Hockey needs Canada to lose...

As disappointing as it was to witness this all-star roster score in only 11 of the last 12 periods, us Canadian hockey fans have to understand that this is what hockey needs.

Gretzky said it best at the 2002 games when he said the world wanted Canada to lose, and you know what....he was right, but he doesn't seem to understand why.

Like any other sport, hockey needs someone else to take over in order for it to grow. Look at women's hockey. Sweden gets to the finals and now women's hockey will grow in Sweden.

If Canada continues to win all the tournaments, the rest of the world will not care. Just look at what the "miracle on ice" did for U.S. hockey.

Our women won the last two olympics, and men won Salt Lake, then the world cup and we won the last two juniors...that is NOT good for hockey when the rest of the world is sitting there watching Canada win all the time.

Unless, outside of the U.S., you have satellite, it is hard to watch NHL games. So when international tournaments involving NHLers takes place, the influence comes from watching your country succeed in that tournament. Swiss hockey will grow just like Czech and Slovakian hockey has because they upset a few teams.

Like Jim Kelly said on the fan590 yesterday, its not our arrogance as a nation, its our ignorance of not realizing that the rest of the world is just as good as Canada.

Just a thought about the Russia/Canada game...I think we owe Russia a victory. The analysts can say that we have not beaten them in the Olympics since 1980, but come on....how many years to the Russian's have to sit and listen to 1972 and 1987? Now we know how it feels to be on the other end.

I love my country and I want them to win, but I know it's better if they take a step back and let someone else take over.

Feel free to agree/disagree.

I think it has some truth in it.
Another thing why the hockey world wants Canada to lose is that people without a preferred team like to cheer for the underdog. Same with me. I have a hard time cheering for Germany (even though I`m German) for reasons I can`t say (I loved them in the Zach time) but I find myself cheering for every other underdog.

I think this is a great post, I wholeheartedly agree. I think all the recent success that Canada has had had a little part in the teams performance this time around. They didnt seem to look like they wanted it that bad. Not like they did in the world cup not like they did in Salt Lake and certainly not like this years world junior team did. To be the best you have to be willing to sacrifice the most and this time Canada looked like they were willing to sacrifice the least.

Back on topic, I just want to see the game grow and with all the success that other nations had I have a feeling it will.

Its really to bad that Slovakia didnt get by the Czech Republic and play for a medal. That country needs a breakthrough performance in a best on best tournament. I thought this was going to be it.

Canadians don't care if hockey grows anywhere else, we want to be the best every time we take the ice, we can't and never should accept failure, and there never is a silver lining.

Without hockey in Canada, there is no hockey.

I think it has some truth in it.
Another thing why the hockey world wants Canada to lose is that people without a preferred team like to cheer for the underdog. Same with me. I have a hard time cheering for Germany (even though I`m German= for reasons I can`t say (I loved them in the Zach time) but I find myself cheering for every other underdog.

I agree. It's always exciting in any sport to see an underdog topple the favoured team. Strong competition makes for a better sporting event. I was especially pleased to see women's hockey in this Olympics have some variety to it. I think it's going to make it much more interesting in the future.

Canadians don't care if hockey grows anywhere else, we want to be the best every time we take the ice, we can't and never should accept failure, and there never is a silver lining.

Without hockey in Canada, there is no hockey.


That's the problem right there. No one is saying Hockey will never leave Canada, the point is if hockey doesn't grow, especially in the U.S., you will be stuck with more lockouts because the NHL isn't making enough money to feed its salary selfish players.

That's the problem right there. No one is saying Hockey will never leave Canada, the point is if hockey doesn't grow, especially in the U.S., you will be stuck with more lockouts because the NHL isn't making enough money to feed its salary selfish players.

Meh, thats just the NHL, Canada still supplies the majority of hockey players all over the world, Hockey needs Canada, and Canada needs to deliver to keep that passion going.

I think people like to see teams lose when plenty of their fans feel they're too good for the others.
That's pretty much the same with ther US in basketball. Their fans (not all of them obviously) feel they're so much better than the rest of the world that the rest of the world cheers for their opponents.

Pretty logical if you ask me.

Canadians don't care if hockey grows anywhere else, we want to be the best every time we take the ice, we can't and never should accept failure, and there never is a silver lining.

Without hockey in Canada, there is no hockey.

That's a little dramatic. True, Canada wants to win at hockey every time our team takes the ice. But there are many countries out there now who want it as badly. And there will ALWAYS be hockey in Canada.

I don't agree. Canada competes with countries in which hockey is already a huge sport (Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Slovakia). It's not a big deal if Canada wins or not, those countries still have hockey players for the kids to idolize, and the kids will join hockey schools, etc.

What the sport needs in order to grow is for countries like Germany, Italy, Latvia (i.e. "emerging hockey nations") to have great runs like Switzerland did at these olympics.

I think that Canada needs to lose because Russia needs to win. That's as far as it goes. :D

Just a thought about the Russia/Canada game...I think we owe Russia a victory. The analysts can say that we have not beaten them in the Olympics since 1980, but come on....how many years to the Russian's have to sit and listen to 1972 and 1987? Now we know how it feels to be on the other end.
.

I was born and raised in Canada, and I was born after the Summit series occured. I don't think I've seen as as much gloating about any win in sports as that 1972 victory. :shakehead

Frankly, IMHO, this quarterfinal was probably the best thing that could have happened. With the way Canada has been winning internationally lately, I was getting sick of hearing how Canada and Canadian hockey players are so much more worthy than everyone else.

@georegtown88:


You are absolutely right. Very interesting. Thanks for posting your thoughts.

Of course there will be those that say ( and i cannot disagree ) that a team should always play it's best no matter how well they do.....

Canada women's team should not have pummeled Italy and whomever, also applies to men's hockey in the past....ah, that is a difficult issue..


However, in the grand scheme of things, in terms of what is good for hockey and the sport, all you said is spot on.

It is good that it happened to both the USA and Canada...although nobody seemed to see it coming, the time was now..and it is good for world hockey and the sport.


Now Canada will change/work harder, as will the USA, address problems....it keeps the sport growing worldwide...

You are absolutely right.

Well said.

I was born and raised in Canada, and I was born after the Summit series occured. I don't think I've seen as as much gloating about any win in sports as that 1972 victory. :shakehead

Frankly, IMHO, this quarterfinal was probably the best thing that could have happened. I was getting sick of hearing how Canada and Canadian hockey players are so much more worthy than everyone else.

I watched that series live....greatest hockey moment ever!!!! :D

What the sport needs in order to grow is for countries like Germany, Italy, Latvia (i.e. "emerging hockey nations") to have great runs like Switzerland did at these olympics.

That's the point.

I don't agree. Canada competes with countries in which hockey is already a huge sport (Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Slovakia). It's not a big deal if Canada wins or not, those countries still have hockey players for the kids to idolize, and the kids will join hockey schools, etc.

What the sport needs in order to grow is for countries like Germany, Italy, Latvia (i.e. "emerging hockey nations") to have great runs like Switzerland did at these olympics.

yeah i agree with that

I'm more inclined to think that the biggest benefactor or Canada's loss will be canadian (read : Hockey Canada, Managers and Coaches) hockey rather than the sport itself. Men's hockey isn't in Women's hockey position. For example, Canada could clinch gold in 4 straight olympics (and 4 World Cups), and hockey itself wouldn't lose so much, because, if it remains like it is now, there IS suspense in every game, and those medals would have meant that Canada played better for the aformentionned tourneys, as there are six 1st place contenders by now (I'm excluding USA, because, really, they ain't contenders, a thing Slovakia IS, and any media trying to say other wise is afflicted by "America's Bias").

