I feel America did great in this tournament....

Greetings and salutations from Hamilton Ontario Canada.........

I just wanted to say here that American hockey fans have nothing to be ashamed of........They should be damn proud of their hockey team!......They did their best..............................

Finland is also a great hockey club and could be the ones that actually go all the way and win this whole tournament........We haven't seen the last of this U.S.-squad.......I believe that they are in a transition phase right now and look out for them at the next Winter Olympics.

Cheers!~

monkey_00

I wouldn't say they played great.

They had a respectable tournament, and shouldn't be bashed for their performance, but they also shouldn't be applauded.

They only had one really great game, but then again, it's the results that count and getting knocked out in the semis isn't bad.

It's been a funny tournament. The Czechs looks asleep for the first two games, then caught fire, the Russians looked great early and played much better then I expected, the US looked bad in their first 2 games yet bounced back strongly, while the Slovaks looked lost from the start and the Germans tried hard but just didn't have it.

The US is in a transition phase right now. Give em a few years, they'll be bigger than ever.

2-3 record is OK when playing against the World's greatest. On the other hand with 4 home games it could have been better ...

Considering how badly they played the first 2 games, their age, and number of dropouts due to injury/money, the US team did fairly well.

I wouldn't say they played great.

They had a respectable tournament, and shouldn't be bashed for their performance, but they also shouldn't be applauded.

While they didn't play their best they did play hard and represented our country proudly and for that should be applauded.


:clap:

I was hoping to at least get to the final, but they did so so.

I think the U.S. met the expectations heaped upon it for this tournament. I don't think they under or over-acheived. For an older team with alot of turmoil on the blueline, young and inexperienced goaltending, and the Brett Hull distraction, I thought we did fairly well. It's too bad we couldn't keep that lead against Finland though...... :banghead:

Team USA had some good moments. They had more moments that weren't good, though. Overall, I was happy with the games, but disappointed with the performance. Just my opinion, but I don't think we saw a consistent best-effort from Team USA.

They had a a 2-3 record, beating the Slovaks, and then beat a team B russia that didn't show up to play.

I think the U.S. met the expectations heaped upon it for this tournament. I don't think they under or over-acheived. For an older team with alot of turmoil on the blueline, young and inexperienced goaltending, and the Brett Hull distraction, I thought we did fairly well. It's too bad we couldn't keep that lead against Finland though...... :banghead:
There are people who are in a position to say that the US met their expectations, but you aren't one of those people.

Before the tournament, you were one of the guys talking about how the US and Canada should be in the Gold Medal game. Now I know they didn't miss by much, but I don't see how you can say they met expectations.

While they didn't play their best they did play hard and represented our country proudly and for that should be applauded.


:clap:

Except for Brett Hull.

Except for Brett Hull.
I couldn't agree with you more. What a *******. :mad:

Here's a pretty scathing article on the subject from Slam.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/WorldCup/2004/09/12/626782.html

It seems pretty harsh, but take it for what it's worth.

I do agree with one thing in the article though: Chelios ain't exactly the best ambassador for the game :)

Well they got the hypothetical third/fourth place, and won Russian team with a good play. Not bad at least.

There are people who are in a position to say that the US met their expectations, but you aren't one of those people.

Before the tournament, you were one of the guys talking about how the US and Canada should be in the Gold Medal game. Now I know they didn't miss by much, but I don't see how you can say they met expectations.



I'm not talking about my expectations, I'm talking about expectations in general. I did think the U.S. would make it to the championship game, and that almost happened. MOST prognosticators however weren't nearly as generous, and those people looked like geniuses the first two games.

Here's a pretty scathing article on the subject from Slam.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/WorldCup/2004/09/12/626782.html

It seems pretty harsh, but take it for what it's worth.

I do agree with one thing in the article though: Chelios ain't exactly the best ambassador for the game :)



A junk article IMO. The U.S. iced the best possible line-up (IMO) and resorted to playing a style that EVERYONE else did in order to win games. The fact is the U.S. has won it's fair share of medals at international tournaments of late, and the future does look bright. Not winning the World Cup this year isn't going to change that. I wonder what his critique of Russia might be? The federation's in shambles, can't win to save their lives, yet we look good doing so! :joker:

It's said in Finland that beating USA in semis was our biggest win so far in the whole history of national team. It wasn't such a big deal for us if it wasn't against a great opponent.

Team USA of course still is and will continue to be one of the top teams in the world.

A junk article IMO. The U.S. iced the best possible line-up (IMO) and resorted to playing a style that EVERYONE else did in order to win games. The fact is the U.S. has won it's fair share of medals at international tournaments of late, and the future does look bright. Not winning the World Cup this year isn't going to change that. I wonder what his critique of Russia might be? The federation's in shambles, we can't win to save our lives, yet we look good doing so! :joker:

I found it funny with that article that the writer brought up 1998 in reference to Chelios, but not also 1996 and 2002.

USA's style was boring, SFW. When you lack a lot of depth, you do what you have to do in order to win some games.

USA Hockey will be fine, as evidenced at the last WJC's, probably not on the level of Canada, but who is.

I found it funny with that article that the writer brought up 1998 in reference to Chelios, but not also 1996 and 2002.

USA's style was boring, SFW. When you lack a lot of depth, you do what you have to do in order to win some games.

USA Hockey will be fine, as evidenced at the last WJC's, probably not on the level of Canada, but who is.


I didn't get the Chelios potshots. He's one of the best defensemen to ever play the game, and has ALWAYS come to play when his country asked. Yeah, he's been part of some stinkers, but also some great accomplishments as well. So what if he's a %$^ to play against or whatever?

