Who is the third best hockey country?

[Winnipeg Jets]

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/championships/world-ranking/mens-world-ranking/2010-ranking.html

 

[jkrx]

It's more impressive than anything Russia has done since 1990 as it's a victory in a best on best tournament. In best on best tournaments since 1990 Russia has 1 second place and 2 third places. USA has 1 first, 3 seconds and 1 tie for third in 2004. Clearly USA has a better record in best on bests since 1990. World Championship results are worthless as a measure of best on best results.

In a tournament where US had the easiest schedule.. yea ok whatever makes you happy.


World championships are always taken into account and sorry US is not even in the race.

 

[Big Phil]

Canada 1st I'm pretty sure most of us all agree on that. The rest is tricky though.

I'll put Russia at #2 though 2010 Olympics aside. The last two winners of the World Championships, maybe even this year who knows. They haven't done very well at the WJC for what it's worth but if you add the players they have including al three Hart nominees being Russian in 2009 then I can't see another country better right now.

3rd would be Sweden IMO. USA is close and unfortunately Czech has just plummetted like a stone the last few years and it isn't looking pretty in the NHL draft for their sake either. But Sweden was Olympic Gold in 2006 and is always in the mix atthe Worlds. They gave Canada fits at two of the recent Gold medal games at the WJC which shows you they are on the rise again after falling so hard. A Swede just won the Art Ross.

The Finns have always been in the 5-6th range as it is. The Americans are no worse than 4th right now and seem to be on the rise, we'll see how that works out

 

[JackSlater]

In a tournament where US had the easiest schedule.. yea ok whatever makes you happy.


World championships are always taken into account and sorry US is not even in the race.

In the 1996 World Cup USA played Canada four times, the same Russia that you claim to be better since 1990 twice, and Slovakia once, losing only once to Canada. That certainly is an easy schedule isn't it. That also doesn't account for the advantage the Americans have in terms of second place finishes in best on bests either.

Realistically, taking the world championships into account after 1990 would be almost as bad as saying the Florida Panthers than were better than the Detroit Red Wings in the last decade because they had a better AHL team ... it's moronic to do so. Just look at the rosters this year, there is no way that they reflect each nation's strength in any meaningful way.

 

[jkrx]

In the 1996 World Cup USA played Canada four times, the same Russia that you claim to be better since 1990 twice, and Slovakia once, losing only once to Canada. That certainly is an easy schedule isn't it. That also doesn't account for the advantage the Americans have in terms of second place finishes in best on bests either.

Realistically, taking the world championships into account after 1990 would be almost as bad as saying the Florida Panthers than were better than the Detroit Red Wings in the last decade because they had a better AHL team ... it's moronic to do so. Just look at the rosters this year, there is no way that they reflect each nation's strength in any meaningful way.

Look at the travelling schedule. US had the easiest one. While the rest of the teams played in Vancouver one night and in East the next. I find it strange that both those second finishes have been on north american soil while they havent been close in europe.

You still havent explained how this great american team is the only team of my top 10 to be outside the playoffs in WC.

1996 - Won bronze medal
1997 - Finished in 6th place
1998 - Finished in 12th place
1999 - Finished in 6th place
2000 - Finished in 5th place
2001 - Finished in 4th place
2002 - Finished in 7th place
2003 - Finished in 13th place
2004 - Won bronze medal
2005 - Finished in 6th place
2006 - Finished in 7th place
2007 - Finished in 5th place
2008 - Finished in 6th place
2009 - Finished in 4th place

Ranked #2... really?

Russia

1996 - Finished in 4th place
1997 - Finished in 4th place
1998 - Finished in 5th place
1999 - Finished in 5th place
2000 - Finished in 11th place
2001 - Finished in 6th place
2002 - Silver medal winner
2003 - Finished in 6th place
2004 - Finished in 10th place
2005 - Bronze medal winner
2006 - Finished in 5th place
2007 - Bronze medal winner
2008 - Gold medal winner

 

[Dump and Chase]

This is a few years old but it also pre-dates the KHL so it should represent a pretty accurate accounting the the best in the world

I'm not a yank but US is a clear #2 IMO

 

[Theokritos]

Look at the travelling schedule. US had the easiest one. While the rest of the teams played in Vancouver one night and in East the next.