I hope yesterdays loss, and even more the disastrous results of Team Canada in Torino will lead to a philosophy change, starting at the "very basis"... Especially here, in the Q, where the only kids who play defense on "youth level" are sluggish ones...

I totally disagree.

I think you're looking for some positives out of this experience, and I'm inclined to believe there are no positives at all here. Canada was knocked out, but the country that did the work was Russia, hardly an upstart on the international stage. The other teams remaining are from Finland, Sweden, and the Czech Republic. These are all established hockey powers.

Team Canada's loss was a disastrous failure that will rightfully send the powers that be back to the drawing board. Perhaps in the future we shoulnd't be so foolish as to try and win with a Canadian style of game on international ice in the future.

Nothing to do with my previous post, but...

Is it me or Germany have be a rising hockey nation since 30 years? I don't know what they did to deserve the "8th spot" handed on a silver plate, and they were the worst team I saw for the whole Torino tourney.

That's the point.

Right, I thought you were mostly referring to the Canada - Russia game. My bad.

However, I don't think it matters whether Canada walks away with a trophy every time or not. Had Canada beaten the Russians and gone on to win Gold yet again, hockey in switzerland would have still grown.

Canada hadn't won a gold medal in the Olympics since 1952 and since 1998 this country decided to give a damn? Why, because NHLers are involved?

Imagine you were a kid growing up in Latvia and you know you're team is going to lose and lose bad, but all of a sudden they pull off the biggest upsets in tournament history and make it to the gold medal game...now wouldn't that make you want to put a pair of skates on.

In Canada, it won't stop us from getting on the ice, we need to stop acting like its the end of the world. We won in 2002, we won the world cup in the summer and we've won the last two juniors. We don't need to prove ourselves to ourselves.

Slosh, I did say that Swiss hockey will grow because they upset a few teams.

ya sure - owe it - dunno -

sets up 2010 on canadian soil - cue drama

Imagine you were a kid growing up in Latvia and you know you're team is going to lose and lose bad, but all of a sudden they pull off the biggest upsets in tournament history and make it to the gold medal game...now wouldn't that make you want to put a pair of skates on.


But you'll notice that didn't happen. We weren't knocked out by an upstart team and none of the teams left are growing hockey nations. They're traditional powers.

georgetown88, sounds like we're disagreeing, all the while sharing the same point of view! :biglaugh:

I think it is logical that Canada doesn't win every tournament. They aren't good enough to win every tournament. They are good enough to win some tournaments. And that they do.

First of all, I have to disagree with the comment that hockey needs Canada. That statement is just purely false. If all Canadians stopped caring about hockey, the sport would survive. Obviously, without Canada, the sport would take a hit in popularity, and talent levels, but, the sport is well enough ingrained around the world to survive on its own. If the NHL folded, there would be enough hockey occuring overseas, in the European leagues.

I have to disagree that Canada has had it's fill, and others deserve a turn. We only have one gold medal in the last 50 years. That's quite a bruise to an ego to a country that has felt that it has been the best country at the sport for that time period. It's not that we feel that we are entitled to the victory, but, we are honestly puzzled that when we don't win, when the best players are involved.

The Canada Cups (now the World Cup) are nice, as well as the Junior Championships, and even the Women Gold Medals, but, we know that those aren't held to the highest value around the world. The Olympics are the one tournament that all hockey countries see as being an elite tournament. A big part of that is because it's one of the few tournaments that Canada doesn't dominate, but, it still pains a lot of Canadians that they can't point to the one universally recognized achievement in the sport as an example of their hockey prowess.

As Canadians, we just have to suck it up, and look to re-group in 4 years. I think most people can look at the sport now, and realize that at the international level, the sport is extremely competitive, and any time you ice a team that isn't working cohesively, you are going to struggle.

I hope that in 2010 Canada can go on to win the gold, and to make that a start of a run of gold medals that spans 3 or 4 Olympics. The problem is, you can never take that for granted in sports, especially one that is as competitive as international hockey is right now.

But you'll notice that didn't happen. We weren't knocked out by an upstart team and none of the teams left are growing hockey nations. They're traditional powers.

Yes, but the point is for Canada not to dominate. If European teams win, then smaller European nations will take notice and their programs will be boosted.

Slosh, I totally agree..lol

Yes, but the point is for Canada not to dominate. If European teams win, then smaller European nations will take notice and their programs will be boosted.


Not quite true. If you were a kid growing up in Latvia (since we started using them as an example :) ), just because Canada won't win anything this time round doesn't quite compensate for taking home 1 point from 5 games, and being dismantled 9-2 by Russia (instead of Canada).

Not quite true. If you were a kid growing up in Latvia (since we started using them as an example :) ), just because Canada won't win anything this time round doesn't quite compensate for taking home 1 point from 5 games, and being dismantled 9-2 by Russia (instead of Canada).

The point is that if a European team defeats Canada and wins the gold medal, it will influence smaller nations to put more money into their programs and recruit better players because they know it is possible to beat a super power with the right system.

Look at all the European teams that have evolved since Sweden beat Canada in the 1994 Winter Olympics or when the Czech's beat Canada in 1998, nobody remembers the gold medal game, they remember the shootout because the Czech's beat the super power and since then, we have seen many big and small small nations like France, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia and Germany participate. It does make a difference.

I think it is logical that Canada doesn't win every tournament. They aren't good enough to win every tournament. They are good enough to win some tournaments. And that they do.

I think they are good enough to win almost all tournaments. However, so are some of the other nations.

I think the groundwork for 2002 was started shortly after the 4th place finish in Nagano in 1998.

The disappointment there made Hockey Canada realize they needed to change the make-up of the type of team that they sent to the Olympics. Hence, the 2002 team which won an Olympic Gold.

I think Hockey Canada will now realize that for the next Olympics, they will need their younger, faster players (Crosby, Tanguay, Phaneuf, Staal - hopefully both brothers) to compete with the likes of Ovechkin, Malkin, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg just to name a few.

I believe Gretzky and others (after winning the World Cup in 2004 on NHL-sized ice) took for granted that the faster players on other teams would be able to outwork and outhustle Canada on an Olympic-sized ice rink.

Just MHO.

Look at all the European teams that have evolved since Sweden beat Canada in the 1994 Winter Olympics or when the Czech's beat Canada in 1998, nobody remembers the gold medal game, they remember the shootout because the Czech's beat the super power and since then, we have seen many big and small small nations like France, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia and Germany participate. It does make a difference.

Germany, Swizterland and Italy have all been making regular appearances at olympic tournaments since the mid 80s, and have been achieving similar results back then as they do today. Naturally the Kazakhs and Latvians haven't, for obvious reasons. :teach:

It's not about Canada, get off you high horse. The "smaller hockey countries" don't give a toss whether it's Canada, Russia, Sweden, or another hockey superpower that wins the gold. What they care about is whether their own team can beat some of the 7 dominant nations, and perhaps make it to the medal round.

edit: corrected some spelling errors

Germany, Swizterland and Italy have all been making regular appearances at olympic tournaments since the mid 80s, and have been achieving similar results back then as they do today. Naturally the Kazakhs and Latvians haven't, for obvious reasons. :teach:

It's not about Canada, get off you high horse. The "smaller hockey countries" don't give a toss whether it's Canada, Russia, Sweden, or another hockey superpower that wins the gold. What they care about is whether their own team can beat some of the 7 dominant nations, and perhaps make it to the medal round.

edit: corrected some spelling errors

In the 80's the Olympics never used NHLers and the European nations were just starting to get their programs off the ground. They obviously do give a damn if another European country wins gold because it makes them work that much harder to be better.

