Damphousse group made. But I mean, at least cover someone. Foote and Coffey were on defense when that goal went in. Coffey at least tied up Leclair and got tangled up with him so he couldn't do anything.
But I think that Coffey to Gretzky play you are thinking about was with a minute left and the U.S. up one goal. It bounced over Gretzky's stick. That could have tied it, but not won it. I think when that play happened the aura of Canadian hockey with the old Oilers took a beating. Obviously we've won since, but let's face it, those old Oilers just never lost! It was weird seeing them lose. I would say I was mad in 1998, seething mad, but I was heartbroken in 1996.
Crosby2010
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2023
- 1,065
- 883
I can remember 2004 very vividly. This was Gretzky and Lowe's 2nd crack after the legendary 2002 team. Here is where I may have seen a pattern I didn't like starting out. Gretzky was showing some unbending loyalty that I don't think there was room for. For example, in 2004 we had easily the best team on paper, but it would be arrogant to think just because we had this that we could make those "Zamuner-like" picks and start thinking we are the smartest in the room. Because once some injuries came up on defense and the replacement guys weren't as good, you started to see that Canada wasn't going to coast through the whole tournament blindfolded. We dominated both games against the Slovaks, 5-0 and 5-1, and even though it was 2-1 vs. the U.S. we took it to them rather well. Then a 3-1 win vs. Russia and then the close ones in the overtime win against the Czechs and the narrow 3-2 win against Finland to capture the win. In the Czech game we were in control that game, but the shots at the end were 40-24 in favour of the Czechs! And late in the 3rd Kris Draper of all people scored to put us up 3-2 and then 6 seconds later the Czechs tie the game! Overtime was way too close for my liking, Luongo was shaky earlier in the game but he stepped it up in overtime playing for the injured Brodeur. Thank God Lecavalier scored because it was a nail biter. Even against Finland we were never down, but we were often tied and early in the 3rd period Shane Doan made it 3-2 for good. I always felt Canada was going to hang on, but still, that's a 3-2 game, hardly comfortable.
Here is where I think Gretzky and co. went wrong. We lost some guys on defense at first. Pronger and Blake both passed on the tournament. That hurt. Jovanovski and then Redden both got hurt in the tournament. So what we are left with is Niedermayer, Brewer, Foote, Regehr, Hannan and Bouwmeester. A solid defense sure, but not elite. Niedermayer won the Norris that year. I am not sure how much better we make it. Bryan McCabe perhaps is a guy that could have been added but it was probably better without his accident-prone defense. So all of the sudden 4 big names of Pronger, Blake, Redden and Jovo are out and it depleted the defense. And I think that's why we had some tighter games than you might expect.
No issues with the goaltending. Brodeur, Luongo and then Belfour. Belfour pulls out for some reason and Theodore coming off a great year fills in. No biggie. The one game that Brodeur was hurt was the semis vs. the Czechs, but Luongo eventually came through.
Up front should have been the biggest strength and I think it was, but I think this is where some of the "I'm smarter than you I know what I am doing" mindset crept in. The line that was at the 2003 Worlds was Maltby-Draper-Doan. Gretzky was insistent on taking that entire line. Why? Maltby? I just don't get it. This is a name everyone forgets. Even though he didn't play a game, he was added. He had no business being there, is was Zamuner-esque. Draper won the Selke that year, but I'd have stuck with Peca regardless. I can live with Doan there. You do need his type in there. We did have Ryan Smyth in there as well, and he's a lot like Doan that way and I know it is the smaller ice, but while you do need sandpaper you can't overdo it when there is talent left at home. Morrow was picked as well. Again, you don't need to overdo the grinders. Patrick Marleau was also picked. He never played, but I guess Canada likes those multi purpose types. They always seemed to love Marleau, except in 2006 when he might have been a good replacement. I can understand not picking Bertuzzi, who was a lock prior to the Moore incident. But because of some of these guys you left some talent off the team. Rick Nash led the NHL in goals, Tanguay had a great year and lastly I was shocked they left Kariya off of the team. He did have an injury riddled year, but he's still under 30, he's still fast and you team him up with a playmaking centre and you are golden.
Overall you had
Mario-Sakic-Iginla on a line, and the trio of Lecavalier, St. Louis and Richards, then Thornton, Gagne, Doan, Heatley, Smyth, Draper. That was pretty much our forwards. It was still elite, but the extras we picked just wouldn't replace most of these guys. We got lucky where our forwards didn't get hurt like the defense did, but I think we caught a bit of a break that way. Again, nothing really wrong with the top 12, but the alternates should have been better, and you have to make room for Kariya on that top 12 somewhere.
I hesitate to put too much stock in the idea, but I've long since felt we stymie our success when we go too physical. That said, how well or poorly would you say that these suggestions have been employed. They seem inevitable, albeit possibly for other reasons, like just trying to keep up...
60s rock, VanIslander!!In '98 the entire shopping mall STOPPED MOVING when the lineup was announced on TV (the last public event pre-9/11 i recall in the TV age, we so very Internetted these days.)
Note: ESPN was to a generation then what the 6 o'clock news was to a previous one!
Pat Quinn & the boys settled matters in '02.
I talk like an old man. I was born in the sixties and feel like it today.
So true. I liked it when everyone was on the same page, as we were. Quite.
