I watched it in my living room. US played a lot better than I thought they would.

We know that relatively few Americans care one whit about hockey, but that doesn't include the players themselves. It was a heartbreaking loss after playing superbly all tournament. Good luck to them in the future.

But Canada came through despite their goal-tending play not really being up to snuf (I thought Luongo played well, but not brilliantly). Pronger finally played a good game and Niedermayer was solid the whole tournament, and brilliant today.

It's nice to see that the future of Canadian defense is in good hands - thanks to Keith and Doughty.

I was at home.

An extremely well-played game by both sides. After months of watching the Leafs, I'd forgotten what good hockey looks like - and this was about as good as hockey gets. And the right team won :-)

Watched the gold medal game and one period of Canada playing Russia.  Some observations:

Canada's 2010 team would have gotten its butt kicked by the Canada Cup team in 1987 that had Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Coffee & Bourque on it.  It would have been a massacre.  There were basically no skill players on this team that could touch any of the names above.  Final score:

1987  team 8
2010  team 1

Nearly any national team from the USSR in the 80's would have beaten this team too.  (Except the 1980 team which was getting really old & slow and that is part of the explanation for "the miracle on ice" that nobody talks about.)

The world's best player now is fairly obviously Ovechkin. 

Gold medal game was good  -- but the really good skill players are evaporating from the game.

I think there are a lot of skill players in the game, but the game is different now than it was in 1987. In the mid-90s, defensive systems started to evolve in a big way that neutralized some of the offensive firepower, so the skill players don't stand out as much as they did before then.

Agreed there is nobody like Gretzky or Lemieux right now (will there ever be?), but there are players playing today every bit as good as the other guys you mentioned.

I agree that the 1987 team was obviously very special, and probably would have beat this year's team.  But to say massacre is a pretty big injustice.  The game has changed since then, and the players today are probably in better shape, faster, stronger, and play against other faster stronger competition regularly.  However scouting has also advanced leaps and bounds and every team knows the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents.  Talent alone doesn't win games.

To say that Crosby (at the age of 22) can't compare to your 5 names makes me want some of the stuff you're smoking ;)

Watching these games, I actually felt that what we lacked on this team wasn't one of those 5, but a pure sniper like Brett Hull (maybe the only guy who could make more goals out of nothing than Ovechkin).  I agree Ovechkin is the best player at this time... but how did his tournament go exactly?

The competition in these games was pretty stiff, everybody knows each other pretty well now and have very specific plans and strategies to shut each other down.  Watching 4.5 periods of hockey with teams that are very familiar with each other probably isn't the best way to compare these players against previous teams.

Watched this game from my house with friends.  Probably will be my sports highlight for 2010, but it still ranks behind being in the stands for Queen's beating Laval in football.  That may never be topped.

The 1987 team was clearly very good, they could very well win but I doubt it. The game has changed a lot since 1987, players put a lot more focus on conditioning. I think it is fair to say the average player today is stronger and faster than in 1987. It is hard to argue against the skill of Gretzky, Lemieux, and Co, but I think Team Canada 2010 would beat 1987 base on size and strength. Team Canada 2010 has their fair share of elite skilled players, Crosby is still young but clearly is on a HOF path. Crosby will never score 200pts but with the way the game is today I don't think it is possible. If Crosby and Ovechkin can go back in time and play in the 80s, I am sure they can put up video game like numbers as well.

It is always difficult to make cross-era comparisons. The Ruth/Gehrig Yankees were so dominant in their time but without a doubt in my mind they would get crushed by any modern day teams. The strength, conditioning, and specialization of today's players will trump the talent of these legendary figures with primitive conditioning routines. Can any modern players party like Babe Ruth and still dominate the game like him? Unlikely. That's why when you look back at history, statistically and on paper, some of these historical teams look absolutely unbeatable, but in reality I believe the modern product is much better. Ruth and Gretzky will always be superstars, but there is so much more depth in today's game that I feel an average player can go back and be stars in a different era.

I think to make a fair comparison you would have to give the '87 team the same coaching and conditioning opportunities etc that the '10 team has had. Then the differences would be more or less down to innate skill differences. Of course this discussion can only ever be a thought experiment.

