I could give a fuk what the oddsmakers say.
A bunch if people go bet on canada tomo, theyll change.

Everyone who knows anything about hockey knows that canada is the best team on paper. Without question.

We'll see what happens on the ice, but until then, canada will remain the clear favourites and strongest team
- hugefemale dog77

Hep, you're entitled to your opinion.

But the people who earn their livelihood through making odds and ranking teams are not agreeing with you.

http://www.oddschecker.co...ey/international/olympics

http://onlinesportsbettin...a-in-olympic-hockey-odds/

http://www.oddsshark.com/...y-betting-odds-usa-fourth

http://www.oddsportal.com...ckey/world/olympic-games/

http://nhl.com/hockey/com...early-olympic-hockey-odds

http://sports.williamhill...4487675/Sochi%2B2014.html

Feel free to go online and put your money where your mouth is.............if as you say it's almost a sure thing.

Hep, you're entitled to your opinion.

But the people who earn their livelihood through making odds and ranking teams are not agreeing with you.

http://www.oddschecker.co...ey/international/olympics

http://onlinesportsbettin...a-in-olympic-hockey-odds/

http://www.oddsshark.com/...y-betting-odds-usa-fourth

http://www.oddsportal.com...ckey/world/olympic-games/

http://nhl.com/hockey/com...early-olympic-hockey-odds

http://sports.williamhill...4487675/Sochi%2B2014.html

Feel free to go online and put your money where your mouth is.............if as you say it's almost a sure thing.
- Doppleganger

I have never once said 'its a sure thing'
Nor even close.
Even the post u retorted to i talk about 'on the ice, being different than on paper.

Stop attempting to put words in my mouth or skew meaning to drive your point home furthur. It's not working.

Im a struggling student, I have no money. but if i did, you effin rights id put it on canada.
They got the best and deepest roster in the tourney.

Canada has less than a 50% chance of winning the tournament I'd say. It's so hard to win single game elimination tournaments like that even when you're the best team by a decent margin like Canada will be.

Go canada

Canada has less than a 50% chance of winning the tournament I'd say. It's so hard to win single game elimination tournaments like that even when you're the best team by a decent margin like Canada will be.
- daeth

Absolutely.

Id say
3.5 to 1 - canada
5 to 1 - sweden
8 to 1 - russia
10 to 1 - usa
20 to 1 czechs/fins
30 to 1- swiss/slovaks

I gave russia the better odds than the states due to home ice.


Dopple keeps goin on about the odds, as if those guys are the end all hockey minds.
Far from it.
Its based on trends

Absolutely.

Id say
3.5 to 1 - canada
5 to 1 - sweden
8 to 1 - russia
10 to 1 - usa
20 to 1 czechs/fins
30 to 1- swiss/slovaks

I gave russia the better odds than the states due to home ice.


Dopple keeps goin on about the odds, as if those guys are the end all hockey minds.
Far from it.
Its based on trends
- hugefemale dog77

May I remind you that the last time Canada won Olympic hockey gold outside of North America was 1952.

May I remind you that the last time Canada won Olympic hockey gold outside of North America was 1952.
- Doppleganger

U dont need to. Before the pros were allowed to play in 98, i find any argument against to be relatively moot.

And that still goes along with the theme of my point too. Canada probably NEVER had the best roster on paper pre 98. So they had to overcome foreign ice, the big ice-which ive conceded from the start can be a factor- ANNND having an inferior team.
Nowadays they dont have to overcome the last, which is also the biggest of the three.

And even the 2 olympics that they havent medaled we've talked about ad nauseum.
06 is the only real debacle imo.

UPDATE:

Tavares-Crosby-Giroux
Hall-Toews-Stamkos
Staal-Getzlaf-Perry
Richards-Bergeron-Carter
(Eberle, Nash)

Keith-Seabrook
Weber-Doughty
Subban-Bouwmeester
Pietrangelo

Luongo
Crawford
Price

UPDATE:

Tavares-Crosby-Giroux
Hall-Toews-Stamkos
Staal-Getzlaf-Perry
Richards-Bergeron-Carter
(Eberle, Nash)

Keith-Seabrook
Weber-Doughty
Subban-Bouwmeester
Pietrangelo

Luongo
Crawford
Price
- Cape Breton Bruins

No carter.
Not sure about richards either although hes got a better shot than jc.

Id take couture over either of em.
And Nash gonna make that team. Not only cause hes still elite, but hes been a dominant player for canada on the small and big ice

UPDATE:

Tavares-Crosby-Giroux
Hall-Toews-Stamkos
Staal-Getzlaf-Perry
Richards-Bergeron-Carter
(Eberle, Nash)

Keith-Seabrook
Weber-Doughty
Subban-Bouwmeester
Pietrangelo

Luongo
Crawford
Price
- Cape Breton Bruins

More like...

Hall - RNH - Eberle
Perron - Gagner - Smyth
Jones - Gordon - Stamkos
Tavares - Crosby - Giroux

Ference - J. Schultz
N. Schultz - Nurse
Weber - Seabrook

Dubnyk
LaBarbera

More like...

Hall - RNH - Eberle
Perron - Gagner - Smyth
Jones - Gordon - Stamkos
Tavares - Crosby - Giroux

Ference - J. Schultz
N. Schultz - Nurse
Weber - Seabrook

Dubnyk
LaBarbera
- laughs2907

Crosby ?? No thanks. Lander getting canadian citizenship and will center brown and joensuu.(who will also be switching to canada)

Crosby ?? No thanks. Lander getting canadian citizenship and will center brown and joensuu.(who will also be switching to canada)
- hugefemale dog77

If Lander became Canadian, it's just as well for the other teams to forfeit immediately.