The only European team considered to be good was U.S.S.R./Russia until the 90's when Sweden won the Olympic gold and their program got a push, then the Czech's, and now the Fins.

I never said this was ONLY about Canada, I was merely using them as an example of the way we are viewed as the best and what it means to beat or see someone else beat the best.

The only European team considered to be good was U.S.S.R./Russia until the 90's when Sweden won the Olympic gold and their program got a push, then the Czech's, and now the Fins.


The Czechoslovakian hockey program (which later became the Czech hockey program) was the only program aside from the Canadian that could compete with the Soviet program in the 70s and 80s at both the olympics and world championships. The Swedes weren't far off either. It's not like hockey in Europe sprung up in the 90s.

I think the fundamental difference between our opinions is that you divide the hockey world into Canada (the best) and rest of Europe, whereas i think the reality is developing hockey countries see Slovakia, Czechs, Russians, Finns and Swedes as part of the same "major power" as Canada, and they don't identify with them when they beat the Canadians.

The Czechoslovakian hockey program (which later became the Czech hockey program) was the only program aside from the Canadian that could compete with the Soviet program in the 70s and 80s at both the olympics and world championships. The Swedes weren't far off either. It's not like hockey in Europe sprung up in the 90s.

I think the fundamental difference between our opinions is that you divide the hockey world into Canada (the best) and rest of Europe, whereas i think the reality is developing hockey countries see Slovakia, Czechs, Russians, Finns and Swedes as part of the same "major power" as Canada, and they don't identify with them when they beat the Canadians.

Did you actually look at the programs coming out of Sweden and Czechoslovakia before 1990? There were mabye 2 or 3 good players out of those countries, but as the 90's went on those countries began to win medals and suddenly they have provided the NHL with loads of talent.

If you don't believe my view of Canada vs. the world, just listen to Ovechkin and many other of the European players that have beaten Canada in Turino. Ovechkin said, "We did it. We beat a great team. All the poeple in my country will be jumping up and down and will drink a lot of vodka."

You see, even a great team like Russia still considers Canada the best of the best. And yes, that is where our views differ. So technically, we agree, yet disagree, but agree to disagree. :dunno:

As disappointing as it was to witness this all-star roster score in only 11 of the last 12 periods, us Canadian hockey fans have to understand that this is what hockey needs.

Gretzky said it best at the 2002 games when he said the world wanted Canada to lose, and you know what....he was right, but he doesn't seem to understand why.

Like any other sport, hockey needs someone else to take over in order for it to grow. Look at women's hockey. Sweden gets to the finals and now women's hockey will grow in Sweden.

If Canada continues to win all the tournaments, the rest of the world will not care. Just look at what the "miracle on ice" did for U.S. hockey.

Our women won the last two olympics, and men won Salt Lake, then the world cup and we won the last two juniors...that is NOT good for hockey when the rest of the world is sitting there watching Canada win all the time.

Unless, outside of the U.S., you have satellite, it is hard to watch NHL games. So when international tournaments involving NHLers takes place, the influence comes from watching your country succeed in that tournament. Swiss hockey will grow just like Czech and Slovakian hockey has because they upset a few teams.

Like Jim Kelly said on the fan590 yesterday, its not our arrogance as a nation, its our ignorance of not realizing that the rest of the world is just as good as Canada.

Just a thought about the Russia/Canada game...I think we owe Russia a victory. The analysts can say that we have not beaten them in the Olympics since 1980, but come on....how many years to the Russian's have to sit and listen to 1972 and 1987? Now we know how it feels to be on the other end.

I love my country and I want them to win, but I know it's better if they take a step back and let someone else take over.

Feel free to agree/disagree.
Great Post! :clap: :clap: :clap:

I can't agree enough. I have been especially interested in International hockey for many years now, and hope the game grows worldwide so we can see more countries develop and eventually compete at the elite level.

Being an admin of an International hockey Forum, I have read about the status of the game in many countries (like New Zealand, Turkey, Britain) and know of the issues they are facing. Seeing hockey suceed in other countries will dispell the notion that is a 'Canadian' game only, and hopefully encourage other nations to put more resources into their programs.

I think people like to see teams lose when plenty of their fans feel they're too good for the others.
That's pretty much the same with ther US in basketball. Their fans (not all of them obviously) feel they're so much better than the rest of the world that the rest of the world cheers for their opponents.

Pretty logical if you ask me.

People cheer against the US in everything for reasons reserved for a political forum discussion.

People cheer against Canada in hockey because they're the best.

Never confuse this.

First of all, I have to disagree with the comment that hockey needs Canada. That statement is just purely false. If all Canadians stopped caring about hockey, the sport would survive. Obviously, without Canada, the sport would take a hit in popularity, and talent levels, but, the sport is well enough ingrained around the world to survive on its own. If the NHL folded, there would be enough hockey occuring overseas, in the European leagues.

I have to disagree that Canada has had it's fill, and others deserve a turn. We only have one gold medal in the last 50 years. That's quite a bruise to an ego to a country that has felt that it has been the best country at the sport for that time period. It's not that we feel that we are entitled to the victory, but, we are honestly puzzled that when we don't win, when the best players are involved.

The Canada Cups (now the World Cup) are nice, as well as the Junior Championships, and even the Women Gold Medals, but, we know that those aren't held to the highest value around the world. The Olympics are the one tournament that all hockey countries see as being an elite tournament. A big part of that is because it's one of the few tournaments that Canada doesn't dominate, but, it still pains a lot of Canadians that they can't point to the one universally recognized achievement in the sport as an example of their hockey prowess.

As Canadians, we just have to suck it up, and look to re-group in 4 years. I think most people can look at the sport now, and realize that at the international level, the sport is extremely competitive, and any time you ice a team that isn't working cohesively, you are going to struggle.

I hope that in 2010 Canada can go on to win the gold, and to make that a start of a run of gold medals that spans 3 or 4 Olympics. The problem is, you can never take that for granted in sports, especially one that is as competitive as international hockey is right now.

One of the more well-thought-out posts I've read. Nice job.

To be honest I'd much rather take this result now, and a Gold in 2010 than the other way around.

you're totally right about the global boost to hockey. don't forget the fabulous Fins! they've never won gold and deserve it at least once.

i'm canadian too, and glad as h.e. double-hockey-sticks that we lost! just as a forest fire brings new growth, we had to scorch this whole team in order for us to field a respectable team in 2010 when we are hosting the world.

these glacial dinosaur coaches that couldn't turn a hundred million dollar team into a single goal, and a selection committee picking players who had a good season back in the last century some time, or are on the homer coaches teams, or are simply goons who disgrace the sport and our country. the only way for this obsenity in Canada's name to end is to have this whole crew take a permanent Olympic vacation -- like all the coaches and selectors did after Nagano '98.

and for all of those who rave about Gretzky's "class" i hope he shows some soon and steps aside so that fresh coaches and players can represent when we're the hosts.

as far as i'm concerned, Canada (and hockey) won big-time with that Russian game.

It is encouraging for other teams to see hard work have positive results. I think this tourney has encouraged the world--and not even at Canada's expense. The world gains by, as stated above, seeing results. The Canadians benefit by preparing better and finding their love of the game again for 2010.

One of the more well-thought-out posts I've read. Nice job.

To be honest I'd much rather take this result now, and a Gold in 2010 than the other way around.
yes - well said - that was yesterday -

onward to 2010 and gold

( i personally think wayne should take over the whole thing - gm and coach )

Did you actually look at the programs coming out of Sweden and Czechoslovakia before 1990? There were mabye 2 or 3 good players out of those countries, but as the 90's went on those countries began to win medals and suddenly they have provided the NHL with loads of talent.Czechoslovakia didn't "begin" to win medals in the 90s. They won 3 World Championships in the 70s ans finished ahead of the USSR in the 1976 Canada Cup.

