Spezza gets Olympic Invite!!!!

Neely4Life wrote:

hemlock wrote:Hopefully he carries the strong play he showed at the Worlds over to the camp and then Vancouver.

Again, relax. Canada played 2 good teams and lost both. Spezza, Heatley, Roy, Weber, all of them, beat up on lesser nations. There was nothing impressive from anyone at the WC.

I consider Sweden a good team. I am sure that everybody else does too.

With the "Monster" in nets? Sweden's best players were all in the playoffs. Vancouver and Detroit is basically team Sweden. Lundqvist was there.... Sweden wasnt even close to being a top notch team in that tourny.

Beating USA twice, only losing twice all tourney and winning a Bronze Medal is not to shabby IMHO.

They only lost twice and one was to Russia. The other was to Latvia. A lot of teams lost to Latvia in this tournament as they were the surprise team. By the time Latvia played Russia, Latvia had already won 4 games in a row and Russia knew not to underestimate them.

So, yes. I consider Sweden a good team. It doesn't matter what players Sweden brings to a tournament, it is the system that the players buy into that makes them such a strong team.

The lost to Finland, not Latvia. Latvia almost beat them though, which is also kinda sad.

As for Sweden, take Lidstrom, Sundin, Alfredsson, both Sedin's, Franzin, Ohlund, Kronwall, Backstrom, Zetterberg off there, and its not only a pathetic attempt to put together team Sweden, its embarassing. I dont care what system you play, it's not even close.

Oh, and Lundqvist. .

Sweden never played Finland...never!
Sweden lost to Latvia - like I said.

When Sweden lost to Latvia, they were the first team to lose to Latvia before Latvia went on a 4 game win streak, so there was no way to know how good they were.

Sweden plays a system game, that facts don't lie. Would elite players be nice, yep. Does it matter and did it change the outcome of the medal that Sweden got in the end anyway, nope.

Russia won Gold
Canada won Silver
and
Sweden won Bronze, only losing three times in the process. Once to Russia (6-5) Canada (3-1) and once to Latvia (3-2).

Status quo I would say.

Sweden is a good team and they were that tourney.

Since we all know Sweden is a good team and I just proved that, back to the original topic of this thread.

I was talking about who Canada played, not Sweden.

Anyways, being a good team in that tournament isnt anything to be proud of. Winning the tournament you can kind of hang your hat on that, but the fact of the matter is it's a tournament for players from the European leagues for the most part to play for their countries, and Canada and The USA just kind of throw together teams.

Anyways, Canada played two good teams and an OK one in Sweden. Latvia also kept it close against Canada like I said. No one on that Canadian team has anything to be proud of besides maybe the 18 year olds.

FireOnIce wrote:Since we all know Sweden is a good team and I just proved that, back to the original topic of this thread.

How did you prove Sweden was a good team? Compared to teams like Hungry and Norway, absolutly. Comapred to Canada, Russia, Finland, USA, they were average at best.

If people want to look at the WC as anything other then a tournament to kill time between playoff games, then go ahead, but the actual tournament is brutal.

Neely4Life wrote:I was talking about who Canada played, not Sweden.

Sure you were. You must have a very hard time following conversations then.

[quote="FireOnIce"]

Sweden plays a system game, that facts don't lie. Would elite players be nice, yep. Does it matter and did it change the outcome of the medal that Sweden got in the end anyway, nope.

quote]

Everyone plays a system game, that's actually how you win. The fact you say that having elite players wouldnt have changed a thing is an absolutly stupid statement.

Let me see, Lundqvist in nets, Lindstrom and Ohlund on the blueline, and Zetterberg, Alfredsson, and hell, I dunno, Franzin just to pick ONE other name wouldnt make a difference. Are you serious?

We all know this is Notch and I remember why I had you on ignore. I actually thought you might be able to hold your own on here, but I was dead wrong. Back to ignore.

I didn't say it wouldn't make a difference, I said it didn't change the outcome of the medals. Reading comprehension troubles?

You have been a problem from the start with me and actually looks like it happens a lot with others. Can't take being wrong.

You actually called me Notch when I first got here and I had no clue what you were talking about. I assume you he had issues with you as well.

If there is an ignore feature, once I find it, you just found your way onto it.

i think the important thing to remember here is that according to the press release players will be picked based on how they played in the first part of the season. ok, now that means 2 things.
1st: spezza will give it his all and hopefully turn some heads(hopefully)

2nd: heatley has to play! so if he's back in ottawa he will, or if he really wants out, he'll take whatever BM offers him before camp.
NICE!

Look, guys (Neely excluded), let me translate what Neely says. When he says "win anything" he means "win everything". So when "No team with Spezza has ever won anything" he means "No team with Spezza has ever won everything." Simple, right? Now, when I say "everything" I only mean "everything" in the context of the particular competition. In the NHL playoffs, this means The Stanley Cup; in Olympics, it means Gold. And so on. Winning the Conference, a Bronze (you kinda lose to get the Silver) or anything else is not winning.

Fact: Canada lost Gold to Russia
Fact: they looked good early on against some weaker teams
Fact: team Sweden was watered down
Fact: team Canada was *also* watered down

Bottom line is, this is a watered-down tournament because the players on the best teams are still playing in the playoffs. Winning it is nice, but never to be confused with the SCF or the Olympics.