2014 Winter Olympics

[Emcee77]

2 top teams \= the 2 top teams, i.e., the 2 best teams

 

[aubeirish]

That's not what he said.

Still. We had the Norris trophy winner not as healthy scratch for most of the tournament. There are enough good players left out to have Canada1 playing Canada2 in the finals if they are playing well. Basketball is much different than hockey anyways. In hockey, you can have 1 player play poorly out of 20 and you loose the game. In Basketball, you only really need 1-2 guys to be playing lights out to win.

 

[wizards8507]

2 top teams \= the 2 top teams, i.e., the 2 best teams

That's why tournament-style play is a stupid friggin' way to determine medalists, or--dare I say?--national champions?

#FreeTheBCS

 

[Cackalacky]

Sucks, need a #1 center and needed more offense on D, and another scoring forward.. But probably wouldn't have made a difference.

I don't know much about hockey, but isn't that like 80% of the players on the ice?

 

[ACamp1900]

That's why tournament-style play is a stupid friggin' way to determine medalists, or--dare I say?--national champions?

#FreeTheBCS

reps

 

[gkIrish]

Still. We had the Norris trophy winner not as healthy scratch for most of the tournament. There are enough good players left out to have Canada1 playing Canada2 in the finals if they are playing well. Basketball is much different than hockey anyways. In hockey, you can have 1 player play poorly out of 20 and you loose the game. In Basketball, you only really need 1-2 guys to be playing lights out to win.

You can gloat about today's win but it's ridiculous to think the US team would lose to Canada 2 in an Olympic setting. Maybe 12 years ago but not a chance in today's world.

 

[aubeirish]

I don't know much about hockey, but isn't that like 80% of the players on the ice?

You mean at the same time? No, you have 5 guys + the goalie at one time on the ice. These 5 guys are usually changed after 45 seconds to 1 min to bring fresh legs. This means that everyone will usually see the ice during the game. In these team sports where you have so many people involved, it is a lot harder to get a cohesive effort from everyone. That is why games are so close most of the times.

 

[ACamp1900]

You can gloat about today's win but it's ridiculous to think the US team would lose Canada 2 in an Olympic setting. Maybe 12 years ago but not a chance in today's world.

Or Russia, or Sweden, or Finland, or the Czechs...

 

[zelezo vlk]

You can gloat about today's win but it's ridiculous to think the US team would lose Canada 2 in an Olympic setting. Maybe 12 years ago but not a chance in today's world.

This is what I mean, although I didn't mean to start an argument.

USA Olympic Basketball has a strong shot to get Gold and Silver.

Canadian Olympic Hockey would have a strong chance of getting the Gold and Bronze but I'm not so sure that the #2 (assuming you want to assure gold for Team A) would be able to get to the Gold medal game.

Canadian hockey talent > everyone else's. Just not to the level of American basketball talent

 

[aubeirish]

You can gloat about today's win but it's ridiculous to think the US team would lose Canada 2 in an Olympic setting. Maybe 12 years ago but not a chance in today's world.

Why would it be ridiculous? It would still be all really good NHL players. I'm not saying they would automatically win, but they could win against the U.S. any day of the week. What is ridiculous is comparing hockey and basketball.

 

[gkIrish]

Or Russia, or Sweden, or Finland, or the Czechs...

Hell Latvia almost beat the A team.

 

[gkIrish]

Why would it be ridiculous? It would still be all really good NHL players. I'm not saying they would automatically win, but they could win against the U.S. any day of the week. What is ridiculous is comparing hockey and basketball.

Bottom line is the US played its worst game of the tournament and Canada played probably its best and it was 1-0. They play 20 times Canada might win 11-12 times. So spare me the Canada B team BS

 

[wizards8507]

Miracle Off Ice «

 

[aubeirish]

Bottom line is the US played its worst game of the tournament and Canada played probably its best and it was 1-0. They play 20 times Canada might win 11-12 times. So spare me the Canada B team BS

Canada had a lot to do with the US not looking as strong today. It was a treat to watch Canada move the puck today. Latvia played the trap and their goalie made 55 saves. It's not like they touched the puck. Canada have been very conservative with the way they have played throughout the tournament, and to be honest when you have this kind of defensive unit it's pretty normal(just like coach Kelly you know).