Really?

August 29, Vancouver: Russia 3-5 Canada
August 31, Montreal: Slovakia 4-7 Russia
August 31, Philadelphia: Canada 3-5 United States
September 1, Ottawa: Canada 3-2 Slovakia
September 2, New York City: Russia 2-5 United States
September 3, New York City : United States 9-3 Slovakia

September 5, Montreal: Germany 1-4 Canada
September 6, Ottawa: Russia 5-0 Finland
September 7, Philadelphia: Canada 3-2 Sweden (2OT)
September 8, Ottawa: Russia 2-5 United States
September 10, Philadelphia: Canada 4-3 United States (OT)
September 12, Montreal: United States 5-2 Canada
September 14, Montreal: Canada 2-5 United States

Only one game in Vancouver, no game the next night. But alright, the US defeated Canada on August 31, two days after the Canucks played Russia in Vancouver, let's just say it's due to the schedule. Still, the US went on to beat Slovakia, Russia (twice) and, again, Canada (twice). None of this games had the opposing team flying in from Vancouver or playing back-to-back games.

You still havent explained how this great american team is the only team of my top 10 to be outside the playoffs in WC.

Look at the US roster for the World Championships and the question becomes obsolete. It's not their best team and not even their second best selection. Compared to the World Cup of Hockey and the Olympic Games, the World Championship bears little importance. (I'm not talking about the emotional importance. A lot of people love the Championships and that's fine.)

 

[jkrx]

Really?

August 29, Vancouver: Russia 3-5 Canada
August 31, Montreal: Slovakia 4-7 Russia
August 31, Philadelphia: Canada 3-5 United States
September 1, Ottawa: Canada 3-2 Slovakia
September 2, New York City: Russia 2-5 United States
September 3, New York City : United States 9-3 Slovakia

September 5, Montreal: Germany 1-4 Canada
September 6, Ottawa: Russia 5-0 Finland
September 7, Philadelphia: Canada 3-2 Sweden (2OT)
September 8, Ottawa: Russia 2-5 United States
September 10, Philadelphia: Canada 4-3 United States (OT)
September 12, Montreal: United States 5-2 Canada
September 14, Montreal: Canada 2-5 United States

Only one game in Vancouver, no game the next night. But alright, the US defeated Canada on August 31, two days after the Canucks played Russia in Vancouver, let's just say it's due to the schedule. Still, the US went on to beat Slovakia, Russia (twice) and, again, Canada (twice). None of this games had the opposing team flying in from Vancouver or playing back-to-back games.



Look at the US roster for the World Championships and the question becomes obsolete. It's not their best team and not even their second best selection. Compared to the World Cup of Hockey and the Olympic Games, the World Championship bears little importance. (I'm not talking about the emotional importance. A lot of people love the Championships and that's fine.)

Still US has a slight edge of the schedule. and still.. how come US only get medals at home but are nowhere near a medal on european soil. I just find that weird.

Take a look at everybody elses roster... none of this teams is there with a first, second or even a third best team. US almost lost to italy. Its one thing to have a bad game like russiand did in olympics or canada in Olympics and a whole other thing when you have problems with Italy, Denmark, Germany.... and when they barely have a top 6 spot in 20 years.

 

[JackSlater]

Look at the travelling schedule. US had the easiest one. While the rest of the teams played in Vancouver one night and in East the next. I find it strange that both those second finishes have been on north american soil while they havent been close in europe.

You still havent explained how this great american team is the only team of my top 10 to be outside the playoffs in WC.

The travelling schedule... that is a pitiful excuse. As Theokritos already pointed out the Russians themselves only played one game in Vancouver, and their next game was two days later. The rest of their games were in central Canada. That American win is quite valid. The Americans have three second place finishes as well, and most of those games have been played in Canada, so it's not as if the Americans were at home every time. The games were still held on ice, with hockey sticks and pucks. Those placements are quite valid and are more impressive than anything Russia has done since 1990.