Here's a pretty scathing article on the subject from Slam.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/WorldCup/2004/09/12/626782.html

It seems pretty harsh, but take it for what it's worth.

I do agree with one thing in the article though: Chelios ain't exactly the best ambassador for the game :)

I thought that article was pretty good, and totally true as well.

No one will probably be able to match the depth Canada will have either now or in the future, however I think down the road the American's top players may be able to rival the Canadians a bit better.

That article was pretty on about Chelios, however the shots at the youngsters was not called for.

While they didn't play their best they did play hard and represented our country proudly and for that should be applauded.:clap:
At least they didn't bust up their hotel rooms.
I thought they played a lot better after Hull left. It probably created a rallying point for the team. At the beginning I thought they would be in the finals, since they weren't they did not meet my expectations, but they still provided better entertainment then some of those Euro division snoozefests.

The US is in a transition phase right now. Give em a few years, they'll be bigger than ever.

Really? Hmmm. Not sure who is going to pick up the slack. Scott Gomez maybe, at 25.

The USA has had this problem since '96 when they had no one coming up to take the olders guys place. On this team you had, Modano, Amonte, Guerin, all 34, Weight 33, Tkachuk 32, Chelios 42, Hull 40, Leetch 36. That's our core from '96. No big US name has come up in the past 8 years. I think if you have a '06 Olympic tourny you have a good amount of players returning cause there just isnt any names right now.

I thought Mike Ulmer was over the line, but hey, being anti-American has never been more popular these days in Canada and around the world. If it makes him feel better, fine. I just wish he seek a more objective viewpoint.

Up to last week, Team USA had been superb in the last three editions of the international tourneys where the best players actually play.

In the 96 World Cup - US won Gold, 2002 Olympics - Silver and 2004 World Junior - Gold (arguably the best total performance by any country in those tourneys). I don't count world championships because those teams are "B" teams for all countries.

And the Americans were a bounce or two from this World Cup final this year, holding Finland to 12 shots. That's not to say that Finland didn't deserve to win (they did) but the line between victory and defeat was a very small one. That's hockey...

USA Hockey is fine...

you're one of the good ones monkey_00.

I don't understand how someone can look past the anti-american sentiment in favor of some honest and thoughtful insight and commentary.

so thanks for not following the bandwagon much like the rest of the canadian posters and posting something intelligent.

cheers
JC

2004 World Junior - Gold (arguably the best total performance by any country in those tourneys).



I dont think they can compare to Team Canada of 1991 and 1996.

I dont think they can compare to Team Canada of 1991 and 1996.


My fault - I didn't express myself as well as I should have. There are three tourneys in international hockey where the best players play - the World Cup, the Olympics and the World Juniors. Up until last week, the last time Team USA played in each of those tourneys (the 1996 World Cup, the 2002 Olympics and the 2004 World Juniors), the USA team recorded two top finishes (WC, WJ) and a second place finish (Oly). Canada finished with top finish (Oly) and two second place finishes (WC, WJ) at those same tourneys.

I'm not making the claim that the US is the best hockey country in the world - certainly Canada has proven that it owns that position. But I get frustrated when people like Mike Ulmer cannot see the progress that has been made in bringing USA hockey to a top level hockey program that is every bit as good as the five or six other progams that battle Canada for that top spot. I think the USA has earned that distinction, and that the progress that has been made is much more than "miniscule."

My fault - I didn't express myself as well as I should have. There are three tourneys in international hockey where the best players play - the World Cup, the Olympics and the World Juniors. Up until last week, the last time Team USA played in each of those tourneys (the 1996 World Cup, the 2002 Olympics and the 2004 World Juniors), the USA team recorded two top finishes (WC, WJ) and a second place finish (Oly). Canada finished with top finish (Oly) and two second place finishes (WC, WJ) at those same tourneys.

I'm not making the claim that the US is the best hockey country in the world - certainly Canada has proven that it owns that position. But I get frustrated when people like Mike Ulmer cannot see the progress that has been made in bringing USA hockey to a top level hockey program that is every bit as good as the five or six other progams that battle Canada for that top spot. I think the USA has earned that distinction, and that the progress that has been made is much more than "miniscule."

The world juniors aren't best on best.

The world juniors aren't best on best.


It is for that age group.

My fault - I didn't express myself as well as I should have. There are three tourneys in international hockey where the best players play - the World Cup, the Olympics and the World Juniors. Up until last week, the last time Team USA played in each of those tourneys (the 1996 World Cup, the 2002 Olympics and the 2004 World Juniors), the USA team recorded two top finishes (WC, WJ) and a second place finish (Oly). Canada finished with top finish (Oly) and two second place finishes (WC, WJ) at those same tourneys.

I'm not making the claim that the US is the best hockey country in the world - certainly Canada has proven that it owns that position. But I get frustrated when people like Mike Ulmer cannot see the progress that has been made in bringing USA hockey to a top level hockey program that is every bit as good as the five or six other progams that battle Canada for that top spot. I think the USA has earned that distinction, and that the progress that has been made is much more than "miniscule."

I see you have conveniently left out the 98 Olympics in your argument? A 5th place finish AND some childish antics as well. Not trying to bash US Hockey as they have had some good tournaments in the last decade, but all the facts must be taken into account.

It is for that age group.

It still isn't, because if you're good enough to make the NHL when you're 18, you're still eligible to play, but your team might not let you go.

Therefore it is not a best on best.