| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2010 : 17:04:46
|
Poll Question:
With two golds in eight years, it begs the question: which team was better - the 2002 or 2010 edition of Team Canada?
|
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2010 : 17:05:18
|
Rosters:
2002
Belfour
Joseph
Brodeur
Blake
Brewer
Foote
Jovanovski
MacInnis
Niedermayer
Pronger
Fleury
Gagne
Iginla
Kariya
Lemieux
Lindros
Nieuwendyk
Nolan
Peca
Sakic
Shanahan
Smyth
Yzerman
2010
Brodeur
Fleury
Luongo
Keith
Weber
Seabrook
Doughty
Pronger
Boyle
Niedermayer
Morrow
Marleau
Igilna
Heatley
Toews
Richards
Thornton
Staal
Perry
Bergeron
Getzlaf
Nash
Crosby |
 |
|
|
Guest4271
( )
|
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 02:00:26
|
| I voted 2010, younger, stronger, faster. I'd keep Neidermayer on the 2010 team, however, 2002 can have Pronger. Showed he's slowing or maybe not interested with minimal ice-time. Although did seem to be enjoying the festivities after the game ended |
|
|
|
Guest7151
( )
|
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 05:14:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4271
I voted 2010, younger, stronger, faster. I'd keep Neidermayer on the 2010 team, however, 2002 can have Pronger. Showed he's slowing or maybe not interested with minimal ice-time. Although did seem to be enjoying the festivities after the game ended
You must be too young to remember who the 2002 players are. I will take 2002 team every day of the week. What have you done for me lately syndrome just reared its ugly head again. Pronger in 2002 was better than Duncan Keith and Doughty combined this year.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 05:54:09
|
Just looking at the rosters, at first I leaned towards the first group . . . but after looking at who they each had to beat, and how stiff the competition was, I went with 2010.
I think the 2010 team had better chemistry, actually, although it's hard to say since both ended up winning after some adversity.
Who cares, we won both times, eh? 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 06:58:35
|
This is difficult to be logical on as we have not watched the 02 team in 8 years and the entire country is still coming down from the high of last night.
Here is my break down:
Goalkeeping - Hands down 2002. I think that the Broduer of 02 was the best keeper in the world at the time. Even though Luongo did not play poorly, I don't think he dominated anything. I think he actually made some pretty big miskates and if Canada would have lost last night, many would have pointed at the missed opportunity to glove that shot in the final minute. Instead, the play continued and Parise scored the goal to tie. That play, in my opinion, was not any worse than Broduer's baseball move. Sole difference is that Broduer did not get bailed out by his team afterwards. Canadian goalies were touted as the best in the world going in and they were just ok, not great.
Defense - Tough Call. Doughty and Keith were brilliant for most of the tourney. Weber was solid as well. However, the other three (Pronger, Niedermayer, Seabrook, Boyle) were very average at times while very good at other times. I don't think they were bad per se, but not great. I don't recall any of the 02 defensemen playing horribly. Also, the 02 defense was meaner. Not more physical, but they definately had a mean streak that made the opponent think when gaining the zone. One thing to be critical of the 10 defense is they did not physically dominate. Pronger and Neidermayer were way better in 02 than 10 so I give the edge to 02 team.
Forwards - As much as some traditionalist may bash me, I give the edge to the 10 team based solely on chemistry. The fact that various players had history, either in NHL this season or in past international tourneys seemed to be noticable on the ice. They just seemed to click early and quicky even after the lines were shuffled. I think that the 10 team was not traditional in the 1st through 4th line type of players. This edition was pretty much big, strong, fast, offensive, and physical. No one really fit the mold in a specific line. They could all play anywhere. The 02 team really didn't find chemistry until the last 2-3 games and even at that point it was only 2 lines that really clicked. In their defense, Lemieux could barely tie his own skates and Yzerman had basically one knee by that time.
Overall, it's surprisingly close. However, I give the edge to the 02. For this situation and the type of tourney, I think of the single game elimination.If the 10 team from their Gold Medal game played the 02 Team from their gold medal game, I think the 02 team wins.