As far as the world championships, as I've said they don't reflect much of anything. Look at Russia this year. They've sent their very best players with the exception of Markov in addition to several of their second tier players. If they end up winning the tournament over every other country's D team, what does that prove? While obviously it isn't this bad every year, the results are obviously meaningless in terms of comparing each country as a hockey nation. Also, you might want to take a look at past American rosters at the tournament to answer your question. I'm quite confident that no other top hockey nation sends weaker teams relative to their actual strength. The Americans generally send their D team every year. Just because they don't care about this tournament and the Russians do doesn't mean that Russia has been more impressive.

 

[jkrx]

The travelling schedule... that is a pitiful excuse. As Theokritos already pointed out the Russians themselves only played one game in Vancouver, and their next game was two days later. The rest of their games were in central Canada. That American win is quite valid. The Americans have three second place finishes as well, and most of those games have been played in Canada, so it's not as if the Americans were at home every time. The games were still held on ice, with hockey sticks and pucks. Those placements are quite valid and are more impressive than anything Russia has done since 1990.

As far as the world championships, as I've said they don't reflect much of anything. Look at Russia this year. They've sent their very best players with the exception of Markov in addition to several of their second tier players. If they end up winning the tournament over every other country's D team, what does that prove? While obviously it isn't this bad every year, the results are obviously meaningless in terms of comparing each country as a hockey nation. Also, you might want to take a look at past American rosters at the tournament to answer your question. I'm quite confident that no other top hockey nation sends weaker teams relative to their actual strength. The Americans generally send their D team every year. Just because they don't care about this tournament and the Russians do doesn't mean that Russia has been more impressive.

Oh so now america dont care about the tournament? Wow you are really making good arguments for US being the second best hockey nation. Its funny how you see US superiour even to Sweden which has 2 golds in the olympics and a hell of a lot more medals in WC than both Russia and US, the czechs who also leads over US in medal both in olympics and WC even Finland has more medals than US. Do you see how biased you are now? If you are going to go by how theyve performed in best on best tournaments US barely limps in on the top5 spot.

 

[Briere Up There*]

Oh so now america dont care about the tournament? Wow you are really making good arguments for US being the second best hockey nation. Its funny how you see US superiour even to Sweden which has 2 golds in the olympics and a hell of a lot more medals in WC than both Russia and US, the czechs who also leads over US in medal both in olympics and WC even Finland has more medals than US. Do you see how biased you are now? If you are going to go by how theyve performed in best on best tournaments US barely limps in on the top5 spot.

You seem overzealous in proving your point. He's already explained that he's taking into account best-on-best tournaments to gauge the teams. You aren't, that's fine. Calm down.

I agree with the best-on-best strategy though. But I'm not gonna pretend we're offending some great Georgian or Kazakh hockey constituency by not differentiating Russia and the old USSR. It's clearly Canada #1, Russia #2, Sweden #3, USA #4, and thanks to Mr. Hasek, Czech Republic #5.

 

[JackSlater]

Oh so now america dont care about the tournament? Wow you are really making good arguments for US being the second best hockey nation.

Caring about the World Championship is not part of the criteria for being a great hockey country. I've already said why it isn't an overly significant tournament.

Its funny how you see US superiour even to Sweden which has 2 golds in the olympics and a hell of a lot more medals in WC than both Russia and US, the czechs who also leads over US in medal both in olympics and WC even Finland has more medals than US.

If you actually followed the discussion you would see that I ranked USA fourth, behind Russia and Sweden, but that would be expecting too much perhaps. Everything I've said regarding USA vs Russian accomplishments has been regarding only the period from 1990 until now, which I've made clear multiple times. World Championship results from roughly 1990 and the years before that have value in comparing European nations only. The European nations before then for the most part were sending their best players. Once the best players stopped going, the results lost much of their meaning, which is the case today. As far as Olympic medals, before 1998 Olympic hockey was meaningless in terms of relevance to a discussion like this.

Do you see how biased you are now? If you are going to go by how theyve performed in best on best tournaments US barely limps in on the top5 spot.

The American record in best on best tournaments is far better than Sweden's record and is in fact much closer to Russia's. I would also put the American's record in those tournaments ahead of the Czech Republic's. You seem to be consistently biased against North America, so I don't expect you to accept this line of reasoning, but it is very acceptable to have USA as high as #3 in this discussion while placing them #2 in terms of recent accomplishments.

 

[Theokritos]

Its funny how you see US superiour even to Sweden which has 2 golds in the olympics

Counting best on best tournaments, Sweden has 1 gold medal. Before 1998, the Olympics weren't a best on best tournament.