 

[IrishLax]

Still. We had the Norris trophy winner not as healthy scratch for most of the tournament. There are enough good players left out to have Canada1 playing Canada2 in the finals if they are playing well. Basketball is much different than hockey anyways. In hockey, you can have 1 player play poorly out of 20 and you loose the game. In Basketball, you only really need 1-2 guys to be playing lights out to win.

That is beyond stupid. Canada's Olympic results:
3-1 win over #12 Norway
6-0 win over #9 Austria
2-1 OT win over Finland
2-1 late game win over #11 Latvia
1-0 win over US

Excluding the Austria game, they have their 4 wins by a combined 5 goals. Two of those wins were against the worst two teams in the tournament. The other two were against very good teams where they won very close games... one being in OT.

Yet you actually, truly believe that a B team made up of players who didn't make the Canada roster would be the second best team. Even though the results tell you that Canada's "A Team" is not appreciably better as a team than Finland, the US, or presumably Sweden. And the "A Team" placed only 3rd in pool play. And struggled with LATVIA.

That's pure bullshit.

 

[wizards8507]

That is beyond stupid. Canada's Olympic results:
3-1 win over #12 Norway
6-0 win over #9 Austria
2-1 OT win over Finland
2-1 late game win over #11 Latvia
1-0 win over US

Excluding the Austria game, they have their 4 wins by a combined 5 goals. Two of those wins were against the worst two teams in the tournament. The other two were against very good teams where they won very close games... one being in OT.

Yet you actually, truly believe that a B team made up of players who didn't make the Canada roster would be the second best team. Even though the results tell you that Canada's "A Team" is not appreciably better as a team than Finland, the US, or presumably Sweden. And the "A Team" placed only 3rd in pool play. And struggled with LATVIA.

That's pure bullshit.

In his defense, he said two Canadian teams COULD have made the finals, not that two Canadian teams WOULD have made the finals. It's like... Notre Dame COULD beat FSU in Tallahassee next year if we played our best game.

 

[gkIrish]

Canada had a lot to do with the US not looking as strong today. It was a treat to watch Canada move the puck today. Latvia played the trap and their goalie made 55 saves. It's not like they touched the puck. Canada have been very conservative with the way they have played throughout the tournament, and to be honest when you have this kind of defensive unit it's pretty normal(just like coach Kelly you know).

So they conservatively decided to let Finland take them to OT or Latvia take them to the wire? Come on man. You won today but like I said, don't take it too far.

 

[gkIrish]

In his defense, he said two Canadian teams COULD have made the finals, not that two Canadian teams WOULD have made the finals. It's like... Notre Dame COULD beat FSU in Tallahassee next year if we played our best game.

He said "any day of the week" which implies to me that they would be evenly matched. Just not true.

 

[dshans]

CHILL!!!



And feel free to pelt me with snowballs ... slushballs even.

 

[wizards8507]

He said "any day of the week" which implies to me that they would be evenly matched. Just not true.

I guess. I read it more like "any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday." It wouldn't be Alabama vs. Chattanooga, in other words.

 

[IrishLax]

In his defense, he said two Canadian teams COULD have made the finals, not that two Canadian teams WOULD have made the finals. It's like... Notre Dame COULD beat FSU in Tallahassee next year if we played our best game.

That's true. OK in a hypothetical... yeah there's absolutely enough talent leftover in Canada to construct a team that "could" hypothetically compete for a medal and make the finals. His posting implies that he think's it'd be a probable or at least highly possible occurrence though... and that seems silly. They'd probably be the 6th best team in the tournament at absolute max.