They had a lot of great players at the time, too, the mere fact that they didn't play in the NHL doesn't make them bad players. I mean the NHL didn't have a lot of Russians either...

Czechoslovakia didn't "begin" to win medals in the 90s. They won 3 World Championships in the 70s ans finished ahead of the USSR in the 1976 Canada Cup.

They had a lot of great players at the time, too, the mere fact that they didn't play in the NHL doesn't make them bad players. I mean the NHL didn't have a lot of Russians either...

First of all, no olympic medals, second of all, maybe you need to look at who participated in those world championships. The competition in Europe is not at the same level as in the NHL. In Europe, there is less hitting, more room to move and little defense. The medals the Czechs won weren't given the proper acknowledgement because it didn't mean as much based on the level and style of play.

I never said they were bad players, Sweden and the Czechs simply did not have the same type of skilled players as they developed in the 90's. And these players have played on both levels of competition which makes them that more superior than those who played in the 70's. And the U.S.S.R. didn't begin winning until the early 60's the world championships, after Canada had won 19. We are talking about development here. How many great Czech players can you name before 1990? How many Swedes?

Go ahead and throw out all your numbers at us, (did you know the united kingdom won the first world championships, germany second, belgium came in third in 1910) but so what?

When you add NHL players, who are viewed as the best hockey players in the world playing the best league in the world, it makes a difference as to the way the rest of the world views them when they are defeated at International competitions.

Did you also know Canada won an olympic gold medal in 1948 after finishing with more goals than the Czech's? They didn't even have to beat them to win. So if you want to get technical, you will have to analyze all games, in all facets. The rules were different back then, you had to win the round robin to win the gold medal. The best Canadian players played in the NHL and not the world championships or olympics for the majority of those games.

This thread is about Canadians non-domination, being a good thing for the growth of hockey as a sport. Soccer, rugby and even cricket are more popular than hockey in Europe and Asia.

Here's another one for you: After four consecutive gold medals and a 20 straight victories, Canada loses toGreat Britain and finishes second. Ten of the 12 British players live in Canada including goaltender Jimmy Foster, who allows three goals in eight games.

In the first winter olympic games (1924), canada wins all five of its games and wins the gold medal for it. They outscored their opponents 110-3.

More proof of how important beating Canada is...after Forsberg's shootout winner in 1994, Sweden created a stamp featuring his goal.

@georgetown

Just like before 1972 most Canadians thought noone can skate with them due to their ignorance/arrogance (not trying to be offensive but it's true IMO), now you are confusing the hockey history for same reasons. Czechs have been strong long before 1990. The only reasons many Canadians didn't know that are the Iron Wall and lack of interest in european hockey and international competitions by those fans. 1990s is the time when those players from communist countries got a chance to cross the ocean and play in the NHL.

Umm...Hockey isn't so huge in the world of sports that any result would cause a huge swing in popular appeal. I don't think hockey "needs" a darn thing right now. I enjoy watching it and that's fine by me. If the world prefers other things good on the world. Why this obsession with the way hockey is perceived? Who cares as long as you enjoy it yourself? When the Czechs won in 1998 it was a huge deal for that country, yet soccer remains much more popular there.

@georgetown
1990s is the time when those players from communist countries got a chance to cross the ocean and play in the NHL.

Exaclty, that is what I've been trying to say. But also, in the international competitions, NHLers weren't allowed in the olympics or world championships because they were considered professionals, and in the olympics, professional hockey players weren't allowed to play until 1988, but NHLers couldn't participate because of the conflict in the schedule. So to say that those teams were great when they weren't facing the best competition in the world is unfair.

Here's a timeline: http://proicehockey.about.com/od/olympichockey/a/olympictimeline.htm

This is not a popularity contest, this is the expansion of the game to a leve it needs to reach to avoid another lockout. The healthier financially the game is, the better it will be on and off the ice.

I understand the point, but I don't know if I agree. It would be one thing if the game was still at its infancy worldwide, as is the situation in womens' hockey, but it isn't. Whoever wins the medals at these Olympics will be very happy, but I doubt it will translate into visible growth because those countries are already established hockey nations, and I don't know if other European countries will relate marginally more with them. I have a hard time believing that Latvia or Belarus or Switzerland will be all happy because Finland or Russia won the Gold Medal instead of Canada. Switzerland will be inspired by the fact they beat Canada and the Czech Republic, not necessarily by whatever some other country does.

Many countries play hockey, many countries produce many great players and teams. I don't think the loss by Canada has necessarily helped anything. It isn't so simplistic as to say that if Canada loses, then the rest of the world will be inspired, and if Canada wins, they won't be. Along those lines, you could say that all it takes is for one team to beat us and everyone else will be motivated. Therefore, we could have lost in the Gold Medal Game and that would have the same impact. I think the greatest impact would happen if we lost to a lot of teams in a single Olympics, then you'd have a lot of teams celebrating that they beat the supposed best team. Then again, question how long we'd be considered the supposed best if we lost to everyone all the time.

Frankly, our Olympic record hardly suggests that we should be considered dominant at all, but that's another discussion.

This is not a popularity contest, this is the expansion of the game to a leve it needs to reach to avoid another lockout. The healthier financially the game is, the better it will be on and off the ice.

Avoiding another lockout is all about the health of the NHL, not hockey as a global game. Just because the game is booming in Asia or wherever won't stop a lockout or a strike if North American NHL owners and players don't agree on a CBA. Hockey has been very healthy on a global level for some time now and it didn't stop the last lockout from happening.

I think Hockey Canada will now realize that for the next Olympics, they will need their younger, faster players (Crosby, Tanguay, Phaneuf, Staal - hopefully both brothers) to compete with the likes of Ovechkin, Malkin, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg just to name a few.

Canada was competing fine with the likes of Ovechkin, Malkin and Datsyuk.

It was basically a 1-0 game, and whoever scored first probably would have won.

The round robin means NOTHING.

The only game to evaluate is the Russian one, where we lost by an extremely narrow margin.

I understand the point, but I don't know if I agree. It would be one thing if the game was still at its infancy worldwide, as is the situation in womens' hockey, but it isn't. Whoever wins the medals at these Olympics will be very happy, but I doubt it will translate into visible growth because those countries are already established hockey nations, and I don't know if other European countries will relate marginally more with them. I have a hard time believing that Latvia or Belarus or Switzerland will be all happy because Finland or Russia won the Gold Medal instead of Canada. Switzerland will be inspired by the fact they beat Canada and the Czech Republic, not necessarily by whatever some other country does.

Many countries play hockey, many countries produce many great players and teams. I don't think the loss by Canada has necessarily helped anything. It isn't so simplistic as to say that if Canada loses, then the rest of the world will be inspired, and if Canada wins, they won't be. Along those lines, you could say that all it takes is for one team to beat us and everyone else will be motivated. Therefore, we could have lost in the Gold Medal Game and that would have the same impact. I think the greatest impact would happen if we lost to a lot of teams in a single Olympics, then you'd have a lot of teams celebrating that they beat the supposed best team. Then again, question how long we'd be considered the supposed best if we lost to everyone all the time.

Frankly, our Olympic record hardly suggests that we should be considered dominant at all, but that's another discussion.


I'm not saying this olympics alone is going to boost hockey, I'm saying its good for hockey when Canada gets eliminated in tournaments because are viewed as being the best and if Russia beats us, Latvia might say, "hey, if Russia can develop a system good enough to beat Canada, why can't we." And if some of you haven't noticed, the Germans are getting better with each competition. Development takes time, some of you are interpreting that I am saying it happens overnight.

