With this win no one can say we arent the best

Status
Not open for further replies.

HellsBells

Registered User
Nov 6, 2003
3,734
0
PEI
Visit site
AGraveOne said:
you'd have to create the teams with a brain...not just put top 20 players on team 1...next 20 on team 2 and then next 20 on team 3

but even then...does canada only have 12 number 1 dmen in the NHL? I don't know off hand...
How about #1 forwards...they only have 24 in the nhl?

We all know Canada has the most depth. The 2nd team would compete IMO but a 3rd team is pushing it. Sweden, Czechs, Finland, Russia would all cream our 3rd team IMO. The 3rd team would compete with Germany, Switzerland etc....

BTW, love your avatar !!
 

AGraveOne

Registered User
Jan 24, 2004
2,138
0
Raleigh, NC
Garfield said:
We all know Canada has the most depth. The 2nd team would compete IMO but a 3rd team is pushing it. Sweden, Czechs, Finland, Russia would all cream our 3rd team IMO. The 3rd team would compete with Germany, Switzerland etc....

BTW, love your avatar !!
thanks

if you split out the top guys and so on...i think canada could put together 3 teams that could compete.

Look at the US - how many #1 Centers do they have? 2? Is Gomez a #1? So Modano (Elite) then Weight (#1) and then Gomez (#1/#2)

Canada could match that with three teams...
 

AGraveOne

Registered User
Jan 24, 2004
2,138
0
Raleigh, NC
H/H said:
Not really. If the first country makes smarter use of their unit and the second flounders strategically with his 5 then the first one got every chance of winning.
Hope you didn't pull anything by stretching like that...

the second country would dominate if the battleground had defined limitations and clear penalties for crossing those boundaries...like a sport does (ie hockey).
 

HellsBells

Registered User
Nov 6, 2003
3,734
0
PEI
Visit site
AGraveOne said:
thanks

if you split out the top guys and so on...i think canada could put together 3 teams that could compete.

Look at the US - how many #1 Centers do they have? 2? Is Gomez a #1? So Modano (Elite) then Weight (#1) and then Gomez (#1/#2)

Canada could match that with three teams...

You're right, if they spread it out, they could all compete. All 3 teams would make the QF but after that it would be tight. The Czechs would have won this tournament if Canada iced 2 teams IMO.
 

H/H

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
308
0
AGraveOne said:
thanks

if you split out the top guys and so on...i think canada could put together 3 teams that could compete.

That is a whole other puppy and certainly one worth to ponder. Although I think it might stretch the superstar talent a bit thin, it could actually help to create a better team. With the right coach and system in place it would certainly be possible.
 

4U

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
12
0
smoothskater said:
I dont get the people that disagree that Canada is the #1 hockey power in the world? If not Canada who is? Even if Finland wins tonight that doesn't mean their better.

U R right....oh well U R NOT...with that population you just should be better....way better....
 

H/H

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
308
0
AGraveOne said:
Hope you didn't pull anything by stretching like that...

the second country would dominate if the battleground had defined limitations and clear penalties for crossing those boundaries...like a sport does (ie hockey).

Then how do you explain all the upsets every year come playoff time? How many times haven't we seen a dominant regular season team falling flat to a team that barely made the playoffs?
 

4U

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
12
0
What is funny is that those referees can do everything that they want to support their team! I remember Canada Cup when Lemieux, Wayne and Messier was playin against Soviet Union with Grutov, Larionov and Makarov!!!! The Soviets were SO MUCH better but Canadiens could do what EVER they wanted and they won the cup with score of 6-5
 

Freudian

Clearly deranged
Jul 3, 2003
50,414
17,182
You would think that some canadian fans would be humbled after luckily beating a better Czech team in the semis.
 

H/H

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
308
0
Freudian said:
You would think that some canadian fans would be humbled after luckily beating a better Czech team in the semis.

I didn't know the ref's name was "Luck". ;)
 

HellsBells

Registered User
Nov 6, 2003
3,734
0
PEI
Visit site
4U said:
What is funny is that those referees can do everything that they want to support their team! I remember Canada Cup when Lemieux, Wayne and Messier was playin against Soviet Union with Grutov, Larionov and Makarov!!!! The Soviets were SO MUCH better but Canadiens could do what EVER they wanted and they won the cup with score of 6-5

:nopity:
 

Til the End of Time

Registered User
May 18, 2003
7,853
1
Santa Monica, CA
Visit site
AGraveOne said:
Depth does equal dominance if two countries go to war and one country has one unit of top-tier fighters and another country has 5 units of those smae calibre fighters...

the second country is dominant.