I think Bourque is the best defenceman since Orr, but Coffey is one of the most overrated players in history. His point scoring totals are mainly due to playing wide open hockey with three extremely talented teammates. If I recall, his plus minuses were not particularly good considering the teams he played on. Messier was very good, but I don't think of him as an overwhelmingly skillful hockey player. Apart from skating speed, Yzerman and Sakic had more raw talent, I think.

Anyway, interesting thoughts, but my main thesis is that there is plenty of offensive skill in the game today, it's just harder to see in the context of very effective defensive systems.

I will give an American perspective to the game.  I was at home watching it with my wife and it was probably one of the best games I have ever seen in anything if not the best.  Hockey is a regional sport in America.  In the northeast and the upper midwest, hockey is extremely popular.  When you get away from those regions, interest goes away as well.  That being said, this hockey tournament had peoples attention throughout the US.

I can take the silver and I'm extremely proud of the American efforts in the game.  Ryan Miller was absolutely the man all tournament long and although I would have hated the gold medal being decided in a shootout, if it would have came down to it, I think the outcome would have been different.

That game was a tribute to all of North American hockey.

Watching 4.5 periods of hockey with teams that are very familiar with each other probably isn't the best way to compare these players against previous teams

Yes subculture I admit that my analysis is a irresponsible because it is based on a watching a few periods of hockey.  Guilty.  But they were important, iconic periods and certainly something could be revealed by them.

In the mid-90s, defensive systems started to evolve in a big way that neutralized some of the offensive firepower, so the skill players don't stand out as much as they did before then.

robertdudek, I buy the conditioning argument -- tho I have little insight there -- but the defensive metrics argument seems wrong to me in this context.  Wouldn't the "skill" player benefit from a tourney like this where the opposing team has had relatively little time to put together a complicated defensive scheme.  This is one of the reasons why I think the 87 team would have kicked butt.  Far more creative skill players like Gretzky, Lemieux, Coffey & Bourque who seemed lacking to me (by comparison at least) on the 2010 team.   

Wouldn't the "skill" player benefit from a tourney like this where the opposing team has had relatively little time to put together a complicated defensive scheme.

Nope, because the defensive scheme, the dreaded neutral zone trap, is essentially the same on every team, with a simple goal of making teams have to dump and chase and/or bring the puck in along the boards, leading to possible turnovers and breaks the other way. Every player in the NHL (and overseas, entire countries are known for the style) knows how to play this way, and it's the offense that needs the time to figure out how to play together. The defensive assignments are a given regardless of who is playing.

Also, goalies stunk in the 1980s as compared to now.

Can any modern players party like Babe Ruth and still dominate the game like him? Unlikely.

Miguel Cabrera seems to have been partying like the Babe.

(20 drinks, final weekend/crucial series, after a night game before a day game)

Of course he is no Babe Ruth, but he's pretty good.

:-)

Well, it's not the WBC, but a Gold is a Gold, I guess.   How many days now?

Yesterday was perhaps the greatest display of national pride i have ever seen. I watched the game at the WLU on campus bar Wilf's, and it was crazy. When we won there were people standing on chairs and tables, singing the national anthem repeatedly.  After the game the main street here in Waterloo was shut down, hundreds if not thousands of people walking around singing cheering and giving cops high fives and hugs. The street  took a couple of hours to re open but the party didn't stop all night. I think I sang O Canada twenty times last night and loved it every time. It's morning now but the excitement is still flowing.

As for the hockey game it was a great game, couldn't have been written up better with Crosby winning it and all. Also the closing ceremonies were awesome. I only got the visual and not sound at the bar but just hilarious. We get made fun of a lot, and the fact that we embrace those stereotypes and enjoy them, is something that make us Canadian.

As a final note, John Montgomery is the man, and 14 gold medals a new olympic record. Legit.

Go Canada!!!!

I was at a friend's house and in the washroom for, "The Golden Goal".  Luongo had made the save and covered up, so I ran to the bathroom really quick, not seeing that he shoveled it off and play hadn't stopped.  Then I heard everyone screaming in the other room.  Damnit!  Oh well, I set the PVR to tape at home and I can watch it 1000 times if I want.

I liked the Jason-Jay Anderson story.  Retiring from competition as a snowboarder on a winning note at age 34 to return to the life of parent and owner of a blueberry farm with his wife Manon in Val Morin. 

