Winter Olympics 2010 Vancouver

We had a weakened team I think. Well deserved gold though congrats.
 
If we look at what medal chances we have left, then what do we have?

-We have a medal chance in the mens 50 km classic in Northug, and maybe a Hjelmeseth wanting revenge. Bauer, Olsson, Cologna and Veerpalu among others will have to be reckoned with as well.

-We have a very good chance in Bjørgen and Steira in the womens 30 km classic. Kowalchuk is probably the other favourite.

-We have a possible curling final.

-We have the men's biathlon relay which on a good day brings us a gold medal. Not this year I think, but a medal should be within reach.

-No chance in the slalom.

So what are our hopes?

Two gold and a silver or bronze would be a very good return.

I'm betting 1 gold, 2 silver and 2 bronze.

Gold for Bjørgen, Silver for our Curling team and biathlon team and a Bronze for Northug and Steira.
 
Very smoothly done, ladies. It was never in doubt.

How did the jumping portion of the Nordic combined end? Any of the lads in contention?
 
None of our boys did well in the jumping Elliot.

Tande is our best bet, starting over a minute behind. Moan about 2.20 behind.
 
The Caveman said:
Isn't that a bit of a shock?
Click to expand...

Not at all, infact I rated Slovakia to finish 4th in this tournament, they're a very under-rated nation, nobody takes them serious enough.

Sweden looked drowsy and Slovakia took advantage with the energy, i'd have taken Sweden over Slovakia at this point no question.

The USA - Finland game is going to be outstanding.
 
So basically, what you're saying Searl, is that Norway is also very underrated and probably better at Sweden at skatestick right?
 
I love that about NRK.

So subtle.

And let's now watch our neighbours in last nights hockey game. Nothing about it being Swede commentators.
 
Ruben said:
So basically, what you're saying Searl, is that Norway is also very underrated and probably better at Sweden at skatestick right?
Click to expand...

Not true, people criminally under-rated the Swiss and they almost snuck in.

The parity in these olympics is outstanding... Sweden are always bottlers at the highest level, they're enhanced by the fact they won the last one.
 
Anderson Searl said:
Not true, people criminally under-rated the Swiss and they almost snuck in.

The parity in these olympics is outstanding... Sweden are always bottlers at the highest level, they're enhanced by the fact they won the last one.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you can't classify Sweden as being constant bottlers at the highest level, because it's a different group of players each time. It's the players that hold the ability to perform, not the country. Then to excuse a gold medal as a fluke? Sounds a bit silly. With that logic, I can accuse Canada of being bottlers - they've won just as many gold medals in hockey since NHL'ers were allowed as Sweden have. As a matter of fact, over the last 50 years, Sweden has 2 and Canada 1.

That said, Slovakia beating Sweden is a bit of a shock as Sweden ARE better, but it's not a big shock because Slovakia are very underrated.
 
nyrfan818 said:
I'm sorry, you can't classify Sweden as being constant bottlers at the highest level, because it's a different group of players each time.
Click to expand...

Yes you can, that's the point, you can say the same thing about English football, the nation bottles it on the biggest stage regardless of personel.

nyrfan818 said:
It's the players that hold the ability to perform, not the country.
Click to expand...

It is, and they often fail, so what's you point?

nyrfan818 said:
Then to excuse a gold medal as a fluke?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? They were by far the best team in 2006 and had to make up for a shit 2002, those players were all looking for redemption, I never said it was a fluke... If there some sort of code in my structure?

nyrfan818 said:
Sounds a bit silly. With that logic, I can accuse Canada of being bottlers - they've won just as many gold medals in hockey since NHL'ers were allowed as Sweden have. As a matter of fact, over the last 50 years, Sweden has 2 and Canada 1.
Click to expand...

Canada are bottlers, I never said we weren't, it's well documented.

This is all :confused:

nyrfan818 said:
That said, Slovakia beating Sweden is a bit of a shock as Sweden ARE better, but it's not a big shock because Slovakia are very underrated.
Click to expand...

... Exactly my point.

Come on nyr you can do better than that.
 
Anderson Searl said:
Yes you can, that's the point, you can say the same thing about English football, the nation bottles it on the biggest stage regardless of personel.

It is, and they often fail, so what's you point?
Click to expand...