I also don't think the 10 Canada team would have beaten then 02 US team and I think the 02 Canada team would have physically dominated the 10 US team.
|
|
|
|
Guest4762
( )
|
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 07:20:27
|
2010 version wins, hands down I'm afraid. Even if we discount improvements in 2010 equipment, the 2010 team is so much faster than the 2002 team that it should make up for the marginal downgrades they may have elsewhere (goaltending, perhaps). Simply put, 2002 team Canada can't defend the combination of size and speed the likes of Toews, Nash, Staal, The anaheim boys and Crosby throws at them, whereas I think the 2010 D-men can do a slightly better job at stopping the 2002 forwards. It's close, but edge it to the youth movement. Also, 2010 USA crushes 2002 USA, and it's not close.
Outcome: 2010 Canada: 4, 2002 Canada: 3, in overtime of course
|
|
|
|
Guest9494
( )
|
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 08:50:53
|
| 2002 wanna talk chemistry remember the pass through Lemieux legs to kariya in the gold medal game, now that was prettier than any of the goals from the 2010 team |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 09:17:26
|
I disagree on the "pretty goals" remark - I was standing in awe at the fantastic second goal by Canada in the gold medal game, absolutely phenomenal goal, Miller had zero chance.
The '10 team has to be the biggest and toughest team of super-skilled forwards ever assembled, and I would have to think this would put them over the edge.
The '02 team reads like a list of HOFers . . . but I count only two in their prime (Iginla and Gagne). None of the game breaking HOFers - Yzerman, Lemieux, Lindros (HOF to be), Sakic - were in their prime years, and as others mentioned, Yzerman and Lemieux were faltering physically (same could be said for Lindros too).
On the '10 team, however, we have younger players, and more in their prime . . . Crosby, Nash, Heatley, Richards, Perry, Getzlaf, Toews, even Staal - all in their prime (or just entering) years. And the biggest thing is, I don't think anyone beats Crosby on the '02 squad, not even a Lemieux, because of injuries/age.
And I remember Brodeur in net '02 . . . he had to bail out the team a few times. The '10 squad needs no such bail-out in my opinion.
Canada '10 - 4
Canada /02 - 2
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 09:42:01
|
Do you (Slozo)put the '10 version of defensemen (Keith, Doughty, Pronger, Weber, Niedermayer, Boyle, Seabrook) ahead of the '02 version (Blake, Brewer, Foote, Jovanovski, MacInnis, Neidermayer, Pronger)??
My opinion is that Weber, Boyle, Seabrook, and Doughty before the tourney would have not made the '02 team. Conversely, only Brewer would not have made the '10 team.
The '02 team had defense and goaltending. The '10 team has the forwards, but not significantly.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 16:36:48
|
Beans, nice breakdown, i agree with most of your opinions, especially about the goaltending. Luongo won a gold yes, but he def wasn't the reason we won it. Of course, it's tough to claim any ONE guy is / was responsible, but it'd be even tougher to argue that Miller wasn't the ONE had the US won gold. Luongo played well enough to win, but didn't steal a game or make a ton of massive stops. He was fortunate that we came out like we did vs Russia and got him such a huge lead. Add in the fact that we never trailed so he never had to deal with shots thinking "oh no, if they get one more, it could be over?", aside from OT yesterday i guess? By no means, do i think he didn't play well. He just wasn't at his best ever and i'd argue Miller was as good as he could be?
I too give a slight edge to the 02 team, even with the injuries they played through. Pronger back then was awesome, so too Niedermayer. That was back when Scott could go end to end at full speed! Yes, we were fortunate to avoid some of the big dogs that year, but let's not forget we avoided the Swedes this year. Also, i don't see the 02 team struggling to beat the Swiss nor do i see them letting the Slovaks hang around like they did. I just can't imagine the Slovaks or Swiss coming back from 2 down vs that 02 team?
So tough to say, one of those fun things to debate on paper but truly we'll never know......?
I love the guest comment that said 10 team "hands down". Doesn't that mean "without a doubt" or "wouldn't even be close"??? Then he predicts a 4-3 OT win.  |
|
|
|
Axey
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
877 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 00:04:20
|
The similarities in these 2 teams are amazing. Both lost the prior olympics so everyone questions them and is a little nervous. Lose in the round robins, switch the goalie up, dodge Sweden again. Meet the US once more.