Never did get into the men's hockey this time. 1987 was the peak for me when it comes to that - going to the Jays game the day of the final and watching it on a tiny b&w tv with my Dad and many others staring over our shoulders watching it and the ball-game at the same time. Seeing the final goal in the empty parking lot afterwards (couldn't leave until the game was over).

This time I was at a movie with my daughters and wife (Tooth Fairy), seeing the result as we left the theater. Sounded like an exciting game but Canada vs US just doesn't do it for me. Canada vs Russia (or USSR as it used to be) was exciting, but I expect them to beat the US which takes away a ton from the game.

I was at home, watching in the family/living room. DVR on (frequent interruptions from 1 & 3 year old kids...). Got to watch the 3rd period almost uninterrupted, until the 1 year-old woke up with 1 minute to go.. I figured Canada had it won, but, wow, what a gut-wrenching goal with 24 seconds left. For the crucial goal, I was just getting back from the kitchen to grab my 1 year-old a bite.. Re-watched on DVR, etc..

Regarding 1987 team. Yes, lots of talent and I'd never bet against Gretzky, but - had half that team ever heard of back-checking? Seriously.. Glenn Anderson? Mr. "5-minutes for high-sticking + a game misconduct" himself? This was the same type of hockey that let Gary Friggin' Leeman score 50. Yes, Lemieux led in goal scoring - and the next 4 were USSR players. Overall, in 9 games, Canada was +9 in GF/GA - not exactly dominating. Grant Fuhr's 3.34 GAVG didn't make the top 5! Look at the number of 50-goal scorers in the NHL in the 80s - never less than 5 per season, usually 6-8. Last year? Only Mr. Cherry picker himself, Ovechkin got 50. And that's with no more center-ice redline offsides. Remind me again - how much of a force was he against Canada?

If both teams played (in the words of Slapshot) "old-time hockey", then the '87 team probably wins. They were more used to the breakaways, etc.. Otherwise, I think it would be a very close game. Gretzky would be tossed around like a rag doll these days (No Dave the Monster Semenko), and not as much respect for the "stars".

Another interesting comment (paraphrase) from Francois Allaird (Leafs goaltending coach re: Leafs getting JS Giguerre): In the 80s/90s, a good save percentage for a goalie was .880. These days, if you have .880, you're playing in the minors/for someone else.

Reasons for the .880/.920 or whatever are (IMHO): better conditioning, bigger equipment, more defensively-minded teams. Whatever the reason, it will obviously make it harder to score goals. 50 goals today is probably like 70 goals in the 80s.

While I think the 1987 team was so good they would eventually adapt to today's style, I don't think they would dominate as much as some people think they would.

Sorry, on re-reading the stats, Fuhr was #5 in GAVG. If I misread any others, I apologize - I did this rather quickly..

That 1987 team was life and death to beat a fairly average Soviet team at home.  On top of the fact that the 80's was a wide-open era in the NHL was that Russian, Czech and Slovak players were not playing in the NHL yet (other than defectors) and wouldn't be for another 3-4 years.  The US has also added far more talent to the league since then.  And yeah, the goaltending was pretty bad in those days (Pete Peeters was the Canadian goalie in the 1984 Canada Cup!).  This Olympic team was young and talented and showed it against the Russians when they got the room and also in overtime against the Americans.  I expected the Amercans to really bring it in overtime using their momentum and superior speed in the 4 on 4 situation but it was Canada's superior talent which dominated overtime since they had more room to make plays.

Goaltending technique is certainly better now, but let's face it, if the goalies today had to wear the equipment of the 1980s, the save percentages would be down in the .880 range as well. You simply can't meaningfully compare numbers from different eras straight up (hasn't sabrmetrics taught everyone that?).

I'd say the Soviet team of '87 was of much higher quality than the '10 USA team - you had several guys in the prime of their careers who are regarded as among the greatest Russian players of all time. Apart from goaltending, the '10 USA team isn't even close to the '02 USA team in skill level - but they did show a lot of heart. There is no way to settle this - this is just my impression.

Goaltending technique is certainly better now, but let's face it, if the goalies today had to wear the equipment of the 1980s, the save percentages would be down in the .880
range as well. You simply can't meaningfully compare numbers from different eras straight up (hasn't sabrmetrics taught everyone that?).

