What was the greatest tournament win by a men's team other than Canada?

[Peter25]

I'm sure with some time, a few Tim Hortons coffees, and my old collection of WJC/World Cup/World Championship/Canada Cup/Olympic videos I could come up with a pretty sweet three hour video showing all the Russian dives and stick infractions over the past thirty years.
.

Prove that they are edited then. They are not. I have these games on tape too and the things shown in Youtube video are real.

And then...nothing will change. The winners will still have won, and more importantly, the losers will still be losers..

You did not win these tournaments. I don't regard winning by cheating as a legimate victory.

 

[scdn]

The USA Ducks vs. Iceland.

Seriously though, I never saw any international competitions before 1998. Not sure which is conidered the most historically significant.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Prove that they are edited then. They are not. I have these games on tape too and the things shown in Youtube video are real.



You did not win these tournaments. I don't regard winning by cheating as a legimate victory.

By edited, I don't mean changed. I mean selective. That video shows a few minutes out of 3 games. What moron with Moviemaker couldn't make a video from three intense games and show a handful of bad calls or dives?

It means nothing.

You think Russians never dive or have bad calls go against them? Please.

I am willing to admit that sometimes Canadians dive (hate it), and sometimes they have calls go their way.

But not always. Sometimes it goes the other way, too.

But I am not so biased to think every game we lose is a result of officiating. Sometimes we get beaten by a better team.

It's called losing with class and dignity.

 

[Peter25]

By edited, I don't mean changed. I mean selective. That video shows a few minutes out of 3 games. What moron with Moviemaker couldn't make a video from three intense games and show a handful of bad calls or dives?

It means nothing.

You think Russians never dive or have bad calls go against them? Please.

I am willing to admit that sometimes Canadians dive (hate it), and sometimes they have calls go their way.

But not always. Sometimes it goes the other way, too.

But I am not so biased to think every game we lose is a result of officiating. Sometimes we get beaten by a better team.

It's called losing with class and dignity.

I accept a loss and respect the result when the conditions are the same for both teams.

But those two tournaments in 1984 and 1987 don't fall into this category. The reffing was biased for Canada and it was the biggest reason why Canada won the games.

You are blind not to see it, but what can you expect from a nationalist?

 

[Ace Rimmer]

My problem with considering the Miracle On Ice for this is that people remember winning a game, not a tournament. Had the USA lost that final game to Finland, would their upset over the Soviets really be remembered that much less fondly than it is today?

Yes, because not only of the victory of "amateurs" over "professionals" but of what it meant. It trancended hockey. It goes past the Olympics. It was a victory steeped in the hatred bred by the Cold War. It was a victory of "good" (democracy) over "evil" (communism). Same reasons that 1972 was so important to Canada.

That is why this game, and resulting victory was so big, so historical, so memorable. And until one of the major hockey powers becomes a political enemy, why it will never be repeated.

 

[LeftCoast]

The reffing was biased for Canada and it was the biggest reason why Canada won the games.

Never mind. It's whining either way you look at it.

At least in that era, no North American is going to be happy with European refs who call no-touch hockey. No European is going to be happy with NHL refs who allow a far more physical game.

What really can't be debated is that the NHL refs are/were far more experienced and better trained.

 

[canucksfan]

If Soviet refs called the USSR/Canada matchups would Canadians like that? Of course not.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

What was wrong with Dag Olsson in 1981? Was he amateurish and in what way?

It is arrogant to claim that the reason for Canadian refs in CC final was because Euro refs sucked. The real reason was that Canada could not defeat the Soviets with other refs than Canadian or American.



Bull. The rules were not the same for the two teams. Canada could break the rules and not called for penalties, where each Soviet infraction was called. And too many bogus penalties for the Soviets too.

Believe me, the reffing in 1984 and 1987 tournaments was the biggest reason why the Soviets did not officially win them.

Yikes not this again. You can say that we conspired and cheated to fix those tournaments all you want, but in the end of the day Russia / USSR has only won one tournament in the last 40 years where Hockey Canada was able to ice it's best team.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

How Canada won the 1987 tournament:

3rd final: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCh4PtteLuY

Only a sore loser would create a montage of every call that went against his team and try and pass it off as proof that they were cheated.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I accept a loss and respect the result when the conditions are the same for both teams.