I'm talking about two countries playing a sport. I don't know why you brought up literal warfare, because they are two totally different things.

I agree that Canada has the most depth and is the most dominant country in the sport of hockey.

But what I am disagreeing with you about is that depth equals dominance, because it doesn't. Does the team with the most depth win the President's Trophy every year? No, it requires a combination of different things, one of which is depth.

AGraveOne said:
the second country would dominate if the battleground had defined limitations and clear penalties for crossing those boundaries...like a sport does (ie hockey).

What does this even mean?
 

psycho_dad*

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
4,814
10
Saint John, N.B
Visit site
smoothskater said:
I dont get the people that disagree that Canada is the #1 hockey power in the world? If not Canada who is? Even if Finland wins tonight that doesn't mean their better.


No, it only means Finlands #1 team is better than any other team in the world. Including the #1 team of Canada.

Nobody can match Canada's depth, everyone knows that.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
ehc73 said:
Bets on when the flame war fully erupts?
Another half hour maybe? :dunno:

Must say, I don't see the point of this thread, personally. If you're confident in being the best, you shouldn't need to get that idea reinforced for you on a daily basis. This is not to mention that humility is a virtue.
 

espo*

Guest
Canada is still the best nation in hockey on average and everyone knows that if they are being honest.Do they dominate in the sense that they beat everyone 10-0,of course not.Most soccer fans would probably say Brazil is best in soccer but Brazil does'nt win every time as that is darn near impossible in sports but do they win more often than anyone else consistently?Yes they do and that's why you can generally regard them as the best soccer nation in the world pound for pound.It's the same for Canada,every team from every country knows going in that they are the team to beat 9 times out of ten and the road to winning it all usually goes through them.Canada is consistently the best in hockey and nothing has changed this year.They are in the finals tonight as expected,does'nt matter if they were outshot last game,they are there as usual.Let's all just concentarte on the game tonight as it should be a good one.Let's see who is better TONIGHT but it would'nt change anything that Canada is still consistently the best nation in hockey,maybe someday they won't be but honest fans will admit that as of now they still are.Peace
 

4U

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
12
0
cyclops said:
Canada is still the best nation in hockey on average and everyone knows that if they are being honest.Do they dominate in the sense that they beat everyone 10-0,of course not.Most soccer fans would probably say Brazil is best in soccer but Brazil does'nt win every time as that is darn near impossible in sports but do they win more often than anyone else consistently?Yes they do and that's why you can generally regard them as the best soccer nation in the world pound for pound.It's the same for Canada,every team from every country knows going in that they are the team to beat 9 times out of ten and the road to winning it all usually goes through them.Canada is consistently the best in hockey and nothing has changed this year.They are in the finals tonight as expected,does'nt matter if they were outshot last game,they are there as usual.Let's all just concentarte on the game tonight as it should be a good one.Let's see who is better TONIGHT but it would'nt change anything that Canada is still consistently the best nation in hockey,maybe someday they won't be but honest fans will admit that as of now they still are.Peace

JUST TELL WHY???
 

Wild Thing

Child... please.
Feb 18, 2003
6,610
0
Way Down South
Visit site
Isn't it customary to wait until you actually win the game before you start boasting about how amazingly terrific you are?

If your players are even half so overconfident as their fans, you'll all be singing the Finnish national anthem by this time tomorrow.
 

4U

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
12
0
Wild Thing said:
Isn't it customary to wait until you actually win the game before you start boasting about how amazingly terrific you are?

If your players are even half so overconfident as their fans, you'll all be singing the Finnish national anthem by this time tomorrow.

REALLY...it just seems to me like canadiens are so overconfident tha it seems like Finland is like Iraq to US....
 

mackdogs*

Guest
4U said:
Mybe You are to little to remember...Well ....
Are you too 'little' to remember the 1972 Canada/Russia series? That sure was a model for referreeing :shakehead

Quit living in the past kid. Too many grumpy russian fans on this board!
 

4U

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
12
0
mackdogs said:
Are you too 'little' to remember the 1972 Canada/Russia series? That sure was a model for referreeing :shakehead

Quit living in the past kid. Too many grumpy russian fans on this board!

Really? It was two in 1972 so wouldn´t care of that....but you ****o U know that it wouldnt be the same if some scaryass ****ers would whisslle every time that Pat Quoin had a bad moment?
 

mackdogs*

Guest
4U said:
Really? It was two in 1972 so wouldn´t care of that....but you ****o U know that it wouldnt be the same if some scaryass ****ers would whisslle every time that Pat Quoin had a bad moment?
Ya lost me there. Have a nice day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->