So that's why they've won 2 of the last 4 gold medals in Olympic hockey... right? If they'd bottled things consistently maybe I could agree.. but I fail to see how Sweden winning 2 out of the last 4 (soon to be 5, granted) gold medals is bottling under pressure. Both times were obviously with a different group of players as well... Different eras, same result.

Anderson Searl said:
Did I say that? They were by far the best team in 2006 and had to make up for a shit 2002, those players were all looking for redemption, I never said it was a fluke... If there some sort of code in my structure?
Click to expand...

You said:

Anderson Searl said:
they're enhanced by the fact they won the last one.
Click to expand...

That implies that they have an undeserved reputation. If their reputation should be lower, surely they shouldn't be good enough to win the gold medal, hence fluking their way into winning it. I'll give that a pass as me misreading though, but the meaning behind that statement seems to imply to me that you think winning in 06 was a fluke as they are, in your opinion, "bottlers". Surely a country can't have earned a victory, yet been a group of bottlers at the same time. Either their reputation as bottlers should go out the window when they won the gold medal, or they got lucky in winning and they should still be considered bottlers.

Anderson Searl said:
Canada are bottlers, I never said we weren't, it's well documented.
Click to expand...

Glad you can accept that, but I don't see how you can consider your country a group of bottlers. Won the Gold Medal in 02, and with the list of excellent countries that take part in Olympic hockey, good teams are bound to lose. It doesn't make them bottlers unless they do it time, after time, after time. That's my opinion though.


Anderson Searl said:
... Exactly my point.
Click to expand...

You said that Slovakia beating Sweden was "not at all" a shock. Gotta make up your mind.
 
nyrfan818 said:
So that's why they've won 2 of the last 4 gold medals in Olympic hockey... right? If they'd bottled things consistently maybe I could agree.. but I fail to see how Sweden winning 2 out of the last 4 (soon to be 5, granted) gold medals is bottling under pressure. Both times were obviously with a different group of players as well... Different eras, same result.
Click to expand...

Olympic games, yes, and the 2006 World Championship, yes, but when you ask around, Sweden are a "top" nation, and I don't doubt their credentials whatsoever... HOWEVER much like Canada, at the peak of hockey supremecy they've faltered, in a field that is as small as international ice hockey is, there's no excuses why a team like Sweden always seemed to fail in the big games.

Since we're reffering to the "numbers" I'll put out a healthy fact: 24-8, thats world championships between the nations... If you look at the history of Sweden in major international tournaments, they always faltered, a few wins here and there don't exactly eliminate what is historical proof that Sweden bottle it.

2006 was redemption for 2002, 1994 was redemption for the 1992 Olympics when the Swedes were screwed out of their game against the Czechs...

nyrfan818 said:
That implies that they have an undeserved reputation. If their reputation should be lower, surely they shouldn't be good enough to win the gold medal, hence fluking their way into winning it. I'll give that a pass as me misreading though, but the meaning behind that statement seems to imply to me that you think winning in 06 was a fluke as they are, in your opinion, "bottlers". Surely a country can't have earned a victory, yet been a group of bottlers at the same time. Either their reputation as bottlers should go out the window when they won the gold medal, or they got lucky in winning and they should still be considered bottlers.
Click to expand...

Winning it in 2006 does not eliminate the fact they pussy footed in 2002 and this year when it mattered the most.

The reason Slovakia is so under-rated was because in 2006 (Like I mentioned) they took the tournament by storm... Sweden limped into the playoff, got a favorable draw and took advantage... That tournament was easily the weakest Olympic games history (That's not even arguable)

So did luck play into it? Maybe, but they took advantage, their reputation is as a hockey power, but they still slip up more than they should, MUCH more than they should.

nyrfan818 said:
Glad you can accept that, but I don't see how you can consider your country a group of bottlers. Won the Gold Medal in 02, and with the list of excellent countries that take part in Olympic hockey, good teams are bound to lose. It doesn't make them bottlers unless they do it time, after time, after time. That's my opinion though.
Click to expand...

Before they won gold, both Canada and Sweden were bottlers... Consistancy eliminates a title, Sure Sweden won in 2006, but this year it's back to business it seems at the Olympic level.

nyrfan818 said:
You said that Slovakia beating Sweden was "not at all" a shock. Gotta make up your mind.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a shock they got a result, from a perspective of less knowledge it IS a shock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.