But those two tournaments in 1984 and 1987 don't fall into this category. The reffing was biased for Canada and it was the biggest reason why Canada won the games.

You are blind not to see it, but what can you expect from a nationalist?

Yet you sight many Russian victories in tournaments where Canada's best players were banned from competing all together?

 

[icing]

The rest of your post is fine - the Soviets in 1981 were dominant.

However the reason for the change in officiating was that the European refs, at that point in time, were amateur. For the most part, they were not full time, paid professionals and there were huge disparities in standards of officiating between leagues. Employing full time, paid, professional, NHL refs improved the quality of the officiating - even if it meant that Canadian officials reffed Canadian games.

Well, Swedish refs have been a part of all international tournaments since then and we got our first ref pros just a few years ago. I would guess it´s the same in most euro countries. I actually believe the czechs was first in 2005 with pro refs (but not all of the refs) in Europe. There might have been a couple in Switzerland too.

 

[NyQuil]

As a Canadian, I give out the highest amount of credit for those teams at the men's elite level that have knocked Canada out of tournaments.

I like the World Championships but I don't allocate the same accolades because the membership is so fluid according to the NHL playoffs. I'm happy when Canada wins, I'm disappointed when they lose, but it's more of a fun tournament than any real indication of national strength in my mind.

I don't have much regard for the Olympics prior to 1998 for obvious reasons.

At the very highest level you have:

1981, Canada Cup - Soviet Union - Final
1996, World Cup - United States - Final

-Both of these losses were in the gold medal game where the stakes were highest.

Then you have:

2006, Torino Olympics - Russia - Quarterfinals
1998, Nagano Olympics - Czech Republic - Semifinals

-In both cases, Canada fielded the best they had and were prevented from even reaching the finals.

So, from a Canadian perspective, those are the four teams that I have to admire as going up against Canada's best and beating them.

Naturally, Russia did not win Gold in 2006 so it doesn't really fit in with the thread, but as a Canadian opponent, they are up there with the other three teams.

Round-robin defeats are great and all, but they don't count in the grand scheme of things because I'm pretty sure Canada has never been eliminated in the round-robin part of a tournament where they had access to all of their players.

 

[Rocko604]

1980 Miracle on Ice, the 1996 USA World Cup, the 1994 and 2006 Olympic Golds by Sweden, and the 2010 USA World Juniors.

On a side note to all you Finland fans, I worked at the 2006 World Junior tournament, and even though they didn't win Gold, Finland quickly became the #2 favourite team in Vancouver, behind Team Canada of course. They were fun to watch, they played hard and were heavily supported in the bronze medal match vs. the USA, as well other games in the medal round. Because of this tournament, I have adopted Finland as my #2 team in international competitions. Needless to say I was pretty bummed after the 06 Olympics.

 

[Zine]

Everything considered, I'd say 1980 is the greatest victory in the history of the sport.

 

[NyQuil]

Everything considered, I'd say 1980 is the greatest victory in the history of the sport.

It's pretty hard to argue against it.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

It's pretty hard to argue against it.

Considering the 1987 teams of USSR and Canada would have creamed everyone in that tournament, I think it is easy to argue it. Both of those teams in '87 featured some of the greatest players that have ever lived - both sides.

Maybe 1980 was a greatest win for an amateur team, a monumentous upset of which we will never again see the likes of.

But I would argue that even the 1981 Canada Cup win for the USSR was a more stunning victory, because of how they demolished the field in a true best on best competition.

I guess it depends on how you look at it...upset victory or best of the best? I lean towards best of the best, although I certainly acknowledge how amazing 1980 was.

 

[AustonWassup]

How Canada won the 1987 tournament:

3rd final: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCh4PtteLuY

Funny that little highlight reel didn't have the play at 2:45 of this video:



Can't seem to embed the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rg_-JwlN-o

 

[JackSlater]

I think it's very close between USSR 1981, Sweden 2006 and Czech Republic 1998. I would probably give the nod to USSR due to the dominant final performance but a strong argument can be made for the other two.

The most overrated tournament win by a men's team other than Canada is Sweden 1994. Many fans seem to pretend that the win was as good as a win in a best on best tournament. The stage was big but the teams were worse than world championship level. It's nice to win a gold medal at the olympics, but in terms of hockey history the win has basically no significance.