Don't look at Olympics, look at world championships, world juniors, women's hockey, Canada Cup, we dominated the first 60-70 years of the 1900's.

Avoiding another lockout is all about the health of the NHL, not hockey as a global game. Just because the game is booming in Asia or wherever won't stop a lockout or a strike if North American NHL owners and players don't agree on a CBA. Hockey has been very healthy on a global level for some time now and it didn't stop the last lockout from happening.

The NHL is what is keeping hockey alive around the globe. If the NHL folded, and all the players went to Europe, those elite league teams wouldn't have the money to afford such high profile talent. The breeding ground would end because Swedish players who have dreamed to play in the NHL, where they can make lost of money and be free, but instead, decide not to play hockey because they won't make much in the Swedish elite league that could fold at any time. Thus the popularity decreases, the teams lose money and they fold as well.

The growth that needs the most help is in the U.S. If the game was more exciting and able to sell to the people, arenas would be sold out, they'd have enough tv to ad to the revenue sharing (like the NFL and NBA) and the league would be healthy. The U.S. needs to win a major competition for the NHL really survive there. Without that, there is no interest in the game and the NHL cannot make enough money in Canada to stay alive.

I never said they were bad players, Sweden and the Czechs simply did not have the same type of skilled players as they developed in the 90's. And these players have played on both levels of competition which makes them that more superior than those who played in the 70's. And the U.S.S.R. didn't begin winning until the early 60's the world championships, after Canada had won 19. We are talking about development here. How many great Czech players can you name before 1990? How many Swedes?

You MUST be kidding me. Sven Tumba, Borje Salming, Kallur, Kent Nilsson, B-A Gustafsson, Naslund, Loob, Ulf Lill-Projsarn, Nilsson, Sandstrom, Hedberg, Steen, Pelle Lindbergh, Ulf Sterner, L-G Pettersson... oh man the list goes on and ever on. And before you even go there - no, not all of these players had successful NHL career. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, nor that they didn't play splendid hockey for their time.

NHL career != hockey career.

The czech-&-slovaks had Stastnys, Klima, Hlinka, Bubla and others.

Lest I forget the magnificent J Kurri of Finland.

Does it strike you that thanks to the eastern block collapse, players from europe suddenly could move easily to NA, play in the NHL and create exposure for themselves. They didn't come out of nowhere. They would still have been stars, just unknown to hockey fans who only know hockey as the NHL.

You MUST be kidding me. Sven Tumba, Borje Salming, Kallur, Kent Nilsson, B-A Gustafsson, Naslund, Loob, Ulf Lill-Projsarn, Nilsson, Sandstrom, Hedberg, Steen, Pelle Lindbergh, Ulf Sterner, L-G Pettersson... oh man the list goes on and ever on. And before you even go there - no, not all of these players had successful NHL career. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, nor that they didn't play splendid hockey for their time.

NHL career != hockey career.

The czech-&-slovaks had Stastnys, Klima, Hlinka, Bubla and others.

Lest I forget the magnificent J Kurri of Finland.

Does it strike you that thanks to the eastern block collapse, players from europe suddenly could move easily to NA, play in the NHL and create exposure for themselves. They didn't come out of nowhere. They would still have been stars, just unknown to hockey fans who only know hockey as the NHL.


"Not all of these players had successfull careers." And you're point is? Are you seriously comparing them to Gretzky, Messier, Orr, Coffey, Anderson, Bossy, Trottier, Potvin, Robinson, Lafleur...come on, you practically made a swedish team up from the best players you could come up with.

I'm not saying this olympics alone is going to boost hockey, I'm saying its good for hockey when Canada gets eliminated in tournaments because are viewed as being the best and if Russia beats us, Latvia might say, "hey, if Russia can develop a system good enough to beat Canada, why can't we." And if some of you haven't noticed, the Germans are getting better with each competition. Development takes time, some of you are interpreting that I am saying it happens overnight.

Don't look at Olympics, look at world championships, world juniors, women's hockey, Canada Cup, we dominated the first 60-70 years of the 1900's.

I agree again to a certain degree, but I just have a hard time appreciating that globally the game grows when Canada loses. I'll agree that having one dominant country reigning over everything all the time is bad for the game because it gets boring for viewers and the mentality presumably is that other countries won't bother trying to compete because they will think the exercise is futile. But, we're way beyond that stage now. There's an established group of hockey powers, with several tiers of other countries below investing various levels of resources in growing the game and their national programs. I'll agree that us, or any country for that matter, winning all the time isn't healthy, but I disagree that us losing at these Olympics is helpful to anything.

As far as Canada losing, we've been losing quite a bit lately so I don't see it as being helpful that we keep losing. We lost the Junior Tournament for years before winning back-to-back titles. Is that related to the increased development of other countries' junior programs? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Furthermore, if you look at the recent string of success during the Gretzky-era, the only significant wins we've had in Europe are the back-to-back World Championships. We haven't won a junior tournament in Europe in over a decade, and we obviously haven't won an Olympic gold medal for even longer before 2002. Even if we win in 2010, we'll be winning it at home, which will somewhat take away from the accomplishment.

i don't think canada losing is whats needed for the game to grow like the womens side of hockey. like someone alluded to before, canada hasn't been exactly dominant in olympic hockey for a while and they've only been recently deemed 'dominant' after their win in salt lake.

but being that as it may, this year has been a big surprise, coutries are putting up strong fights and canada losing was the product of that. and plus, things are alot more tighter.

I agree again to a certain degree, but I just have a hard time appreciating that globally the game grows when Canada loses. I'll agree that having one dominant country reigning over everything all the time is bad for the game because it gets boring for viewers and the mentality presumably is that other countries won't bother trying to compete because they will think the exercise is futile. But, we're way beyond that stage now. There's an established group of hockey powers, with several tiers of other countries below investing various levels of resources in growing the game and their national programs. I'll agree that us, or any country for that matter, winning all the time isn't healthy, but I disagree that us losing at these Olympics is helpful to anything.

As far as Canada losing, we've been losing quite a bit lately so I don't see it as being helpful that we keep losing. We lost the Junior Tournament for years before winning back-to-back titles. Is that related to the increased development of other countries' junior programs? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Furthermore, if you look at the recent string of success during the Gretzky-era, the only significant wins we've had in Europe are the back-to-back World Championships. We haven't won a junior tournament in Europe in over a decade, and we obviously haven't won an Olympic gold medal for even longer before 2002. Even if we win in 2010, we'll be winning it at home, which will somewhat take away from the accomplishment.


My argument derives from the last 5 years which has seen Canadian women and men DOMINATE. (The women winning the world championships, the olympics twice, the men winning a world championship, the olympics, the world cup, the world juniors twice in a row) At a time when hockey looked to be at its worst we were the country, who is the envy of all other countries that play hockey, were beating everyone in sight. If you didn't understand how great this team is suppose to be and how massive of a disappointment this is, just read all the newspapers and listen to all the analysts.

Someone started this whole "let's look at the history of Canadian hockey" thing rather than understanding where arguments lie.

And the reason this is so big, is because NHLers are partcipiating the Olympics. Again, NHLers are considered the best hockey players playing in the toughest league in the world and Canada just got beat on the biggest stage of sports in the world.

First of all, no olympic medals,Yes, they did win medals in the olympics :shakehead

second of all, maybe you need to look at who participated in those world championships.
Well the Soviets did, that was my point.

And the Soviets at the time were more or less on par with Canada.

In the 70s, not 1910 or 1948.

