Who will win gold?

[clefty]

You're right, Canada has the best team.....on paper.

Yeah, thats what he's saying, isn't he? You're too defensive on the subject.

Canada has the best lineup of all teams. If they can gel together to form a cohesive unit and get their combinations right, they'll win the tournament. I think its a team that could grind out a 1-0 win just as easily as break out for 6 goals against pretty much any opposition so long as they can mesh together. A team of champions does not equal a champion team.

The wildcard is Russia. They could either stink up the ice or blow their opposition off it.

 

[Russian_fanatic]

But for the US, how do you think players like Conroy will do? He had a great playoff, but what did he have so great before that?

Selke finalist , almost a 80 pt season , 27 goals , he is a Morrison , but more defensive !

 

[loadie]

Selke finalist , almost a 80 pt season , 27 goals , he is a Morrison , but more defensive !

75 points in 2001/02. Not real stellar this year, but I guess injuries didn't help. I found him to be good in the early rounds of the playoffs, but didn't see much from him in the finals.

 

[teme]

You have got to be kidding me.

Canada has the best offense.

Canada has the best defense.

Canada has the best goaltending.

Canada has the most toughness.

Canada has, by far, the best team in the whole tournament.

First things first. It's NHL rules, NHL rink, but it is not going to be NHL hockey. Your average NHL team is propably more physical than most teams in the tournament, but none has similar skill. It's a different game with higher demands where NHL stars become average players, super stars mere stars, and only the the truely best will shine. Every team has its weaknesses, and Canada's weakness IMO is that it is a team you would assemble to win the Stanley Cup, which is an endurance test while World Cup is a bunch of one-off games.

Best offence? Let's take first PP unit. For Canada I'd guess Lemieux - Sakic - Heatley Pronger - Blake. Formidable yes, but clearly better than Sundin - Forsberg - Näslund Lidström - Alfredson, or Kovalchuk - Fedorov - Kovalev Gonchar - Markov? Canada has a good group, but it is not by any means clearly the best.

Best defence? They lack a dominant offenceman, but otherwise it is propably the best group. Sweden has a comparable, even better IMO, top three in Öhlund, Lidström and Norström but don't have the same depth. US defence is more varied, they've got more of a mix of puck movers (Rafalski, Leetch) and big stay-at-home guys (Hatcher, Miller), and they have tons of experience.

Best goaltending? Well yes. Swedes, USA and Slovaks have dubious goaltending. Czechs (Vokoun), Finns (Kiprusoff) and Russians (Nabokov) should be OK. OTOH, all a team needs is a goalie to get hot enough for them to have a chance in couple games and even Lasak could do that.

Most toughness? They have a lot of physical defencemen while other teams only have a few. How much that matter on ice remains to be seeb. Up front there is Thornton and Iginla and that's pretty much it, the forwards are not going to physically dominate any defence in these games.

Best team? As a team they are in the top three in every category (offence, defence, goaltending) while all the competitors are somewhat unproven in at least one each, for example I think Sweden could go very far but ultimately they are going to surrender too many goals. But the wonderful thing about hockey is that you don't need to dominate in all aspects to win. Score enough, and your defence and goaltending just have to be good enough. With a hot goaltender and good defence you just need to score a few goals.

Which brings me to Slovaks. They have scoring talent all the way to fourth line, and although they are not going to scare anyone they've got pretty good size and toughness. The defence lacks depth and talent, but they are actually a pretty big group and adequate in their own end. Lasak is competent, if not ideal. And in contrast to WCs where they were practicly a home team, they have no preasure what so ever. They could be a huge pain to play against.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Yeah, thats what he's saying, isn't he? You're too defensive on the subject.

Canada has the best lineup of all teams. If they can gel together to form a cohesive unit and get their combinations right, they'll win the tournament. I think its a team that could grind out a 1-0 win just as easily as break out for 6 goals against pretty much any opposition so long as they can mesh together. A team of champions does not equal a champion team.

The wildcard is Russia. They could either stink up the ice or blow their opposition off it.

Defensive about what? I've acknowledged all along that Canada has the best team and the best chance to win. That doesn't mean the U.S. has no chance of winning the tournament, which seems to be the mindset of many around here.

