Help me out here

Wasn't Salt Lake City a big ice surface? I'm pretty sure it was, so if that's the case why is everyone using that for an excuse for Canada's poor performance?

well they need an excuse, so they use the bigger ice excuse

but as surprising as it may sound, I agree with this excuse. In 2002 Canada beat USA who plays pretty much the same style but is just worse at it. And in the semifinal Canada had not matchup. That leaves Finland ... well, they obviously played better in 2002, but IMO Canada is almost impossible to beat on small ice because the way they cycle in the offensive zone can only be achieved on that small rink.

You won't win many hockey games by being shutout in 11 of 12 periods...doesn't matter whether you're playing on an NHL or International ice surface.

Wasn't Salt Lake City a big ice surface? I'm pretty sure it was, so if that's the case why is everyone using that for an excuse for Canada's poor performance?


I haven't heard of that excuse much. Team Canada had greater problems to deal with well before worrying about big ice. Teamwork would be the top of my list of concerns.

How is that an advantage or a disadvantage, if the other teams--composed of mostly NHLers--also play on that same surface. Now, if a national squad of players that play mostly in Europe had won the tourneys, I'd say these critics have a point. Otherwise, they're fumbling for excuses--and desperately so.

I've heard a few people use that excuse including Ron MacLean. But when Canada won the gold in SLC it was on big ice, so that's a totally bogus argument.

I don't think the big ice had much to do with it, execpt that some of the members of team Canada aren't suited for it, leading to bad penalties and so on.

Neither do I think the trap has much to do with it. If anything Canada played the trap more than the russians did.

I think the problems are almost purely internal. Canada should be able to put up a team that is among the best on big ice and no matter what strategy the opponent uses. This one didn't. They never really got going offensively or defensively. The results are even less flattering considering they had among the best goaltending in the whole tournament. I do think this failure will have concequences for the composition of future canadian teams. Perhaps sacrifice some size and physicality for speed and passing, especially on defense.

It wasn't the size of the ice surface. Anyone who says it was is just looking for an excuse.

[QUOTE=Freudian]I don't think the big ice had much to do with it, execpt that some of the members of team Canada aren't suited for it, leading to bad penalties and so on. QUOTE]

But the Russians, whom you referred to, are mostly NHL players, who are by now accustomed to the smaller surfaces. It's only an advantage to the Germans, the Italians, the Swiss, and the Latvians. Their players are accustomed to the larger surfaces. Most members of other teams aren't (save for younger Euros like Olesz and Malkin, and maybe even Gaborik).

I've heard a few people use that excuse including Ron MacLean. But when Canada won the gold in SLC it was on big ice, so that's a totally bogus argument.

It's bogus :)

Wasn't Salt Lake City a big ice surface? I'm pretty sure it was, so if that's the case why is everyone using that for an excuse for Canada's poor performance?
They only won because of the lucky Canadian coin in the ice at Salt Lake. Otherwise the suck ;)

is kinbote a reference to the character in nabokov's pale fire

Wow. Okay guys, we lost. You don't need to rub it in. You had your fun now go cheer on your countries. Thought the Olympics were about sportsmanship 'n such?

Wasn't Salt Lake City a big ice surface? I'm pretty sure it was, so if that's the case why is everyone using that for an excuse for Canada's poor performance?

All Olympic hockey is always played on the "big" IIHF standard ice size.

All Olympic hockey is always played on the "big" IIHF standard ice size.Correct.