More proof of how important beating Canada is...after Forsberg's shootout winner in 1994, Sweden created a stamp featuring his goal.One would think it has more to do with the fact that it was Sweden's first ever gold medal than with beating a team that had not won the title since the fifties.

Yes, they did win medals in the olympics :shakehead


Well the Soviets did, that was my point.

And the Soviets at the time were more or less on par with Canada.

In the 70s, not 1910 or 1948..

Gold medals that is, and I guess you only care what happend in the 70's, like the rest of the 1900's don't have any relevance. Great argument...stick to the topic rather than always changing it to statistics that don't agree with you.

First of all, I have to disagree with the comment that hockey needs Canada. That statement is just purely false. If all Canadians stopped caring about hockey, the sport would survive. Obviously, without Canada, the sport would take a hit in popularity, and talent levels, but, the sport is well enough ingrained around the world to survive on its own. If the NHL folded, there would be enough hockey occuring overseas, in the European leagues.

I have to disagree that Canada has had it's fill, and others deserve a turn. We only have one gold medal in the last 50 years. That's quite a bruise to an ego to a country that has felt that it has been the best country at the sport for that time period. It's not that we feel that we are entitled to the victory, but, we are honestly puzzled that when we don't win, when the best players are involved.

The Canada Cups (now the World Cup) are nice, as well as the Junior Championships, and even the Women Gold Medals, but, we know that those aren't held to the highest value around the world. The Olympics are the one tournament that all hockey countries see as being an elite tournament. A big part of that is because it's one of the few tournaments that Canada doesn't dominate, but, it still pains a lot of Canadians that they can't point to the one universally recognized achievement in the sport as an example of their hockey prowess.

As Canadians, we just have to suck it up, and look to re-group in 4 years. I think most people can look at the sport now, and realize that at the international level, the sport is extremely competitive, and any time you ice a team that isn't working cohesively, you are going to struggle.

I hope that in 2010 Canada can go on to win the gold, and to make that a start of a run of gold medals that spans 3 or 4 Olympics. The problem is, you can never take that for granted in sports, especially one that is as competitive as international hockey is right now.

Nice post :clap:

Hockey most certantly does not need Canada to lose.

Hockey needs other nations to win.

The game does not get better when Canada sends a terrible team that lacks heart, determination and grit.

The game gets better when other nations can beat Canada when Canada is at it's best.

My argument derives from the last 5 years which has seen Canadian women and men DOMINATE. (The women winning the world championships, the olympics twice, the men winning a world championship, the olympics, the world cup, the world juniors twice in a row) At a time when hockey looked to be at its worst we were the country, who is the envy of all other countries that play hockey, were beating everyone in sight. If you didn't understand how great this team is suppose to be and how massive of a disappointment this is, just read all the newspapers and listen to all the analysts.

And the reason this is so big, is because NHLers are partcipiating the Olympics. Again, NHLers are considered the best hockey players playing in the toughest league in the world and Canada just got beat on the biggest stage of sports in the world.

I agree completely on the issue of women's hockey. Sweden beating the US was awesome for the game, and I'm glad they didn't beat us, although I admit that would have been great for the game too. Other countries can now see that it isn't just Canada and USA and that it is possible for other countries to catch up.

I also agree that Canada losing is big news. Similarly to the United States losing at basketball, or Brazil losing in soccer, it's always big news when one of the favourites and the traditional superpower loses.

But men's hockey and women's hockey are at entirely different stages of development. Women's hockey was almost at the point of being removed from the Olympics because not enough countries are even competitive enough to field a real team. Men's hockey is entirely different. The parity is much higher. It has already been proven time and again (especially in the Olympics) that Canada can be beaten, just like any other country can be beaten. I can accept that if Canada had gone on a string of winning every gold medal for 6 Olympic Games using NHL players then that may have had a poor impact on some developing countries because the reasoning would be "Now that it's best-on-best, Canada dominates again" but that obviously is not the case. I honestly believe that if Canada had won in Nagano, Salt Lake City, and Torino, it could have just as easily inspired the European nations to invest more in hockey to try and fight back.

OK for Canada to LOSE?

In the last 54 years Canada has won ONE, UNO, gold medal.
Good for others to win? What?

Man, oh, man. Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe, Bobby ORR,
Espo, Guy Lafleur, Gretzky (at his prime), and Mario (at his prime)
were not allowed to play. We let the others win it for 50 years,
while knowing we deserved it, the world was getting all the medals
and the annual world championships to boot. We had to grin and bare it with nothing
to show for it except for the Canada Cups since 76 that we organized ourselves.
Canada has helped the hockey world plenty but it seems that it never helped Canada.
They still want us to lose.

Canada plays hockey to WIN and deserves so.

I'm not saying this olympics alone is going to boost hockey, I'm saying its good for hockey when Canada gets eliminated in tournaments because are viewed as being the best and if Russia beats us, Latvia might say, "hey, if Russia can develop a system good enough to beat Canada, why can't we." And if some of you haven't noticed, the Germans are getting better with each competition. Development takes time, some of you are interpreting that I am saying it happens overnight.

Don't look at Olympics, look at world championships, world juniors, women's hockey, Canada Cup, we dominated the first 60-70 years of the 1900's.



The NHL is what is keeping hockey alive around the globe. If the NHL folded, and all the players went to Europe, those elite league teams wouldn't have the money to afford such high profile talent. The breeding ground would end because Swedish players who have dreamed to play in the NHL, where they can make lost of money and be free, but instead, decide not to play hockey because they won't make much in the Swedish elite league that could fold at any time. Thus the popularity decreases, the teams lose money and they fold as well.

The growth that needs the most help is in the U.S. If the game was more exciting and able to sell to the people, arenas would be sold out, they'd have enough tv to ad to the revenue sharing (like the NFL and NBA) and the league would be healthy. The U.S. needs to win a major competition for the NHL really survive there. Without that, there is no interest in the game and the NHL cannot make enough money in Canada to stay alive.

I think what will boost hockey in Latvia is the fact that they lost 9:2 to Russia, not because Russia beat Canada. They will realise that they pretty much suck (I can say it, I lived there) and that they need to improve.

The hockey will survive without the NHL. Look until 1990s, no one in Russia knew what the NHL was about? You could not see NHL teams playing nor we knew about NHL players (apart from those who we saw in international games). But once the Cold War ended, NHL received the intake of players such as Bure, Fedorov, Mogilny, Konstantinov, Kamensky and so on and so forth. Prior to that we had Yakushev, Kharlamov, Mikhailov, Bobrov, Firsov... We didn't have NHL but those were the golden days of Russian hockey as far as the depth of the hockey players pool goes!

OK for Canada to LOSE?

In the last 54 years Canada has won ONE, UNO, gold medal.
Good for others to win? What?

Man, oh, man. Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe, Bobby ORR,
Espo, Guy Lafleur, Gretzky (at his prime), and Mario (at his prime)
were not allowed to play. We let the others win it for 50 years,
while knowing we deserved it, the world was getting all the medals
and the annual world championships to boot. We had to grin and bare it with nothing
to show for it except for the Canada Cups since 76 that we organized ourselves.
Canada has helped the hockey world plenty but it seems that it never helped Canada.
They still want us to lose.

Canada plays hockey to WIN and deserves so.

You had THREE CHANCES to win the Olympics in the best-on-best format. You won one. How come you deserved to win all those in the previous 50 years?

Gold medals that is, and I guess you only care what happend in the 70's, like the rest of the 1900's don't have any relevance. Great argument...stick to the topic rather than always changing it to statistics that don't agree with you.
Your claim was that Czechoslovakia started to have good teams and produce top talent in 1990. And that's BS, they've had good teams and top players since the 70s. The rest of the 1900's has indeed very little relevance.