The fact of the matter is, we're talking about legends vs. kids here. Its a weird time, because those olympics were almost the old boys getting ready to call it quits while these kids are just starting. 2014 I think we are going to just destroy, unless Bettman destroys all of the fun.
2002 gets the nod, this 'no way their D could handle 2010's big forwards' talk is insane, everyone was priming. The forwards some could argue were not, even then they were nothing less than amazing. As of this very day 2002 without question, were talking about players that would be on people's all time hockey team list. Now in the future we could look back and say hey, they all passed their numbers(unlikely). So as of today 2002.
To whoever said 2002 was too slow compared to 2010, remember 2002 was played on international ice, so it was won playing the wide open european style, against our countries biggest rival(overall folks, the Russians too but they go as far as hockey.. US is so much more), on their home ice. The thing is the 2002 could play on both where 2010 would get smoked on international ice. Our D was far too slow, but then one could argue that the team would look alot differently on D if the tournament was going to be on international ice.
Ill break it down
2002 vs. 2010
GOALIES
Brodeur vs. Luongo
Joseph vs. Brodeur
Belfour vs. Fleury
*Both of the latter are too close to call, and not substantially better to make a difference.
DEFENSE
Pronger vs Doughty
Niedermayer vs. Niedermayer
Blake vs. Keith
Brewer vs. Pronger
Foote vs. Seabrook
Jovanovski vs. Weber
MacInnis vs. Boyle
The forwards I'm not doing because I see 2002 just better. Also all 2010 tournament long there were questions, we didn't have that one break out player. I can only imagine the comments that I'm going to hear about Crosby, but common folks someone had to score. Its not like taking him out of the first 60 minutes would have made near an impact as Sakic out the game.
A 2002 Brodeur outshines a shaky Luongo anyday. Brodeur could single handedly keep us in the game where as I don't feel as confident in Luongo. |
|
|
|
Guest4271
( )
|
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 00:34:26
|
| you must mean how Brodeur single handed, lost the '10 round robin game. The debate is great, but as said earlier there is an awful lot of youth on this '10 team, and I believe Gagne would have also been on this team, if he wasn't hurt half this year. |
|
|
|
Guest7157
( )
|
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 05:29:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4271
you must mean how Brodeur single handed, lost the '10 round robin game. The debate is great, but as said earlier there is an awful lot of youth on this '10 team, and I believe Gagne would have also been on this team, if he wasn't hurt half this year.
2002 Brodeur = 2010 Miller
2010 Brodeur = ?? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 06:41:27
|
Beans - '10 might be a bit behind '02 defensively, but not significantly. I laughed at Axey's cherry-picked comparisons.
Macinnis vs '10 Pronger
Pronger
Both in the twilight of their career . . . MacInnis had better shot, Pronger more physical and better defensively in the last few games. But based on performance, MacInnis had 0 points and 8 penalty minutes . . . not a great contribution for who he was.
Brewer vs Doughty
Doughty
Clear win here, as both were young surprise picks. Doughty was a beast these games, played extremely poised, and surprised the hell out of me and didn't make me utter the name Bouwmeester once.
Blake vs '10 Niedermeyer
even
Both again in the twilight of their career, both played solid enough. Blake brought more offence and Nieds more defence, both not at their peak, clearly.
Foote vs Keith
even
Not much to say here - Foote was at his peak and played the toughest of defensive games . . . Keith is coming up to his peak just now maybe, and plays a very solid game as well as bringing great offence as well.
'02 Niedermeyer vs Weber
Both peaking in their careers, both experienced d-men.
'02 Niedermeyer
Really tough, and not much to say other than Nieds brought the whole package, whereas Weber seems to just have a rocket of a point shot. It's close, seeing as how well Weber played and the goals he scored; but the edge goes to one of Canada's best d-men ever and the guy who was the cement to Canada's d-men back then. Tip of the hat to Weber though, he had an awesome tourney.