 

[canucksfan]

I would say the 1981 Canada Cup victory by the Soviet Union. The USSR demolished a very good Canada team. On paper one could argue that the 81' team was one of the best ever Canada has assembled. People say that Mike Luit was the reason Canada lost. However, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Luit did not have much of a chance on any of the goals. One game that Canadians love to forget about.

 

[Zine]

Considering the 1987 teams of USSR and Canada would have creamed everyone in that tournament, I think it is easy to argue it. Both of those teams in '87 featured some of the greatest players that have ever lived - both sides.

Maybe 1980 was a greatest win for an amateur team, a monumentous upset of which we will never again see the likes of.

But I would argue that even the 1981 Canada Cup win for the USSR was a more stunning victory, because of how they demolished the field in a true best on best competition.

I guess it depends on how you look at it...upset victory or best of the best? I lean towards best of the best, although I certainly acknowledge how amazing 1980 was.

1978-1982 Soviet national team was MUCH better than the 1987 version. '87 Soviets had little depth and no goaltending relative to other great Soviet teams. In fact, it was around 87-88 that "Green Unit" started to decline.

I'd even argue 1981 Soviet thrashing of Canada wasn't that stunning considering 2 years earlier they did the same to NHL all-star team.
For a bunch of amateurs to place higher than the Soviets in the middle of the "78-82 Soviet dynasty" was something no other country's best could even do.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

My second vote is for the '62 Toronto Maple Leafs who thrashed the NHL All Stars 4-1.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

1978-1982 Soviet national team was MUCH better than the 1987 version. '87 Soviets had little depth and no goaltending relative to other great Soviet teams. In fact, it was around 87-88 that "Green Unit" started to decline.

No way. Aside from missing the overrated Tretiak, they were awesome. You can say the "green unit" was in decline, but that's not true. They were in their prime, being in their late-20's.

Line-up:

Vyacheslav Fetisov, Alexei Gusarov, Igor Stelnov, Vasily Pervukhin, Alexei Kasatonov , Anatoli Fedotov, Igor Kravchuk, Yuri Khmylev, Vladimir Krutov, Andrei Lomakin, Igor Larionov, Valeri Kamensky, Andrei Khomutov, Sergei Svetlov, Alexander Semak, Sergei Nemchinov, Sergei Makarov, Vyacheslav Bykov, Anatoly Semenov, Vitali Samoilov, Sergei Mylnikov, Evgeny Belosheikin

 

[Zine]

No way. Aside from missing the overrated Tretiak, they were awesome. You can say the "green unit" was in decline, but that's not true. They were in their prime, being in their late-20's.

Late 20s for a typical Soviet hockey player WAS at the tail end of a career. Why do you think Soviet authorities let the Green Unit leave for the NHL in 1989, yet were so desperate to hang on to player like Mogilny, Fedorov, etc.......because KLM was basically seen as washed up around that time.

Line-up:

Vyacheslav Fetisov, Alexei Gusarov, Igor Stelnov, Vasily Pervukhin, Alexei Kasatonov , Anatoli Fedotov, Igor Kravchuk, Yuri Khmylev, Vladimir Krutov, Andrei Lomakin, Igor Larionov, Valeri Kamensky, Andrei Khomutov, Sergei Svetlov, Alexander Semak, Sergei Nemchinov, Sergei Makarov, Vyacheslav Bykov, Anatoly Semenov, Vitali Samoilov, Sergei Mylnikov, Evgeny Belosheikin

Pretty good line-up. Top 2 lines are fantastic as is 1st defensive pairing. However, a painfully average 3rd and 4th lines and possibly below average defensive depth. And Mylnikov/Belosheikin aren't even in the same universe as Tretiak.
Again, relative to other Soviet teams it's an OK roster on paper. Not the best, not the worst.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Late 20s for a typical Soviet hockey player WAS at the tail end of a career.

Tell that to Larionov. The guy played until he was 44 or 45.

 

[Zine]

Tell that to Larionov. The guy played until he was 44 or 45.

Because he was removed from the Soviet system. You really think someone training 11 months a year (at 100% level) as the Soviets did will still be playing at 45?

It was quite easy to notice that the 'green unit' players were shells of their former selves by the time they reached the NHL (most of them only in their very early thirties).