Congrats Canada Hockey Team

[lumpy]

[Smokey the Bear.]

Not only the pressure of winning Hockey gold on Canadian soil, but also winning 14 gold medals a record.
Hearing the national anthem....................priceless.

[azamuner73]

It was a little too close for comfort.  Canada sat back too much and allowed the US to control the puck more than they should have.  With Miller being such a good goaltender it was anyones game.  Never underestimate the talent of the US hockey team...they keep getting better.

Glad to see Canada finish with the gold.   :)  phew.

[Caneyscud]

Just thinking though.  Questions

1.  Don't like the tourney set up.  We beat you once, and you beat us once, but you get the Gold - Sorta sounds like the NCAA.  What gives?  How could it be better?  I know some of the past tourney set ups weren't very good either.
2.  If not on home ice and not 99% canadian fans, with refs swallowing their whistles (glad they did that BTW) would it be different? 
3.  I don't like the 4 on 4 overtime set up.  Less team play and more how good of a shooter you have, and how good of a goalie I have.  Even the NHL doesn't do that in the playoffs.  I would have loved it to finish on a more "team" style. 
4.  But the Biggest Question - How does a team that is so stacked with top shelf NHL talent - especially forwards - barely wins against a much younger, less talented USA team.  Team Canada should have swept up the ice with the U.S.  Sure Miller played well, but that wasn't all. 

[seemore]

Congrats, Canada!!!
Way to go!!!
Mrs

[RAF128]

Just thinking though.  Questions

1.  Don't like the tourney set up.  We beat you once, and you beat us once, but you get the Gold - Sorta sounds like the NCAA.  What gives?  How could it be better?  I know some of the past tourney set ups weren't very good either.
2.  If not on home ice and not 99% canadian fans, with refs swallowing their whistles (glad they did that BTW) would it be different? 
3.  I don't like the 4 on 4 overtime set up.  Less team play and more how good of a shooter you have, and how good of a goalie I have.  Even the NHL doesn't do that in the playoffs.  I would have loved it to finish on a more "team" style. 
4.  But the Biggest Question - How does a team that is so stacked with top shelf NHL talent - especially forwards - barely wins against a much younger, less talented USA team.  Team Canada should have swept up the ice with the U.S.  Sure Miller played well, but that wasn't all. 

My thoughts here.  1. The US beat Canada in the Round Robin.   The Round robin is to determine who goes to the playoffs.   Because we lost that one game we had to play an extra game.   IMO a good thing.   Gave them a little extra time to gel as a team. 
2.  8 years ago the Games were in the US.    Most of the fans in the stands were American.    Canada won Gold in the final against.....the US.
3.  The 4 on 4 in OT opens up the ice and allows for more speed which IMO the Americans had more of.
4.  Don't sell the US team short.   They're all NHL players and very good ones.  Over all they're younger and faster and during the game you could see it.   I would point though, that many were born to Canadian fathers who played in the NHL and remained in the cities where they played.   They come from Canadian roots.

One last thought.    Remember that hockey is Canadas game just like baseball is Americas game.   Hockey  has been embraced and is now played all around the world.   Players from around the world are getting better and the NHL is full of Europeans and Americans.   

[Ka Honu]

Kinda agree with caney on the Round Robin thing but good on them Canadians anyway.  Puckin' A!

[Caneyscud]

Just thinking though.  Questions

1.  Don't like the tourney set up.  We beat you once, and you beat us once, but you get the Gold - Sorta sounds like the NCAA.  What gives?  How could it be better?  I know some of the past tourney set ups weren't very good either.
2.  If not on home ice and not 99% canadian fans, with refs swallowing their whistles (glad they did that BTW) would it be different? 
3.  I don't like the 4 on 4 overtime set up.  Less team play and more how good of a shooter you have, and how good of a goalie I have.  Even the NHL doesn't do that in the playoffs.  I would have loved it to finish on a more "team" style. 
4.  But the Biggest Question - How does a team that is so stacked with top shelf NHL talent - especially forwards - barely wins against a much younger, less talented USA team.  Team Canada should have swept up the ice with the U.S.  Sure Miller played well, but that wasn't all. 

My thoughts here.  1. The US beat Canada in the Round Robin.   The Round robin is to determine who goes to the playoffs.   Because we lost that one game we had to play an extra game.   IMO a good thing.   Gave them a little extra time to gel as a team. 
2.  8 years ago the Games were in the US.    Most of the fans in the stands were American.    Canada won Gold in the final against.....the US.
3.  The 4 on 4 in OT opens up the ice and allows for more speed which IMO the Americans had more of.
4.  Don't sell the US team short.   They're all NHL players and very good ones.  Over all they're younger and faster and during the game you could see it.   I would point though, that many were born to Canadian fathers who played in the NHL and remained in the cities where they played.   They come from Canadian roots.

One last thought.    Remember that hockey is Canadas game just like baseball is Americas game.   Hockey  has been embraced and is now played all around the world.   Players from around the world are getting better and the NHL is full of Europeans and Americans.   

OTBW - Nothing disparaging - Congrats Canada - ya'll had a great team including my favorite local talent Shea Weber!  Who by the way had a better +/- and only one point less than Sid, but who will be crowned and who will be forgotten.

1.  It doesn't matter what you call it, we beat you once and you beat us once - and you got the gold.  Many if not most of the other olympic sports don't have it that way - it's a composite score or a simple single elimination - you don't win or be second you don't advance.  You don't have the bobsledders running one, get a ranking, then throw out the times, to redo the time again  - no 4 runs (I think) are added together.  Sets up stuff like the NCAA basketball tournament - Where a low seed can get "lucky" and knock off the top seed.  Is that a real representation of your sport's strength (it might be fun for some to see the underdogs best the biggies) - that's why I really, really like the playoffs for hockey and baseball.  Infinitely less chance of fluke wins by the weaker team causing the team that played the best for 6 or 7 months to get knocked out.  OBTW, bobsleds weren't such a good choice as an example, as a portion of their medal can go to sled designers and having the money that it take to test and manufacture the fastest, most aerodynamic sled.  I think all teams should start with same setups that revolve each heat.  Should then be a test of athletics and driving skill.  There should also be equal time for all to tryout on the track.  Did USA win because of more money, greater technology - or because of greater athleticism or driving skill?????
2.  Who can compare 2002 to 2010?  Hell, the teams in the first round weren't even the same teams in the "playoffs".  Plus the US was all but aged old men - Chelios (ptooui) was the Captain. 
3.  Agreed, but that changes the game and puts the emphasis on mainly the stickhandlers and shooters and discounts the defense.  Not on the entire team.  I wonder how long that rule has been on their books.  I would guess the NHL has that in mind, because they skate 5 on 5 in the playoffs.  I don't understand in a team competition, you can determine a game on a non-team basis.  The NFL doesn't go to 10 players per side, the NBA doesn't go to 4 players, MLB doesn't give up an outfielder, nor soccer doesn't give up one of their (I don't know how many they have) (or maybe they do - I don't know).
4. Comparing Sid, Big Joe, Heatley, Marleau, and Gretzlaf - just the Can top 5 forwards against Kane, Parise, Stastny, Kesler, Langenbrunner - I think there is about 60 points difference on just the top 5.  And the "D" - Comparing Keith, Pronger, Weber, Niedermeyer to Rafalski, Suter Johnsons, Orpik - only Rafalski and Suter even show up on the scoring.  40 points diff between only the top 2.  Maybe it was youthful legs, and fantastic goaltending - on paper, there should have been a much bigger difference.