If you are going to go by how theyve performed in best on best tournaments US barely limps in on the top5 spot.

It depends. More recent past (best on best tournaments since the 90's), the US ranks second only to Canada. 70's and 80's, not only the USSR but also the CSSR and Sweden were ahead of the USA.

 

[jkrx]

Caring about the World Championship is not part of the criteria for being a great hockey country. I've already said why it isn't an overly significant tournament.



If you actually followed the discussion you would see that I ranked USA fourth, behind Russia and Sweden, but that would be expecting too much perhaps. Everything I've said regarding USA vs Russian accomplishments has been regarding only the period from 1990 until now, which I've made clear multiple times. World Championship results from roughly 1990 and the years before that have value in comparing European nations only. The European nations before then for the most part were sending their best players. Once the best players stopped going, the results lost much of their meaning, which is the case today. As far as Olympic medals, before 1998 Olympic hockey was meaningless in terms of relevance to a discussion like this.



The American record in best on best tournaments is far better than Sweden's record and is in fact much closer to Russia's. I would also put the American's record in those tournaments ahead of the Czech Republic's. You seem to be consistently biased against North America, so I don't expect you to accept this line of reasoning, but it is very acceptable to have USA as high as #3 in this discussion while placing them #2 in terms of recent accomplishments.

I am north american (canadian to be specific) currently residing in europe though. So no I have nothing against North America.

You are saying this:

1988 - Finished in 7th place
1992 - Finished in 4th place
1994 - Finished in 8th place
1998 - Finished in 6th place
2002 - Silver medal winner
2006 - Finished in 8th place
2010 - Silver medal winner

out ranks this:

1988 - Bronze
1992 - 5th place
1994 - Gold
1998 - 5th place
2002 - 5th place
2006 - Gold
2010 - 5th place

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I am north american (canadian to be specific) currently residing in europe though. So no I have nothing against North America.

You are saying this:

1988 - Finished in 7th place
1992 - Finished in 4th place
1994 - Finished in 8th place
1998 - Finished in 6th place
2002 - Silver medal winner
2006 - Finished in 8th place
2010 - Silver medal winner

out ranks this:

1988 - Bronze
1992 - 5th place
1994 - Gold
1998 - 5th place
2002 - 5th place
2006 - Gold
2010 - 5th place

Take out 1988, 1992 and 1994, as they weren't "best-on-best". Add in the World Cup in 1996 and 2004

US

1996 - 1st
1998 - 6th
2002 - 2nd
2004 - T-3rd
2006 - 8th
2010 - 2nd

Sweden

1996 - T-3rd
1998 - 5th
2002 - 5th
2004 - Outside the top 4
2006 - 1st
2010 - 5th

 

[Reds4Life]

World Cup is not even remotely close to Olympics.
USA has population of 300 (?) million, Sweden has 9.5 million people.

It is pretty clear Sweden is much better hockey country than USA.

Also, WHC is a good indicator, countries should not be compared based on only top 20 or 30 players. USA traditionally blows in WHC.
Not even close to Sweden really.

 

[jkrx]

Take out 1988, 1992 and 1994, as they weren't "best-on-best". Add in the World Cup in 1996 and 2004

US

1996 - 1st
1998 - 6th
2002 - 2nd
2004 - T-3rd
2006 - 8th
2010 - 2nd

Sweden

1996 - T-3rd
1998 - 5th
2002 - 5th
2004 - Outside the top 4
2006 - 1st
2010 - 5th

He said from '88. Thats why I had those years. Besides in '94 the teams were pretty stacked, not with NHL players but enourmous amounts of talent. Poster above me has a point too which Ive been making from the start. WC might not be best on best but best on best is not the measure whether a hockey nation is better than the other one. It basically just outline which has the best top players at that moment. While WC shows depth. So basically US have elite top players but absolutly no depth what so ever.

 

[JackSlater]

I am north american (canadian to be specific) currently residing in europe though. So no I have nothing against North America.