I totally agree that the goalies aren't necessarily better now (although I think they do play the percentages better - but there aren't as many "spectacular" goalies like Palmateer, for example), and that equipment makes a difference. However, with save percentage lower then, to get some kind of equivalence, you'd have to drop goal totals from the 80s by 10-20% (maybe more?) to get to the numbers these guys would score today.

In my opinion:
-there's no way Rick Vaive scores 50 in today's league, getting a good chunk of those goals from slapshots from the wing. How many slapshots from the wing go in these days?? I can't believe his slapshot was THAT MUCH better.
-there's no way Gretzky scores 90+ in today's league. He just wouldn't be left uncovered enough. And there's no way he'd get left alone behind the net.
-I think Brett Hull would have a better shot of 70+ today, because of his superfast release (although I was never a Brett Hull fan)

I'm a believer that the current goaltender technique is at least partially due to the improved goalie protective equipment.  The old "stand-up" goalie was a remnant of a time goalies didn't wear masks (I would think a big disinsentive to going down to stop a shot) and the pads was the only place it wouldn't hurt to take a shot.  Getting down low and contolling rebounds (pad saves are rebound machines) is what it's all about now.  Who was the Soviet goalie in 87?  Myshkin?

Vaive would never get those goals off the wing anymore.  Defensive schemes would make sure he wouldn't get that opportunity often.  In any case goaltending techniques have changed as well.  In Vaive`s time a goalie was taught to come out and challenge the shooter.  The goalie played `tree`.  The problem is that Vaive was really good at picking his spots.  Today, the goalie would stay at the top of his crease, close off the bottom of the net (the easier shot) and try to read where the shot is going to go. 

I don't know, maybe you all are right -- but I just think those players in 87 saw the ice better -- especially gretzky -- and they just knew better where everyone was and found that guy behind the play who was about to walk into the perfect spot to score and just got it to them. 

I don't recall seeing one creative pass all night on the Canadian side -- it was like they were all wearing blinders and only saw what was directly in front of them.

Even the 2nd goal -- the guy who scored, Perry, got the puck by accident because it was poke checked away from the intended player and then Perry got a clean shot and scored in kind of lucky bounce kind of way.  Gretzky would have got it right to the guy following the play, (Perry) and it would have been bang, bang.

electric carrot, if you had watched the first 2 periods of the Canada - Russia game ONLY, you would be convinced that this year's team was full of Gretzky's and Lemieux's...

nope.  I actually saw some of the first and all of the 2nd period of the Russian game where Canada played pretty great hockey -- and the passes were crisp -- but I still thought the players and the plays weren't as exhilirating as the players from either side in '87.  To me that series was otherworldly.  Once it was clear Canada was going to win the game in 2010 I  stopped watching because the hockey itself (not a huge fan of the modern game) wasn't interesting enough on its own.

The style of play is dictated by the equipment and the way rules are enforced.

Goaltending - a guy like Miller can basically take away the bottom of the net so you have to go top corners or maybe five hole to have a chance. You simply aren't going to score a goal from a distance shot unless the goalie is screened or the puck is deflected - and that's because the super sized blockers and gloves take away all the space.

The neutral zone trap forces you to play dump and chase hockey. Tic-tac-toe passing plays are very low percentage because almost all the forwards are taught to play like Guy Carbonneau.

I think it would be great if the NHL adopted something radical - for example, playing the entire 3rd period 4 on 4. Further reduction of the size of goalie equipment is needed. And perhaps a further tightening up of the interference rules (too many times you see players get hit well after they have passed the puck or even before they get within 10 feet of the puck, with no penalty called).

It's not as bad as it was 7 years ago, but I think the NHL needs to tinker so successful teams can be built around passing, skating and shooting. That's what I really want to see.

The NHL has a simple problem, if you consider lower scoring a problem - the equipment got too good. The goalies can barely feel the puck hit them anymore and the gear is lighter than ever, and the players throw themselves in the way of the puck all the time with little fear of injury. Helmets with face masks are safer, but also mean that you can lay in front of a slapshot without much chance of dying. A stretched out player + stick is a good 12-15 foot obstacle that you can't go over, given the movement limitations of skating and not wanting to step on someone.  Barring making the equipment worse again, I suggest that no player other than the goalie be allowed to leave their skates to block a shot.