And the U.S.S.R. didn't begin winning until the early 60's the world championships, after Canada had won 19. We are talking about development here. How many great Czech players can you name before 1990? How many Swedes?


Just a piece of history -- USSR's first Olympics were 1956. We won it.

Weren't Jagr and Hasik Czech players before 1990? Or the player does not count unless you have heard about him?

<Insert Hockey Power here> losing to another established hockey power does not support the notion that there is a trickle-down transfer of hope and inspiration to developing hockey nations. Canadians perceive their team as being the best - and infact up until yesterday they were the defending champions. But it's that perception that drives someone to write a thread like "Hockey needs Canada to lose...". Thats just an attempt to try and smooth over a tough to swallow loss. Its a bad reach. Its almost implying that Canada has given a 'gift' to international hockey by losing. Thats the canadian hurt ego talking - I don't like this loss either. But its not like Canada alone stands out as the dominant force in international tournaments. <Insert Hockey Power here > losing to a less established hockey power might have some effect although that is debatable. Canada losing to Russia? Come on. Teams that want to compete internationally will improve if they invest money, time and effort in the sport - and countries like Switzerland are doing that. Teams that want to win international tournaments need to develop talent that is good enough to play in the NHL. Russia, Sweden, Finland, Canada, US, Slovakia and the Czechs all contain an overwhelming majority of NHL players. They are all elite teams. And when one of the four remaining teams wins this year's Gold, I'll be surprised if I read "Hockey needs <Insert Hockey Power here> to lose..." from a Canadian poster next time around. Perhaps if Finland wins this year's gold, and goes out in the quarterfinal round in 2010 we'll see a similar post from a finnish fan. But Canada losing won't encourage Latvia to spend more money, time and effort to improve it's hockey program anymore than Russia losing, or Finland, or Slovakia, or Sweden, or...<Insert Hockey Power here>.

At the end of the day - we lost, and it sucks to be a Team Canada fan. Period. Kudos to the Russians - they deserved to win this round. They have always been a great adversary and a force to be reckoned with. In time, we may see countries like Switzerland and Latvia join the group of elite hockey nations, but it won't ever be because Canada lost to one of the other elite hockey powers.

OK for Canada to LOSE?

In the last 54 years Canada has won ONE, UNO, gold medal.
Good for others to win? What?

Man, oh, man. Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe, Bobby ORR,
Espo, Guy Lafleur, Gretzky (at his prime), and Mario (at his prime)
were not allowed to play. We let the others win it for 50 years,
while knowing we deserved it, the world was getting all the medals
and the annual world championships to boot. We had to grin and bare it with nothing
to show for it except for the Canada Cups since 76 that we organized ourselves.
Canada has helped the hockey world plenty but it seems that it never helped Canada.
They still want us to lose.

Canada plays hockey to WIN and deserves so.


We lost a few by shootout, and the majority of the olympics we didn't have our best players because they were playing in the NHL and the rest of the world knew it, and still recognized us as having the best hockey players in the world. You people have to look past the medals and realize the truth. We always had the best talent, the rest of the world knew it, and the professional game we play in the NHL is superior to that of european leagues which consitute men and boys playing on big ice surfaces. Although now you can see 18 year olds in the NHL, but back in those days the NHL was considered the league where the real men play. In Europe, it was a mix.

Oh, and Jagr was drafted in 1990 and didn't become a star for a few years, and Hasek was a nobody until he went to Buffalo in the early-mid 90's.

To the poster above, this thread is not to swallow a tough loss. I've been saying this to people for the last few years. Canada dominating hockey is bad for business...period! Canada winning is only good for Canada. Why do you think the Americans dislike hockey, because we created it and we gloat about how great we are and that is not the way to promote a product. It's not because Canada lost to another super power, its because Canada didn't win again.

We lost a few by shootout, and the majority of the olympics we didn't have our best players because they were playing in the NHL and the rest of the world knew it, and still recognized us as having the best hockey players in the world.

Who recognised as the best when were you losing? Please, provide quotes and articles... BTW, Russia never has the best players anymore. Every time some one pulls out. But is it an excuse to our inability to win for the last 10 years?


You people have to look past the medals and realize the truth. We always had the best talent, the rest of the world knew it, and the professional game we play in the NHL is superior to that of european leagues which consitute men and boys playing on big ice surfaces. Although now you can see 18 year olds in the NHL, but back in those days the NHL was considered the league where the real men play. In Europe, it was a mix.

So how come you struggled with USSR in 1972 and ever since? If your style of play was so much superior, how come it became much more Europenised since 1970s? And if kids playing playing in mens league produces players like Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Bure, Kharlamov, etc, I will take it. Also you last5 sentence indicates that the current NHL moves towars becoming a less superior European-style league. Damn you Sidney Crosby (18 y.o.)!

Oh, and Jagr was drafted in 1990 and didn't become a star for a few years, and Hasek was a nobody until he went to Buffalo in the early-mid 90's.

So NHL produced the palyers such as Jagr, Bure and Forseberg?

Who recognised as the best when were you losing? Please, provide quotes and articles... BTW, Russia never has the best players anymore. Every time some one pulls out. But is it an excuse to our inability to win for the last 10 years?




So how come you struggled with USSR in 1972 and ever since? If your style of play was so much superior, how come it became much more Europenised since 1970s? And if kids playing playing in mens league produces players like Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Bure, Kharlamov, etc, I will take it. Also you last5 sentence indicates that the current NHL moves towars becoming a less superior European-style league. Damn you Sidney Crosby (18 y.o.)!



So NHL produced the palyers such as Jagr, Bure and Forseberg?


Yes we were recognized as the best. I honestly can't believe how to don't understand that. Maybe you're not old enough. We lost in the gold medal game to sweden in a shootout and in the semis to the Czech's in a shootout and those countries celebrated as if they had won the war.

We struggled with the USSR in 72 because we underestimated them and took them lightly, but we won didn't we. They only beat us once in the Canada cup.

The NHL didn't produce Bure or Forsberg, but they developed into superstars in the NHL, something which they wouldn't have had been recognized as greatly for if they only played in Europe. Look at Arturs Irbe, he wouldn't be as glorified in Latvia had he not played in the NHL.

And no, I am not saying the NHL is becoming less European, in fact it has become more in terms of letting in young talent. The NHL used to be an old man's league, you had to be 21 to be drafted until Ken Linseman changed that rule in the 80's.

As disappointing as it was to witness this all-star roster score in only 11 of the last 12 periods, us Canadian hockey fans have to understand that this is what hockey needs.

Gretzky said it best at the 2002 games when he said the world wanted Canada to lose, and you know what....he was right, but he doesn't seem to understand why.

Like any other sport, hockey needs someone else to take over in order for it to grow. Look at women's hockey. Sweden gets to the finals and now women's hockey will grow in Sweden.

If Canada continues to win all the tournaments, the rest of the world will not care. Just look at what the "miracle on ice" did for U.S. hockey.

Our women won the last two olympics, and men won Salt Lake, then the world cup and we won the last two juniors...that is NOT good for hockey when the rest of the world is sitting there watching Canada win all the time.

Unless, outside of the U.S., you have satellite, it is hard to watch NHL games. So when international tournaments involving NHLers takes place, the influence comes from watching your country succeed in that tournament. Swiss hockey will grow just like Czech and Slovakian hockey has because they upset a few teams.

Like Jim Kelly said on the fan590 yesterday, its not our arrogance as a nation, its our ignorance of not realizing that the rest of the world is just as good as Canada.