You are saying this:

1988 - Finished in 7th place
1992 - Finished in 4th place
1994 - Finished in 8th place
1998 - Finished in 6th place
2002 - Silver medal winner
2006 - Finished in 8th place
2010 - Silver medal winner

out ranks this:

1988 - Bronze
1992 - 5th place
1994 - Gold
1998 - 5th place
2002 - 5th place
2006 - Gold
2010 - 5th place

You don't seem to realize that those pre 1998 olympic tournaments are meaningless in this discussion. Let's examine 1994, when Canada won the silver medal. This is Canada's roster:
Corey Hirsch
Adrian Aucoin
Derek Mayer
Brad Werenka
Ken Lovsin
Todd Hlushko
Fabian Joseph
Paul Kariya
Petr Nedved
Dwayne Norris
Greg Johnson
Brian Savage
Wally Schreiber
Todd Warriner
Greg Parks
Mark Astley
Jean Yves Roy
Chris Kontos
David Harlock
Manny Legace
Allain Roy
Chris Therien
Brad Schlegel

Not one of those players would make Canada's D team in a best on best. The same can probably be said for quite a few of the nations in that tournament. The win is nice for people in Sweden, but in this context it is meaningless. Olympic tournament results may be significant for comparing European nations during the years before Europeans entered the NHL, but they can't be used to prove some country is a better hockey nation than the United States, since they didn't send anything close to their best players.

As far as best on best tournaments, this is how they stack up:
USA
1976- 5th 1981- 4th 1984- 4th 1987- 5th 1991- 2nd 1996- 1st 1998- 6th 2002- 2nd 2004- semifinals 2006- 8th 2010- 2nd
Sweden
1976- 4th 1981- 5th 1984- 2nd 1987- 3rd 1991- 3rd 1996- semifinals 1998- 5th 2002- 5th 2004- quarterfinals 2006- 1st 2010- 5th.

It's extremely close, but I would give the slight edge to the Americans due to finishing higher than the Swedes in 6 of the 11 tournaments. It's actually quite a bit closer than I thought though.

 

[seventieslord]

If you go by "all-time" then I would agree Russia is solidly the #2 hockey nation. But as of this moment why should they be considered anything but "in the mix" for the #2 spot, along with the Czechs, Americans, Swedes, and Finns?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you go by "all-time" then I would agree Russia is solidly the #2 hockey nation. But as of this moment why should they be considered anything but "in the mix" for the #2 spot, along with the Czechs, Americans, Swedes, and Finns?

Agreed. At this moment, it's pretty clear that Russia is failing to produce the kind of players who can be effective role players on a best-on-best team.

Whereas the US is probably the 2nd best "best on best nation," they obviously are failing to produce enough offensive talent to fill out C or Dlevel teams when the top guys stay home.

 

[Theokritos]

USA has population of 300 (?) million, Sweden has 9.5 million people. It is pretty clear Sweden is much better hockey country than USA.

True, if you take the total population of each country into account, Sweden is a stronger hockey nation than the USA, by far. In this departement Russia also doesn't hold a candle to Sweden. At the same time, Sweden is overtaken by Finland and maybe even Slovakia.

Edit: But then the Nederlands are a "much better" football country than Brazil, Germany, Italy, England or France as well. You can see it that way, but that's not taking anything away from Brazil & Co.

countries should not be compared based on only top 20 or 30 players. USA traditionally blows in WHC.
Not even close to Sweden really.

WC might not be best on best but best on best is not the measure whether a hockey nation is better than the other one. It basically just outline which has the best top players at that moment. While WC shows depth. So basically US have elite top players but absolutly no depth what so ever.

In the 2009 Championship, the US were medal contenders and finished 4th. They must have had their "top 20 players" on the roster back then, right? Because the US has no depth, so without their elite players they couldn't possibly achieve that, right?
Wrong. Compare the 2009 squad and the Vancouver 2010 squad and you'll find that only two players at the World Championship were considered good enough for the Olympics eight months later.

The Americans have enough depth to send a decent B-team that can easily avoid the relegation round and probably be a medal contender. It's their fault they don't do it, but it doesn't mean they are lacking depth.

 

[JackSlater]

WC might not be best on best but best on best is not the measure whether a hockey nation is better than the other one. It basically just outline which has the best top players at that moment. While WC shows depth. So basically US have elite top players but absolutly no depth what so ever.