Similar in spirit to recent rules limiting goalies ability to play the puck - I don't watch hockey to see goalies stick-handle, and I don't watch it to see defensemen and forwards play goalie. I'm sick of the "good hard play" of someone laying down in the way to block a shot/pass. The closest sport equivalent I can think of to the defensive situation in hockey would be in soccer if it was allowed for non-goalies to also use their hands to block the offense, but hockey goalie is fairly unique and that's not a perfect comparison.  Anyway, that's my way to increase scoring - blocking shots/passes with your body by leaving your skates is banned except for the goalie. It opens up room to pass along the ice as well, meaning no more breaking up a two-on-one by sliding toward the person with the puck at the right angle...I hate that, seems like cheating to me. And in no other sport does defending on and with your stomach pay off, it's a twist of playing on ice where no one can safely jump or carry to scoring object (the puck) above ground level.

Read in the Globe and Mail that 80% of all Canadians (26.5 million) tuned in to watch the game at some point or another. If that's not a show of national pride, I don't know what is.

I'm pretty sure Rick Nash, in any season he played over 65 games, would score 50+ goals with ease back in the 80's. He's electric.

I'm not sure which period you watched of the Canada Russia game - but I don't recall a 20 minute stretch indicating Alex O was the greatest player in the world.

I watched the Gold Medal game at a buddies house. He had a keg. I was on the couch right infront of the TV. When Crosby scored, I calmly put my beer on the table and began celebrating. Everyone else just converged and began celebrating, beer in hand. I was soaked in Molson from my Canada jersey to my socks.

Amazing experience! Though I regret not venturing onto the streets of Toronto. That would have been the cherry on top. However, Monday was a struggle even without any after game activities.

My final comments on the topic and then back to baseball.  Hockey is so overcoached now.  Each team has a head coach and 3 assistants.  The games lack flow because players are now taught to go like crazy for 30 seconds and then to get off.  10 seconds of the 30 are used going to and from the bench.  In the game against the US, Canada was on its 2nd line change 55 seconds into the game.  If you look back at old games, the top players had 1 to 2 minute shifts which let them get into the game.

...but do they have LOSGYs (lefty one-shift guys)?

...but do they have LOSGYs (lefty one-shift guys)?

In hockey they're called enforcers.

This was the first time I ever went to the Olympics and I had a blast. The atmosphere was terrific. Outside of the sporting events, there were a lot of free events/sites to check out. Watching the outstanding Hockey tournament made me wish MLB players would appear during the Summer Olympics (if Baseball returns to the Olympics).

Olympic hockey is sort of the anti-sabremetrics.  As an American who has been to probably 500 NHL games, it is fairly clear that the US has about 3 players who would crack the Canadian lineup, but this was a case where the American team was much greater then the sum of it's parts. 

In baseball news, nice piece about Jays farmhand Loewen from FanHouse.

And former farmhand Russ Adams hit a home run today in the inaugural grapefruit league match of 2010 between the Mets and the Braves. He played shortstop. Jose Reyes, watch your back.

Any chance of a new thread for the spring-training news?  The Jays play their Grapefruit opener today, and there's lots of coverage in the Toronto media  (not to mention Drunk Jays Fans).  Romero gets the start.  The lineup is pretty predictable, except that Bautista is at 3B (where he has apparently been mostly playing so far) and Jeremy Reed is at RF.   Looks like Reed will get every chance to win a spot on this team.  Snider is batting 9th today (behind Buck and Gonzalez) and Drunk Jays is ripping Cito for the decision, although it's hard to see it as a significant sign of anything. 

Snider is batting 9th today (behind Buck and Gonzalez) and Drunk Jays is ripping Cito for the decision, although it's hard to see it as a significant sign of anything.

Exactly. Would I bat Snider ninth today if I was the manager? No. Do I think Snider batting ninth today means anything? Not really. If Snider bats ninth on opening day I doubt it will be because he batted ninth today, but rather because he didn't have a productive spring and Cito believes the ninth hole is best for him to regain his confidence and continue his development. Barring something unexpected this spring, I will likely disagree with that decision but I don't see today's lineup as particularly meaningful.

Is Dana Eveland now more likely to make the team than Tallet or Carlson because he's scheduled to pitch today and they aren't? I very much doubt it.

Hey, Jesse Barfield batted eighth most of the time in 1985.  It drove me crazy that Cox would have the best hitter on the club in that slot, presumably on the theory that Barfield needed the pressure off him. 

As Thomas said, it's no big deal in spring training.