World Cup of Hockey '04

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia


I'd imagine this will rank up right there alongside the game Sweden lost to Belorussia in the Salt Lake City Olympics?

As far as I am concerned Finland's tournament is over, we've bested Sweden and that's all we need. Edit: http://www.aftonbladet.se/ - "Outclassed and booed out."

No, this is much worse. Belarus was bad luck. 1-6 in our home arena is not bad luck.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Pekka

US has no chances.

I disagree. Give Finland their due,you guys have some quality players and maybe this is your time to break out. But your history is not great to get to first.

I looked at Canada/World Cups

1976 Last
1981 Last
1984 not invited (West germany took your place)
1987 Last
1991 3rd in standings -- lost in semis
1996 5th of 8

But thats all ancient history lets look at recent world championships

2004 lost in Quarters
2003 lost in quarters
2002 lost in semis
2001 SILVER MEDAL


How about some comparitive stats-- The numbers are gold/silver/Bronze-- Last Gold and last medal

Czech/ 10 9 17 36 2001 2001 Gold
Sweden 8 15 13 36 1998 2004 Silver
Soviet/Russia 20 8 4 32 1993 2002 Silver *first medal since 1993
Canada 17 8 7 32 2004 2004 Gold
USA 1 4 4 9 1933 2004 Bronze
Switzerland 0 1 6 7 -- 1953 Bronze
Finland 1 5 1 7 1995 2001 Silver
Slovakia 1 1 1 3 2002 2003 Bronze
Germany 0 2 1 3 -- 1953 Silver
Great Britain 0 2 1 3 -- 1938 Silver
Austria 0 0 2 2 -- 1947 Bronze



I'm not saying that Finland can't win it all. I acknowledge the talent with the team and am in awe of Kippers goaltending prowess BUT historically the medal counts show that there has not been a big 7.

There has been a big FOUR of Czech Sweeden Russia and Canada-- each with more than 30 medals . Then a grouping of 3 with USA (9), Finland (7) and Switzerland (7)-- To that group I would add Slovakia -- with 3 medals since they started competing separately, that is quite an impressive showing.


So Finland is a talented team now with no history of being THE elite team. It will be interesting to see if they can throw off this history and win this thing. personally I think they will make a valiant effort and fall just short

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


No, this is much worse. Belarus was bad luck. 1-6 in our home arena is not bad luck.

As a Canadian, I can tell you that losing to Belarus looked worse to an outsider. Having the Czechs kick your ass is a reasonable thing ( while no fun) to have happen. They are a very good team and only their looking like crap in the preliminary round led anyone to think they were anything other than a real contender.

Losing to Belarus . .. its one thing to tie or lose to these teams in some preliminary match that doesn't really matter ( a little wake-up call but who really cares). But to lose to them in a match that eliminates you is a MAJOR embarrassment. I don't care that the game was close or Salo sucked or the Belarus goalie was fabulous. Against those truly second-tier hockey nations, the good teams find a way to WIN WHEN IT COUNTS.

SO IMHO losing to the Czechs ( by anything less than 10) could not equal that loss to Belarus. To exceed that, I fear you would have to get yourself eliminated sometime by France or Japan

[Pekka]

WC medals count now? I thought all Canadians and Americans they don't mean crap because best players are in playoffs in NHL. So now you're turning it the other way? Of course, you didn't put the other recent histroy from 95 to 99. In which we made to the finals most times.

Or how about Olympics.. team Gretzky lots to our team. Looks like you picked the worst stats from us and left out the better stats all together out.

And it's all about the team. We rarely play with full NHL team. Last time was in Olympics, were we beat Canada in bronze game. Of course you don't bring this fact in light. You can disagree that we will win. But then again, you're not as familiar with this team as I am. Or our history it seems like.

[Flubber]

Oh and I found this site about the history of the world championships

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Dugout/4128/51worldpoolA19301969.html

I was wondering what happned in 1953 as both Germany and Switzerland medalled. The story reported o the site is as follows:

1953 Switzerland

GP W L T GF GA PTS
1 Sweden 5 5 0 0 43 14 10
2 Germany 6 1 5 0 23 46 2
3 Switzerland 5 1 4 0 13 36 2
4 Czechoslovakia 4 3 1 0 32 15 6

* -Canada absent. CAHA President WB George; "We spend $10,000 every
year to send a team in Europe to play 40 games to packed arenas.
Only to enrich European hockey coffers, in return all we get is
constant and unnecessary abuse over our style of play."

-First tournament featuring all-European countries.

-Germany awarded Silver medal despite 1 win. Czechoslovakia
returned home without finishing tournament as a result of the
death of Czech President Klement Gotvald.