'02 Pronger vs Boyle
'02 Pronger
It was a pretty good tournament for Boyle, but he wasn't noticed much really - no big mistakes, but largely invisible. Pronger was in his prime here (same as Boyle is) and was a physical force, as well as contributing offensively. Big edge to the '02 version of Pronger.
Jovonavski vs Seabrook
Seabrook
If anyone remembers, Jovocop had a horrible Olympics defensively, and he was one of the goats of that Sweden game. Yes, he assisted on the GWG in the gold medal match . . . but Seabrook was pretty seamless defensively, and was very solid with his passing from the Russia game onward from what I saw.
I changed my mind . . . I might take the '10 defence, actually. No weak spots defensively, as opposed to Blake, Jovonavski and MacInnis who were all defensive liabilities at one time or another during their tournament, and who never had to face the offensive juggernaut of the '10 Russians or '10 Americans. Also, in 2010, we had to replay and beat the team we lost to . . . the '02 team never had to beat Sweden.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 07:22:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I changed my mind . . . I might take the '10 defence, actually. No weak spots defensively, as opposed to Blake, Jovonavski and MacInnis who were all defensive liabilities at one time or another during their tournament, and who never had to face the offensive juggernaut of the '10 Russians or '10 Americans. Also, in 2010, we had to replay and beat the team we lost to . . . the '02 team never had to beat Sweden.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Hmm. How do you rank Boyle defensively? What about Doughty in game 1 and the last game? What about Pronger against the Swiss, US, and Russians?? How about Niedermayer for the first 3 games??
I think that the Gold medal might be clouding the play of the 6 games before as other than Keith and Weber, the defensive group in '10 was pretty inconsistant.
(I don't count Seabrook as he got 1/2 and in some cases 1/3 of the ice times as the other D-men).
I mean no disrespect to the '10 lot as they did play solid enough to win. But as I stated above, I prefer the 02 group based on anger and hostility. The 02 group was not poor defensively, but they certainly did not punish the opposition and for most of the games, the play in the Canada zone was not pretty. Maybe I don't recall the 02 games as well as the '10 games, but I don't recall being on pins and needles when the puck was in Canada's end.
The play from blueline out was awesome, but in the Canada zone, there were far more 'hold your breath' kind of moments than I recall in 02.
Furthermore, other than the Russian team this year(although they flopped) I think the competition in 02 was stiffer. The Swedish and Czech teams were significantly better in 02 than 10. The Fins were about as competative or maybe a little better in 02. Actually, looking at the rosters, I think the Russian squad was as good in 02 as it should have been in 01. Most importantly, I think the US squad was better in '02.
So, ultimately, the 02 team was better and had to play against better.
But I'm not going to disagree too much about 2 Gold Medal teams. 
|
|
|
|
baumer
Top Prospect
82 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 13:54:34
|
| Both were great moments in Canadian hockey history but I had to go with the 2010 team. Not on skill or strength or any other tangible comparison. This team was made up of our countries hockey future. This is the core group I can explain to my future children beat the USA in overtime, and he will still be able to watch them play. My father did the same for me. I was only 4 when Lemieux scored in 87 and I loved watching hockey because my dad always had the greatest stories about the leagues best. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 21:49:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by baumer
Both were great moments in Canadian hockey history but I had to go with the 2010 team. Not on skill or strength or any other tangible comparison. This team was made up of our countries hockey future. This is the core group I can explain to my future children beat the USA in overtime, and he will still be able to watch them play. My father did the same for me. I was only 4 when Lemieux scored in 87 and I loved watching hockey because my dad always had the greatest stories about the leagues best.
So, what you're saying is that you don't necessarily think the 10 team would beat the 02 team (hypothetically of course) but you like them better? Doesn't really answer the poll question properly, but to each their own.
I'm certain to remember this one more being that it was in my home town, but i still give the slight edge to the 02 squad. |
|
|
|
Guest9188
( )
|
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 16:52:25
|
| i believe the 2002 team was vastly superior if only for the fact that they had the best player of all time, the big guy, mario lemieux. To those that spoke of a lack of chemistry on the 2002 team, Lemieux and Kariya should go down as the best olympic tandem since the NHL started sending guys, with a slight edge over selanne and koviu. The 2010 team had more skilled forwards, but I would take the salt lake squad over them in a one game or 7 game tourny every time, those old vets just would not be denied. |
|
|
|
Hugh G. Rection
Rookie
165 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 17:02:36
|
| '87 Canada cup team beats both. |
|
|
|
hockster
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
437 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 20:11:16
|
I honestly gotta go with the 02 team.