 

[RoyIsALegend*]

Best defence? They lack a dominant offenceman, but otherwise it is propably the best group. Sweden has a comparable, even better IMO, top three in Öhlund, Lidström and Norström but don't have the same depth. US defence is more varied, they've got more of a mix of puck movers (Rafalski, Leetch) and big stay-at-home guys (Hatcher, Miller), and they have tons of experience.

You'd take Ohlund, Lidstrom and Norstrom over Pronger, Blake and Niedermayer? You just may be the only person in the world who would do that.

Compare the US defence to the Canadian defence now, are we?

Pronger - Blake
Niedermayer - Foote
Jovanovski - Redden
Regehr - Brewer

You talk about 'puck-moving defensemen' for the US... Canada has Blake, Niedermayer and Jovanovski who are all very capable offensive defensemen.

You talk about 'defensive, stay-at-home defensemen' for the US... Canada has Pronger, Foote and Regehr.

Most toughness? They have a lot of physical defencemen while other teams only have a few. How much that matter on ice remains to be seeb. Up front there is Thornton and Iginla and that's pretty much it, the forwards are not going to physically dominate any defence in these games.

Do you even know the rest of the team?

You mentioned Joe Thornton and Jarome Iginla... what about Shane Doan, Brendan Morrow, Ryan Smyth, Dany Heatley, Kris Draper, Kirk Maltby, etc.

.

 

[SChan*]

Rabid Ranger is the best poster in here.

 

[Hossafan018]

I'm cheering for the Czechs and the Slovaks. Unfortunately, the Slovaks lack goaltending, and the Czechs need to step up their game overall (definitely not an issue of talent on that team).

 

[clefty]

Defensive about what? I've acknowledged all along that Canada has the best team and the best chance to win. That doesn't mean the U.S. has no chance of winning the tournament, which seems to be the mindset of many around here.

See, there you go again. Who in this thread has said the US has no chance to win? Very few people in other threads have said the U.S has 'no chance' either.

The hockey world isn't out to get the U.S. I think you're being a tad overreactive.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

See, there you go again. Who in this thread has said the US has no chance to win? Very few people in other threads have said the U.S has 'no chance' either.

The hockey world isn't out to get the U.S. I think you're being a tad overreactive.

No, Hockey's Future and it's Canadian majority is out to get the U.S. If you think I'm nuts, read a little more closely between the lines, because that is what this is. Alot of people in this thread and others have already given Canada the title, and I think that's a disservice to the other teams.

 

[Papa Smurf]

No, Hockey's Future and it's Canadian majority is out to get the U.S. If you think I'm nuts, read a little more closely between the lines, because that is what this is. Alot of people in this thread and others have already given Canada the title, and I think that's a disservice to the other teams.

Well, Canada hasnt won the gold yet, after all, do you believe in miracles?

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Well, Canada hasnt won the gold yet, after all, do you believe in miracles?

No, no one has won the gold yet, and that's point. Let's just call it like it is: Canada has the best team on paper, and the best chance to win, but there are several other teams that can pull it out in the end.

 

[clefty]

No, Hockey's Future and it's Canadian majority is out to get the U.S. If you think I'm nuts, read a little more closely between the lines, because that is what this is. Alot of people in this thread and others have already given Canada the title, and I think that's a disservice to the other teams.

What? Now I think you're being extremely overreactive. This is a thread asking opinions of the World Cup winner. An overwhelming majority have selected Canada, however so many posts in this thread in fact say that the USA has a good chance at winning the tournament. Stark contrast to your exaggeration that "so many people around here" say the US has "no chance". No disservice has been done to other teams at all, I can't understand why you'd think.

And your're telling me to read between the lines? Why don't you stop over analysing peoples statements trying to read what isn't there.

Let's just call it like it is: Canada has the best team on paper, and the best chance to win, but there are several other teams that can pull it out in the end.

Which is pretty much what most are saying here. Whats the problem?

 

[Papa Smurf]

I just think the USA had too many old and under developed players. Those 32 year old young guns of the '96 championship are 40 now. I'm not saying the USA should not even show up to the tournament, I just think compared to Canada, Russia and Sweden, they dont have a huge chance.