 

[aubeirish]

That is beyond stupid. Canada's Olympic results:
3-1 win over #12 Norway
6-0 win over #9 Austria
2-1 OT win over Finland
2-1 late game win over #11 Latvia
1-0 win over US

Excluding the Austria game, they have their 4 wins by a combined 5 goals. Two of those wins were against the worst two teams in the tournament. The other two were against very good teams where they won very close games... one being in OT.

Yet you actually, truly believe that a B team made up of players who didn't make the Canada roster would be the second best team. Even though the results tell you that Canada's "A Team" is not appreciably better as a team than Finland, the US, or presumably Sweden. And the "A Team" placed only 3rd in pool play. And struggled with LATVIA.

That's pure bullshit.

I think I am being misunderstood. I said there are enough good players out there to have Canada1 vs Canada2 in the finals. Am I saying they are automatically the best 2 teams in the tournament? No I am not. Am I saying that Canada is the only nation with great hockey players? No I am not. Finland, Sweden, USA, Slovakia, Russia, Czechoslovakia are all capable of winning the tournament. I'm not saying it would be an easy road for 2 Canadian teams to make it to the finals, I'm saying that there is enough talent for it to happen.

 

[wizards8507]

That's true. OK in a hypothetical... yeah there's absolutely enough talent leftover in Canada to construct a team that "could" hypothetically compete for a medal and make the finals. His posting implies that he think's it'd be a probable or at least highly possible occurrence though... and that seems silly. They'd probably be the 6th best team in the tournament at absolute max.

I think it depends if they made two balanced teams or if they kept Team A intact. If they made two balanced teams I think they're probably Silver and Bronze. If they kept all the best guys on Team A, then Team B would probably be somewhere closer to what you describe.

 

[aubeirish]

He said "any day of the week" which implies to me that they would be evenly matched. Just not true.

It just implies that both teams could win the game...

 

[gkIrish]

I think I am being misunderstood. I said there are enough good players out there to have Canada1 vs Canada2 in the finals. Am I saying they are automatically the best 2 teams in the tournament? No I am not. Am I saying that Canada is the only nation with great hockey players? No I am not. Finland, Sweden, USA, Slovakia, Russia, Czechoslovakia are all capable of winning the tournament. I'm not saying it would be an easy road for 2 Canadian teams to make it to the finals, I'm saying that there is enough talent for it to happen.

Give me your Canada B lineup using no players from the Olympic roster so I can compare.

 

[wizards8507]

Give me your Canada B lineup using no players from the Olympic roster so I can compare.

Canada Olympic hockey team: The all-snub team could compete too - CBSSports.com

Olympic hockey: The All-Snub team looks pretty good - NHL - Sporting News

 

[gkIrish]

It just implies that both teams could win the game...

Maybe Canada B beats one of the top teams in a major upset. But no way they get through 3 teams to medal. That would be like Cal beating USC, Stanford, and Oregon in one season.

 

[IrishLax]

I think I am being misunderstood. I said there are enough good players out there to have Canada1 vs Canada2 in the finals. Am I saying they are automatically the best 2 teams in the tournament? No I am not. Am I saying that Canada is the only nation with great hockey players? No I am not. Finland, Sweden, USA, Slovakia, Russia, Czechoslovakia are all capable of winning the tournament. I'm not saying it would be an easy road for 2 Canadian teams to make it to the finals, I'm saying that there is enough talent for it to happen.

Yeah OK I can buy that. That's not how I read your posts. Sorry.

 

[ACamp1900]

Yeah OK I can buy that. That's not how I read your posts. Sorry.

Nor I.

 

[Emcee77]

Give me your Canada B lineup using no players from the Olympic roster so I can compare.

Yeah I'd be curious too.

What we were talking about originally was whether U.S. dominance in hoops = Canadian dominance in hockey. The U.S. won the gold in the world championships in 2010, IIRC, with Kevin Durant and basically no other stars. Could Canada have won the gold with Sidney Crosby and a team made up entirely of players who didn't make this Olympic team? I don't know about that.

EDIT: well, after reading the articles wizards posted, it's not that farfetched. Canada left a lot of talent on the sidelines.