THERE FOURTH LINE HAD OVER 1500 Goals.
Now thats deep.
Flames for cup...eventually. |
|
|
|
Guest4050
( )
|
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 12:14:18
|
To answer Guest 7157 question.
If Brodeur 02 was equivalent to Miller 10 which he wasnt cuz he never had to carry that team and miller had to then Brodeur 2010 is the equivalent of Tommy Salo 2002 absolutely useless and this entire arguement as a whole is illogical. There is no doubt that if both teams are in their primes then the 02 version wins by 10 goals lemieux yzerman sakic and Niewendyk in their prime were just too talented and they never lost a f***in faceoff. But thats not the question.
You have Yzerman & Lemieux on perkasets just so they could play through the pain & Fleury Sakic and Niewendyk all towards the later half of their careers and what does the fourth line having over 1500 goals have to do with anything besides they had played in the league forever and were studs when they were younger but were now past there prime. If you take away Iginla then the entire 2010 forwards may not have 1500 goals combined over there career but thats only cuz the majority of them are within there first 4 years in the league. And Brodeur never stole s*** in 02 so i dont get why people are hating on luongo's performance. And i must ask if Brodeur was hands down the best goalie in the world why wasn't he named the starter? Cujo anyone lmao thats what u thought.
So to answer this useless question the 02 team was talented but over the hill and whomever said the 02 team could of one on international ice needs to lay off the perkasets. On international ice everyone of those defenseman but Niedemayer would have been walked around like a god damn cement block. Come on man Macinnis past his prime but a good ole east coast boy - brewer, jovanski, blake,pronger & foote skate the entire ice in about 40 secs compared to Keith, Doughty, Boyle who would have past them 3 times by that time and Niedemayer can still move weber has decent speed and pronger has big elbows to knock people out advantage on any ice definetly belongs to 2010 team on D. 2010 Forwards dominate 02 at that point in there careers 10 edition is just to fast for the old guys and goaltending. Cujo & Eddie the drunk have the most loses and 3 or 4th most loses in the history of the nhl and brodeur played alright no better or worse then luongo and again cujo and eddie were towards the end of there career. So unamious the 10 team at the current times in there career dominate the 02 edition the same way the 02 team would dominate the 10 edition if all players were in there primes. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 12:30:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4050
So to answer this useless question the 02 team was talented but over the hill and whomever said the 02 team could of one on international ice needs to lay off the perkasets. On international ice everyone of those defenseman but Niedemayer would have been walked around like a god damn cement block. Come on man Macinnis past his prime but a good ole east coast boy - brewer, jovanski, blake,pronger & foote skate the entire ice in about 40 secs compared to Keith, Doughty, Boyle who would have past them 3 times by that time and Niedemayer can still move weber has decent speed and pronger has big elbows to knock people out advantage on any ice definetly belongs to 2010 team on D. 2010 Forwards dominate 02 at that point in there careers 10 edition is just to fast for the old guys and goaltending. Cujo & Eddie the drunk have the most loses and 3 or 4th most loses in the history of the nhl and brodeur played alright no better or worse then luongo and again cujo and eddie were towards the end of there career. So unamious the 10 team at the current times in there career dominate the 02 edition the same way the 02 team would dominate the 10 edition if all players were in there primes.
Interesting argument....even with the holes in it!
BOLD POINT 1 - The Salt Lake City Olympic Hockey tournament WAS played on the international sized ice. Apparently all those old fogies you referred to DIDN'T get made to look like "cement blocks"!!!