 

[teme]

You'd take Ohlund, Lidstrom and Norstrom over Pronger, Blake and Niedermayer? You just may be the only person in the world who would do that.

I said comparable top three, not clearly better:
Lidström > Niedermayer, Pronger > Ohlund, Blake > Norström
Personally, I'd take the Swedes because when you are talking #3 role the difference betweem Norström (a defencive dman and very good at that) and Blake is not that big. If we would be talking #1 it would be completely different. Canada on the whole has very good all-around defenceman, but lack specialists. Whether that is a good thing or not, I'm not sure.

You talk about 'puck-moving defensemen' for the US... Canada has Blake, Niedermayer and Jovanovski who are all very capable offensive defensemen.

They are OK, but none of them has shown anything that special on this level of competition.

Rob Blake
TEAM YEAR GP G A Pts PIM
CANADA 1996 World Cup 4 0 1 1 0
CANADA 1998 Olympics 6 1 1 2 2
CANADA 2002 Olympics 6 1 2 3 2

Ed Jovanovski
TEAM YEAR GP G A Pts PIM
CANADA 2002 Olympics 6 0 3 3 4

Scott Niedermayer
TEAM YEAR GP G A Pts PIM
CANADA 1996 World Cup 8 1 3 4 6
CANADA 2002 Olympics 6 1 1 2 4

Compare to
Brian Leetch
TEAM YEAR GP G A Pts PIM
USA 1991 Canada Cup 7 1 3 4 2
USA 1996 World Cup 7 0 7 7 4
USA 1998 Olympics 4 1 1 2 0
USA 2002 Olympics 6 0 5 5 0

Brian Rafalski
TEAM YEAR GP G A Pts PIM
USA 2002 Olympics 6 1 2 3 2

Nicklas Lidström
TEAM YEAR GP G A Pts PIM
SWEDEN 1991 Canada Cup 6 1 1 2 4
SWEDEN 1996 World Cup 3 2 1 3 0
SWEDEN 1998 Olympics 4 1 1 2 2
SWEDEN 2002 Olympics 4 1 5 6 0

You talk about 'defensive, stay-at-home defensemen' for the US... Canada has Pronger, Foote and Regehr.

I didn't mean to say Canada has none, just that US defence is built differently. Whether this is an advantage is indeed debatable.

You mentioned Joe Thornton and Jarome Iginla... what about Shane Doan, Brendan Morrow, Ryan Smyth, Dany Heatley, Kris Draper, Kirk Maltby, etc.

I really like Draper and Maltby, both as players and as picks for Team Canada, and I don't dispute their toughness. But if they are a physical threat, so are half the players in the tourney. Only Canadian forwards who are going to scare anyone are Iginla and Thornton.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

What? Now I think you're being extremely overreactive. This is a thread asking opinions of the World Cup winner. An overwhelming majority have selected Canada, however so many posts in this thread in fact say that the USA has a good chance at winning the tournament. Stark contrast to your exaggeration that "so many people around here" say the US has "no chance". No disservice has been done to other teams at all, I can't understand why you'd think.

And your're telling me to read between the lines? Why don't you stop over analysing peoples statements trying to read what isn't there.



Which is pretty much what most are saying here. Whats the problem?

No problem. Just taking up for my side, that's all.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I just think the USA had too many old and under developed players. Those 32 year old young guns of the '96 championship are 40 now. I'm not saying the USA should not even show up to the tournament, I just think compared to Canada, Russia and Sweden, they dont have a huge chance.

Huh? The only players that fit that description are Hull and Chelios. Even Leetch is only 36, which isn't ancient by any means.

 

[clefty]

No problem. Just taking up for my side, that's all.

Hey, thats cool. I'm not trying to attack your character or anything.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Hey, thats cool. I'm not trying to attack your character or anything.

Trust me, I never take any of this personally. Things get a bit heated from time to time, but hey, at least we're passionate about the greatest game on the planet!

 

[Epsilon]

Just for fun, I'm predicting an upset and taking Finland to win this tournament.