Also, WHC is a good indicator, countries should not be compared based on only top 20 or 30 players. USA traditionally blows in WHC.
Not even close to Sweden really.

I agree that best on best tournaments aren't the sole criteria for best hockey nation, and are in fact probably only one of many different aspects. One reason for this is is that a few outliers can have a huge impact on a team, for instance consider Russia without Ovechkin and Malkin. Another reason is that the best teams do not always win or even play well, see Russia once again.

The World Championships fail as a significant measure of hockey strength because each country doesn't send teams equally proportionate to their strength. If everyone sent their B team or C team respectively then yes, the world championships would reflect depth. This doesn't happen though, as can be seen this year with Russia sending their A- team while most nations sent their C teams or worse. A Russian win does not prove that they have better depth, it only proves that basically their best team can beat other everyone else's D team. This is especially problematic when talking about USA and Canada, the two teams that send the weakest teams relative to their talent. If Sweden's B team beats USA's D team consistently it doesn't prove anything about depth.

If you go by "all-time" then I would agree Russia is solidly the #2 hockey nation. But as of this moment why should they be considered anything but "in the mix" for the #2 spot, along with the Czechs, Americans, Swedes, and Finns?

That's basically it. For years now Russia has been battling countries like USA and Sweden for #2, and world championship results do not reflect this.

 

[Reds4Life]

I agree that best on best tournaments aren't the sole criteria for best hockey nation, and are in fact probably only one of many different aspects. One reason for this is is that a few outliers can have a huge impact on a team, for instance consider Russia without Ovechkin and Malkin. Another reason is that the best teams do not always win or even play well, see Russia once again.

The World Championships fail as a significant measure of hockey strength because each country doesn't send teams equally proportionate to their strength. If everyone sent their B team or C team respectively then yes, the world championships would reflect depth. This doesn't happen though, as can be seen this year with Russia sending their A- team while most nations sent their C teams or worse. A Russian win does not prove that they have better depth, it only proves that basically their best team can beat other everyone else's D team. This is especially problematic when talking about USA and Canada, the two teams that send the weakest teams relative to their talent. If Sweden's B team beats USA's D team consistently it doesn't prove anything about depth.



That's basically it. For years now Russia has been battling countries like USA and Sweden for #2, and world championship results do not reflect this.

Canada has team full of NHLers any given year.
USA has majority of NHLers any given year.
Sweden, Czechs, Finland, Slovakia have most players from European leagues and MAYBE few NHL players.

Russia is somewhere in between.

How come USA sucks year in and year out against lesser competition? Shouldn't NHL players wipe the floor with players from lesser leagues?

I am sorry, USA is not even close to the number 2 spot unless you consider Olympics only, then they might have a case. USA only played well in Salt Lake City and Vancouver, they suck on the big ice.

Sweden is certainly above USA; a case could be made for Finland, Czechs and Russians too.

 

[BSHH]

If you go by "all-time" then I would agree Russia is solidly the #2 hockey nation. But as of this moment why should they be considered anything but "in the mix" for the #2 spot, along with the Czechs, Americans, Swedes, and Finns?

I agree with this. With regard to the current ranking (which I do not want to discuss further, as I understood the question as a historical one), in my opinion Russia gets punished to much for running into a red hot Canadian team being on a mission rather early.

In an all-time list Switzerland should not rank above Germany. The Swiss team looks very good now, but emerged only a few years ago. But a case could be made for Belarus.

Gruß,
BSHH

 

[Theokritos]

How come USA sucks year in and year out against lesser competition? Shouldn't NHL players wipe the floor with players from lesser leagues?

Canada – Czech Republic 2:3, Canada – Sweden 1:3, Canada – Switzerland 1:4... now does Switzerland have more depth than Canada? No way. But NHL players aren't invincible (see also: 2006 Olympics). How pretentious to expect a second- or third-rate selection of american (or canadian) NHLers to wipe the floor with the best the european elite leagues (plus a couple of european NHLers) have to offer.

USA only played well in Salt Lake City and Vancouver, they suck on the big ice.

Salt Lake City was played on large ice, but I know: home advantage... By the way: What's the point in saying the US suck on big ice? Sweden, Russland, the Czech Republic suck on small ice (1996, 2004 World Cup, 2010 Olympics), so what?