From good 'ol Wikipedia......Changes from previous tournaments - The 2010 tournament marked the first time since NHL players have been allowed to compete that the Olympics were held in a city with an NHL team. For the first time, Olympic games were played on a narrower NHL-sized ice rink, measuring 61 m × 26 m (200 ft × 85 ft), instead of the international size of 61 m × 30 m (200 ft × 98.4 ft). This change was expected to save $10 million (CAD) in construction costs and allow more spectators to attend games.[1]
BOLD POINT 2 - How can you compare the 02 team in their prime with this young team from 10 when some of them haven't necessarily reached their prime??? |
|
|
|
ryan93
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
996 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 14:04:56
|
| It's not like the 02 team was all that much older anyways, i believe the average age in '02 was around 28, where as '10 was 27. |
|
|
|
Tiller33
PickupHockey Pro
389 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2010 : 11:07:28
|
2010 better on a skill level and 2002 better on an overall team chemistry basis.
Both great teams both amazing moments for Canadian hockey.
The real question looking back on Olympic rosters is ... how in the blue hell was Shayne Corson in Nagano and Messier wasn't |
|
|
|
Guest9188
( )
|
Posted - 03/07/2010 : 14:26:51
|
| ya shayne corson, and don't forget robbie zamuner, played on a line with gretzky, i may have misspelled his last name. Which is similar to having kurt maltby and kris draper on the 2006 team. the two of them should have been arrested for treason once they stepped on the ice. |
|
|
|
ryan93
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
996 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 05:00:19
|
Corson was a good player in his prime though, not a guy that put up huge offensive numbers (only cracked the 60 point barrier once...a 75 point season). But he also a solid two way player, providing energy, lots of grit & leadership. He also had lots of experience playing for Team Canada...World Juniors, World Championships, World Cup, Canada Cup, etc.
He was having a good year in '98 when the Nagano Olympics were held, 62 games 21 goals 34 assists 55 points 108 PIM. His selection is sort of the same as a Brendan Morrow, or even Patrice Bergeron from the 2010 team, they're roll on the team isn't to be the big offensive star. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/08/2010 07:21:38 |
|
|
|
Tiller33
PickupHockey Pro
389 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 15:17:55
|
| .... its Messier |
|
|
|
ryan93
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
996 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 17:52:22
|
haha no i agree IMO definitely Mark Messier should of been on the '98 team! I was just saying it's not like Shayne Corson was a bad player who shouldn't of been given serious consideration. He's was continually picked to represent Canada (as i said above, played in the WJC, Canada Cup, World Cup, etc.) for a reason.
I still have my Esso Olympic Hereos that came out prior to the '98 games (actually i have about 20 copies of it haha), and Mark Messier is included on Team Canada
Book = http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/2/5/5/3/7/7/webimg/332850934_tp.jpg
Moose = http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPi.DLL?VISuperSize&item=330409636702 |
Edited by - ryan93 on 03/08/2010 18:01:44 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 21:54:35
|
| Alex, gotta give credit where credit is due....GREAT POLL! Currently sitting at 47 votes for 2010 and 44 for 2002! Doesn't get much closer than this! Just goes to show you as well how good both those teams were! |
|
|
|
Guest6840
( )
|
Posted - 03/16/2010 : 21:22:12
|
| The caliber between those 8 years has changed tremendously; I would say 2002 had the better winning chances in its year but if the 2 teams went against each other right now (even though we would have to clone a few players) the 2010 team would win. |
|
|
|
Guest9774
( )
|
Posted - 03/23/2010 : 09:59:24
|
               i take the 10 team because the 10 team was 10 times younger and the 10 team had better golies and offence and nearly defence |
|
|
|
Guest9452
( )
|
Posted - 04/25/2010 : 20:19:08
|
I say the 2010 team because they were younger and faster. Also their offence and defence where slightly better. The 2002 team would dominate in net because the 2002 brodeur is probably the best goalie of all time and much better than the 2010 brodeur and loungo. Also the 2010 USA team was better then the 2002 USA team.
2010-4
2002-3
Crosby gets OT winner!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest9452
( )
|
Posted - 04/25/2010 : 20:22:03
|
I say the 2010 team because they were younger and faster. Also their offence and defence where slightly better. The 2002 team would dominate in net because the 2002 brodeur is probably the best goalie of all time and much better than the 2010 brodeur and loungo. Also the 2010 USA team was better then the 2002 USA team.
2010-4
2002-3
Crosby gets OT winner!!!! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
2002 vs 2010 Team Canada 