-Talk that maybe Soviet Union would participate in tournament.
However, USSR only sent observers, including legendary coach
Anatoli Tarasov to scout the tournament.



-------------------------------------

The other great stories seemed to come in 1949-- read the note about the Czech team.



1949 Stockholm, Sweden

GP W L T GF GA PTS
1 Czechoslovakia 7 5 2 0 42 12 10
2 Canada 7 4 1 2 74 10 10
3 USA 8 6 2 0 59 22 12
4 Sweden 7 4 2 1 42 15 9
5 Switzerland 8 4 3 1 48 32 9
6 Austria 7 1 6 0 30 60 2
7 Finland 4 2 2 0 27 36 4
8 Norway 5 2 3 0 22 27 4
9 Belgium 6 1 5 0 13 67 2
10 Denmark 3 0 3 0 4 80 0



-Canada defeated Denmark 47-0, despite a system that was designed to
avoid unnecessary games between teams of clearly different calibers.

-Czechoslovakia wins tournament, this time with Canada involved. More
remarkable is the Czech team that won 1947 WC and tied Canada in
1948 Olympics, all died in a plane crash on Nov.8,1948.

-Finland records first ever WC wins, 7-3 over Norway and 17-2 vs Belgium.

[Pekka]

And besides, throughout this thread from the beginning you have disagreed about our chances. Look, we're in the semis already, and no losses on our record. I think, only Canada has reached the same. Of course you should take the credit out that Czechs were playing bad first. You simply just underestimate our team, and say well it has some talent just to make it sound you appreciate some of the skill in it, while at the same time you seem to sound like it totally stinks. We can look at every statistics in this whole tourney, your statement just don't make any sense.

And you should know, that our junior pool is ever greater, and we will be invading NHL even more with the coming seasons. THe best talent is still to come in there and our junior situation is in whole different level than Czechs, Slovakia or Sweden. They basically have no one coming, or just few really good ones, where we are coming with a full wave, matched only by Russia, Canada and the US.

[Pekka]

Here are other statistics from WC games:

92: Silver
94: Silver
95: Gold
98: Silver
99: Silver
2000: Bronze

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Pekka
WC medals count now? I thought all Canadians and Americans they don't mean crap because best players are in playoffs in NHL. So now you're turning it the other way? Of course, you didn't put the other recent histroy from 95 to 99. In which we made to the finals most times.

Or how about Olympics.. team Gretzky lots to our team. Looks like you picked the worst stats from us and left out the better stats all together out.

And it's all about the team. We rarely play with full NHL team. Last time was in Olympics, were we beat Canada in bronze game. Of course you don't bring this fact in light. You can disagree that we will win. But then again, you're not as familiar with this team as I am. Or our history it seems like.

Very familiar with your history-- I pulled out the all time WC stats because they were easily available and go back a long time. I do agree that Canada would have done much better with top teams. . . If you look at the site I quoted, you will see that Canada's representation through many of the years were essentially tiew 3 amateur teams .. . . If we sent our pros all those years, it is beyond question that Canada would have medalled more. But even with this weakened Canadian opposition, Finland did not medal much.

I then looked at the the overall stats in the only competition that mattered, the world cups and gave those.

Finally, since overall stats might not indicate the current situation, I looked at the 4 most recent world championships .. . But I can look at other things if you want

Olympics
2002- 6th
1998 3rd
1994 3rd

hmm-- no real evidence of first place type play there.


Oh and your vaunted 1995-1999 period

1995 1st
1996 5th
1997 5th
1998 2nd
1999 2nd

Oh and 1995 was notable in that it was the year an NHL lockout delayed the season and NO ie. ZERO NHL players played. So Finland's ONLY gold has a big asterisk.

[Pekka]

So? we didn't have NHL players either? Not very deep the material in other countries then?

[Pekka]

Well, we have become one of the challengers in the 90s. We don't have history of winning a lot. Your point is? History is on the side of the US? Not if we look at WC games in the 90s. What history? World cup history? YEah, because we werent' so good until 90s came. Are you saying your analysis on the coming game is based on this? Not very solid.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Pekka
Here are other statistics from WC games:

92: Silver
94: Silver
95: Gold
98: Silver
99: Silver
2000: Bronze

Lets fill in your gaps

1993 7th
1996 and 1997 5th LOL-- All those silvers prove is that you guys are good at being SECOND best. canada never aspires to second and in fact when we lose our chance for first, the team often tumbles since the only thing they cared about is gone.