U dont need to. Before the pros were allowed to play in 98, i find any argument against to be relatively moot.

And that still goes along with the theme of my point too. Canada probably NEVER had the best roster on paper pre 98. So they had to overcome foreign ice, the big ice-which ive conceded from the start can be a factor- ANNND having an inferior team.
Nowadays they dont have to overcome the last, which is also the biggest of the three.

And even the 2 olympics that they havent medaled we've talked about ad nauseum.
06 is the only real debacle imo.
- hugefemale dog77

Do I need to remind that no other country were allowed to send their best pro players prior to 1998 either?

Do I need to remind that no other country were allowed to send their best pro players prior to 1998 either?
- Doppleganger

Here are some stats about when professional leagues were founded in various countries (from Wikipedia):

Czechoslovakia - 1930
Finland - 1975
Germany - 1958
Soviet Union - 1992
Sweden - 1975
Switzerland - 1916
NHL - 1917, binational since 1924

First thing to bear in mind is this is when professional hockey started in these countries, and doesn't necessarily account for players going to play overseas.

In any case, the big glaring one worth pointing out is the Soviet Union:

From wiki:

The highest league in the Soviet Union was the Soviet Championship League, founded in 1946. This evolved into an elite league with a talent level comparable to the NHL. However, it was always considered an "amateur" league, rather than professional. This was because all elite athletes in the Soviet Union were conscripted into the Red Army, Red Air Force or other national institutions. Technically they were paid for their military service, and not for their play as athletes. This allowed them compete at the Olympic games without violating the International Olympic Committee's amateur-only rules.

After the communist era ended, the league became explicitly professional.

It's no wonder that a nation with that kind of talent and no professional league would win so many gold medals. The ban on pro players effected each nation quite differently.

Here are some stats about when professional leagues were founded in various countries (from Wikipedia):

Czechoslovakia - 1930
Finland - 1975
Germany - 1958
Soviet Union - 1992
Sweden - 1975
Switzerland - 1916
NHL - 1917, binational since 1924

First thing to bear in mind is this is when professional hockey started in these countries, and doesn't necessarily account for players going to play overseas.

In any case, the big glaring one worth pointing out is the Soviet Union:

From wiki:

The highest league in the Soviet Union was the Soviet Championship League, founded in 1946. This evolved into an elite league with a talent level comparable to the NHL. However, it was always considered an "amateur" league, rather than professional. This was because all elite athletes in the Soviet Union were conscripted into the Red Army, Red Air Force or other national institutions. Technically they were paid for their military service, and not for their play as athletes. This allowed them compete at the Olympic games without violating the International Olympic Committee's amateur-only rules.

After the communist era ended, the league became explicitly professional.

It's no wonder that a nation with that kind of talent and no professional league would win so many gold medals. The ban on pro players effected each nation quite differently.
- Morris

And ever since the "playing field" was levelled in 1998, Canada has NOT medaled anywhere else except on the smaller ice in North America.

And ever since the "playing field" was levelled in 1998, Canada has NOT medaled anywhere else except on the smaller ice in North America.
- Doppleganger

yeah I know that, was just commenting on the fact that not allowing professionals didn't effect each nation the same way, especially as the Soviets had a loophole.

Do I need to remind that no other country were allowed to send their best pro players prior to 1998 either?
- Doppleganger

No


And they were the still the best team in 98 imo, and ran into a hot goalie.
Which russia did too. Luck of the draw and nothing more meant russia got to face them in the finals instead of the semis and get a guaranteed medal.

Also can we stop talking about 1998 as some mythic bygone era as if Canada isn't 2/4 in gold medals during that stretch?

We should be better on bigger ice, but again I'm reserving my judgement that this will be another "international ice meltdown" until we've picked a squad.

No


And they were the still the best team in 98 imo, and ran into a hot goalie.
Which russia did too. Luck of the draw and nothing more meant russia got to face them in the finals instead of the semis and get a guaranteed medal.
- hugefemale dog77

Being the best team, and that's your opinion as a fan I might add, does not necessarily translate into bringing home a medal.


I'm quite sure there is a Russian hockey forum website with your Russian counterpart (Большие собаки-женщин) who sees the Russians the same way you see the Canadian team. That's because it's really hard to take off your respective "Fan Hats" and look unbiased at the teams.

Being the best team, and that's your opinion as a fan I might add, does not necessarily translate into bringing home a medal.
- Doppleganger

It is my opinion. Pretty tough to argue on paper though..
But ill agree that it absolutely does not neccassarily translates into bringin home a medal. Just makes you the favourites.

But the point was that i reject this notion that they cant win on big ice.
They outplayed them and got stonewalled. And so did russia. ( russia didnt really outplay the czechs in the finals tho)

Canada didn't win the two times they played on the big ice. Obviously that means they aren't the favourite this year.

Dopps logic.

[edit]technically it's not *this* year lol

Canada didn't win the two times they played on the big ice. Obviously that means they aren't the favourite this year.

Dopps logic.
- daeth

Its silly really.
As if having the best team isnt the most important factor.

I believe the russians will win because ilya nikulin is more used to playing on the big ice than duncan keith is...

Its silly really.
As if having the best team isnt the most important factor.

I believe the russians will win because ilya nikulin is more used to playing on the big ice than duncan keith is...
- hugefemale dog77

Canada is better from top to bottom on any projected roster.

My Team Canada is da best

yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

My Team Canada is da best

yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
- Cape Breton Bruins

No. Mine is