Just a thought about the Russia/Canada game...I think we owe Russia a victory. The analysts can say that we have not beaten them in the Olympics since 1980, but come on....how many years to the Russian's have to sit and listen to 1972 and 1987? Now we know how it feels to be on the other end.

I love my country and I want them to win, but I know it's better if they take a step back and let someone else take over.

Feel free to agree/disagree.


2002 was canadas first gold in 50 years.

2002 was canadas first gold in 50 years.

For the last freakin time, the Olympics aren't the only international competition, and stop looking at the stats. You people are only interested in that now because NHL players are in the Olympics. Prior to 1998, nobody gave a damn that Canada hadn't won an olympic gold since 1952.

We have won 23 World Championships, 12 World Juniors, all but 2 of the Canada/World Cups and Olympic gold SEVEN (7) times...tied with the Soviet Union.

Here again, look at the medal tables: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Junior_Hockey_Championship

We have won more gold and more medals in all major tournaments than any other country.

Yes we were recognized as the best. I honestly can't believe how to don't understand that. Maybe you're not old enough. We lost in the gold medal game to sweden in a shootout and in the semis to the Czech's in a shootout and those countries celebrated as if they had won the war.

We struggled with the USSR in 72 because we underestimated them and took them lightly, but we won didn't we. They only beat us once in the Canada cup.

The NHL didn't produce Bure or Forsberg, but they developed into superstars in the NHL, something which they wouldn't have had been recognized as greatly for if they only played in Europe. Look at Arturs Irbe, he wouldn't be as glorified in Latvia had he not played in the NHL.

And no, I am not saying the NHL is becoming less European, in fact it has become more in terms of letting in young talent. The NHL used to be an old man's league, you had to be 21 to be drafted until Ken Linseman changed that rule in the 80's.

What Olypics are you talking about? Anyways, the result was the same when they beat USSR.

Canada's Cup has always been more important for Canada than USSR or anyone else. There were other series between our countries when Russia dominated.

Below is a summary of all matches between Russia and Canada.

http://www.geocities.com/canadavsrussia/stats.html

May be you are just too old to change you opinion on things. because in the view of the information widely available nowadays, it is very narrow-minded to still claim you total domination and worldwide admiration.

^^^

Again, if you read an earlier post of mine, I was talking about our domination over the last 5 years (men and women) and the results of the lockout because the NHL doesn't make enough money because only Canadians care.

Someone else turned this into a historical debate.

I am full Canadian, I love my country, but it would be nice to see someone else take the spotlight instead of hearing Canadians brag about how great we are and how we have the best players and people like Don Cherry saying how everyone needs to play the Canadian style of hockey. Canada is never the underdog, but Canadians are just like Gretzky and his coaching staff, too damn loyal to understand.

For the last freakin time, the Olympics aren't the only international competition, and stop looking at the stats. You people are only interested in that now because NHL players are in the Olympics. Prior to 1998, nobody gave a damn that Canada hadn't won an olympic gold since 1952.

We have won 23 World Championships, 12 World Juniors, all but 2 of the Canada/World Cups and Olympic gold SEVEN (7) times...tied with the Soviet Union.

Here again, look at the medal tables: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Junior_Hockey_Championship

We have won more gold and more medals in all major tournaments than any other country.

The medals you won before USSR playing in international competitions - 15 World Championships, 6 Olympics... :teach:

For the last freakin time, the Olympics aren't the only international competition, and stop looking at the stats. You people are only interested in that now because NHL players are in the Olympics. Prior to 1998, nobody gave a damn that Canada hadn't won an olympic gold since 1952.

We have won 23 World Championships, 12 World Juniors, all but 2 of the Canada/World Cups and Olympic gold SEVEN (7) times...tied with the Soviet Union.

Here again, look at the medal tables: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Junior_Hockey_Championship

We have won more gold and more medals in all major tournaments than any other country.


Hmmmm ok just omit the biggest games of all time and yes bigger than the WJC, they may not even have the WJC next year.

^^^

Again, if you read an earlier post of mine, I was talking about our domination over the last 5 years (men and women) and the results of the lockout because the NHL doesn't make enough money because only Canadians care.


This I totally agree upon. Historic domination - no.

This I totally agree upon. Historic domination - no.


Ok then, and furthermore, my view is also in the light of the lockout occuring in between our domination, especially over the United States where the NHL needs to make money to survive.

It's the perception I am trying to make clear to people, but again some of them are looking at stats. The rest of the world has come along slowly but Canada is still considered the top hockey nation in the world. Just read the quotes by the players on the Swiss, Finnish and even powerful Russian team who believed that they just slayed Goliath.

For the last freakin time, the Olympics aren't the only international competition, and stop looking at the stats. You people are only interested in that now because NHL players are in the Olympics. Prior to 1998, nobody gave a damn that Canada hadn't won an olympic gold since 1952.

We have won 23 World Championships, 12 World Juniors, all but 2 of the Canada/World Cups and Olympic gold SEVEN (7) times...tied with the Soviet Union.

Here again, look at the medal tables: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Junior_Hockey_Championship

We have won more gold and more medals in all major tournaments than any other country.

shhhh its ok
Russia is 7 and 1 vs Canada in the Olympics.

Yes, but the point is for Canada not to dominate. If European teams win, then smaller European nations will take notice and their programs will be boosted.


This is not a 'Europe vs North America' issue here. Whether Czech Republic, Russia, Sweden or Finland wins, it has no bearing on what Germans, Swiss and Latvians are going to feel about their chances in the future. There's no common link between those European nations. Germans aren't going to look at Russia and say 'gee, the Russians are doing it, let's play more hockey!' If Switzerland had beaten Canada in the medal round,

The four teams left are traditional powerhouses. Sweden and the Czech Republic have Gold medals from the 1990s. The Russians were part of the CIS team that won in 1992. Finland has always done well for themselves. It's not like this is unprecedented territory for international hockey.

@georegtown88:


Canada women's team should not have pummeled Italy and whomever, also applies to men's hockey in the past....ah, that is a difficult issue..






disagree here. play to win. goal is to win. tiebreaker is goal differential.

The medals you won before USSR playing in international competitions - 15 World Championships, 6 Olympics... :teach:

And the medals the USSR won employing pros when everyone else had to use amateurs?

And the medals the USSR won employing pros when everyone else had to use amateurs?

We played the same people who Canada played before us...

BTW, the Oxford dictionary defines amateur as:

• noun 1 a person who takes part in a sport or other activity without being paid. 2 a person regarded as incompetent at a particular activity.

I am sure we didn't play bankers and construction workers.

And the medals the USSR won employing pros when everyone else had to use amateurs?
Thats just something that everyone says. Tell me what is pros and not?

This is not a 'Europe vs North America' issue here. Whether Czech Republic, Russia, Sweden or Finland wins, it has no bearing on what Germans, Swiss and Latvians are going to feel about their chances in the future. There's no common link between those European nations. Germans aren't going to look at Russia and say 'gee, the Russians are doing it, let's play more hockey!' If Switzerland had beaten Canada in the medal round,


Right. MAYBE, only maybe, the German DEB try to regain lost terrain on the swiss because of their rivalry, but other than that I don't see why the Germans should care more about hockey because the Latvians tied the USA, Belarus won against Sweden and Switzerland won against 2 of the big 7. Let us win a medal and it may change, but outside that... :dunno:
Btw, we won Bronze in 1976, we had a good team in the 1990s and IMO we're only a iota nearer to the big hockey nations as we were then.

I don't get what all the fuss is about. So Canada has been doing great for 5 years, does it mean that every other nation was ready to give up? Canada has been beat before and will be beat again, and then will come back strong again. The hockey powers will take on the new challenge.

And for teams outside big 7, it's their successes and not another team's failures that matter.