I never said that your team hasn't been decent a number of times. I just simply say that

1. Historically you have not been anywhere close to the big 4 in performance

2. Finland does not have a history of coming FIRST-- your own stats prove this and I was suprised to find that Finland's only EVER hockey win of ANYTHING was when ZERO NHL players were there-- By definition a second rate tourney

3. All of this is HISTORY and shouldn't matter but it is interesting to a hockey fan

4. My assessment of your team is as it always was . .. a very good team that can win it all . .. good players and superlative goaltending can do that. My opinion is that they will get eliminated by the US but I would not be shocked if they won it all--- its just that winning it all is not consistent with Finland's hockey history



You can debate me all you want and on the merits of the current team you have strong arguments. But on the history of Finnish hockey, other than the 1995 WC what else have you guys EVER won

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well, we have become one of the challengers in the 90s. We don't have history of winning a lot. Your point is? History is on the side of the US? Not if we look at WC games in the 90s. What history? World cup history? YEah, because we werent' so good until 90s came. Are you saying your analysis on the coming game is based on this? Not very solid.

My assessment of this game is base on THESE two teams. The US has faced some adversity and came through with a win against a very tough Russian team. Finland has similar internal dissent and barely defeated the weak sister Germany. I see momentu, favoring the US.

Talent wise I see the teams as very balanced. Either Kipper or Esche may make all the difference. Its just on the intangibles that I predict a US victory. A Finnish victory would not suprise me. If Finland won the tournament, I would not be suprised. But the history of the events show that THAT wuld be a truly HISTORIC moment in Finnish hockey

[Pekka]

" All those silvers prove is that you guys are good at being SECOND best. canada never aspires to second and in fact when we lose our chance for first, the team often tumbles since the only thing they cared about is gone."

So you just go straight insulting. Very nice.

"1. Historically you have not been anywhere close to the big 4 in performance"

Yeah, so? welcome to the modern hockey.

"2. Finland does not have a history of coming FIRST-- your own stats prove this and I was suprised to find that Finland's only EVER hockey win of ANYTHING was when ZERO NHL players were there"

Yeah, and the silver games were extremely close ones, losing by one goal, and on OT too some of them.

" By definition a second rate tourney"

Yet you keep insisting these results are important.
4. My assessment of your team is as it always was . .. a very good team that can win it all . .. good players and superlative goaltending can do that."

I agree.

"My opinion is that they will get eliminated by the US but I would not be shocked if they won it all--- its just that winning it all is not consistent with Finland's hockey history"

Ok fair enough. I just don't see why history has so big play in this. All players in our team are professionals, just like in the US team. I say, history has very little to do with the coming results, and if US wins, I still claim it has nothing to do with history.

"But on the history of Finnish hockey, other than the 1995 WC what else have you guys EVER won"

Well, we have been able to consitently get into finals, which we have also lost in small marginal. Don't forget, we are not strangers winning huge teams, like Gretzky and the company in Olympics. We were supposed to be overrun by the Swedes also, but they were not able to dominate us 5 on 5 with their 'second best team in the tourney'. Their PP was strong and it almost got us though.

We haven't been in trouble 5 on 5.. only one goal allowed 5 on 5 to this date in this tourney. We have Stanley Cup winners in the team, the players are used to win. They have rarely played in WC games too.

US might win us, yes, I think we are underdogs, but I just don't see how history has anything to do with it.

[Pekka]

ANd don't go over the top. We can't beat Canada if we get to the finals. That WOULD be surprising. It just won't happen.

[Pekka]

And my point about knowing our team is, that I have seen many of these play in U20 teams live in here, I've seen them grow, I've seen them as juniors, I've seen them in Finnish Elite League a lot, I've seen every single guy in these teams years before they ever went to NHL. I wait for draft event, it's exciting to me, and I know a lot about our hockey in here.

We were plain bad in 80s. Only few good hockey players in here such as Jari Kurri and Esa Tikkanen, whose talent is little questionable, but he is multiple Stanley Cup winner anyway. Since then, hockey has been hugely popular, and Elite League has gotten a lot better to a pretty good standards, to fully professional, and after few weak years of juniors (big gap from the Saku Koivu year to Ruutu year), there are A LOT of juniors coming in right now. Just look last drafts, not a lot of individuals, but on good rounds they went. The junior situation is only challenged by US, Canada and Russia and that's been for few years now. And we are still coming up with even better juniors, and even with wider material. Everyone was surprised in the last U18 games, when we were supposed to lose the games in our home arena. I didn't understand this. I knew most junior players in there, and they were good, so the talks were weird. And their performance was very good. Couple of years more, and there will be few rookies in there who will become superstars. Few years more and our players exceed 40 player limit in there, with bigger percentage players being above average NHL players. They're coming on all fronts, and have been since the beginning of the 90s. I know local hockey. It only just started happening after Selänne, and it'll keep happening stronger than ever VERY soon.