The underlying reasons for Canada’s defeat in the Olympic final

Tony Patoine
The underlying reasons for Canada’s defeat in the Olympic final
Credit: Bruce Bennett/Getty Images

So, the “best country in the world” also lost the gold medal in men's ice hockey.

I don't know if I've been living under a rock since last Sunday, but apart from this article by my colleague Max Truman, the root causes of this defeat have been largely ignored or have not received enough attention. It seems that everything has been blamed on MacKinnon's missed goal, Hellebuyck's heroics, and the final sequence that led to Jack Hughes' goal in overtime.

But the truth is that Canada should never have been one goal away from the gold medal. Even without Crosby, it should have had the resources to cruise through the tournament and close out the final game in the first or second period.

Let's look at the root causes that deprived Canada of the gold medal.

1. John Cooper wasn't good

I wouldn't say he was downright bad because he had to work with what he had and we were deprived—or did he deprive himself by getting involved in this issue? — some very good players (we'll come back to that), but the overuse of Makar, McDavid, and MacKinnon ended up hurting the team in the final.
McDavid played 24:01 against the USA. MacKinnon, perhaps not at 100%, racked up 23:14 of playing time. Makar, for his part, played for 26:42 seconds.
The Avalanche defenseman was no longer able to make a proper defensive play when overtime had just begun. He had already played almost half an hour at full speed, scoring his team's only goal…

The playing time of these three elite players should have been better managed in order to take full advantage of their explosive talent. At 80% of their capacity, they are not as effective, and when tired, they will make mistakes like anyone else.

For one thing, with an average of 13:23 per game, and ONLY 10:31 in the final game, Nick Suzuki could and should have played more.

We know he performs well under pressure and he was a perfectly adequate replacement for Crosby on a second line alongside Marner and Stone. But it seems that despite his huge goal against the Czechs, Cooper was reluctant to put his trust in him.
Why? Suzuki, who is likely headed for the Selke Trophy, should have easily played 16-17 minutes in the final game.

Seth Jarvis, with his speed, enthusiasm, and talent, is another player who was underutilized: a mere 8 minutes in the final…

It seems that Cooper forgot that hockey was not basketball last Sunday.

2. Selection based on reputation and experience

At any given moment, hockey is hockey, it's hockey.

In other words, you may be 36 years old, have a big reputation, a “golden aura ,” a gold medal, two Stanley Cups, and too many teeth in your mouth, if you can't earn your coach's trust to face the best in a gold medal game, you shouldn't have been on that team.
Drew Doughty and Shea Theodore played nine minutes in the final. Nine minutes. That's worthy of Arber Xhekaj on a bad night with the Habs…
Clearly, Matthew Schaefer should have been there on the left instead of Theodore or Sanheim. Clearly. And I don't think Cooper would have used him for 10 minutes per game. Just like he didn't use Celebrini for 12 minutes per game.

At 20-22 minutes per game, Schaefer would have helped Canada dominate the games, if only by allowing Makar to catch his breath a little.

Equally clear is that a tall, fluid right-handed defenseman in his prime, such as Noah Dobson, should have taken the place of Doughty or Pareyko, who no longer have the mobility to play at this level or the offensive punch to feed the forwards effectively.

Perhaps a tireless and reliable athlete, capable of skating with anyone, such as Mike Matheson, should have been given more consideration for a “two-way” role.

Of course, Canada lost Josh Morrissey, who was injured in the first game of the competition, a very heavy loss, as he could have played that big role in support of Makar.

But in the end, it's a bit like Canada used its Plan B on defense rather than its Plan A.

And the forwards?

To a lesser extent, the same could have been said about the forwards, especially since we already knew that Brayden Point would not be there and that Brad Marchand would not be traveling to Italy in top form…

Connor Bedard had been back in action for three weeks and was in top form. I repeat: CONNOR BEDARD! 54 points in 45 games, 24 goals…

Wyatt Johnston, in his prime, 31 goals, 61 points in 58 games, NHL leader in power-play goals. Not there either!

I would have a hard time defending Mark Scheifele, but based solely on his season and the quality of his play, he deserved to be there well ahead of others.

But, to name just a few, what did Sam Reinhart and Brandon Hagel do in this tournament?

Not much…

So, strangely enough, we deprived ourselves of superb depth in terms of dynamic offensive talent in favor of more “beige” complementary players who were unable to find their place.

Poo-poo.

Conclusion: a lack of boldness
In short, much like the women's team, Hockey Canada lacked boldness and was afraid of upsetting certain people.

They didn't want to shake up the “hierarchy” too much.

On the men's side, perhaps there was too much desire behind the bench and on the ice for the heroes to be heroes…

However, I am convinced that with just Schaefer and Bedard in the lineup, the gold medal game, already outrageously dominated by the Canadians in terms of expected goals, could have quickly become a mere formality.

And that's not to mention the trouble that could and should have been avoided in the quarterfinals and semifinals, and the minor and major scares during the 4 Nations tournament.

We will therefore have to learn from this for future major events.

Like in 2006, when we didn't send young Sidney Crosby and Eric Staal to Turin…


overtime

Oh, how I would love to be one of Cole Caufield and Lane Hutson's brain cells to know what they thought of Donald Trump and his latest antics surrounding his men's and women's championship hockey teams…

I will always be an advocate for professional athletes to be more socially conscious. They are individuals who have an exceptional platform to speak out and denounce injustices and “respectfully” criticize all kinds of stupidity.

They can have a much greater impact than the average person.

Journalists also have their share of responsibility in this…

It is therefore sad that we do not hear enough from our athletes as citizens. And more often than not, it is for “bad reasons,” far inferior, let's say, to the common good or the quest for justice and truth:
– fear of being judged
– the myth that sport and politics should not be mixed
– fear of losing sponsors
– fear of political reprisals
– fear of being afraid…

In short, in “healthy” democracies, we should not be afraid to use our freedom of expression to say what we think and stimulate discussion among responsible citizens.

So, with the Epstein case as a backdrop, we can say bravo! to the greatest American player in history, Hilary Knight, for politely putting “The Donald” in his place and taking the opportunity to teach him a lesson about gender relations:

“An excellent lesson that invites us to reflect on how we talk about women, not only in sports, but also in the business world. Women are not inferior, and their accomplishments should not be overshadowed by anything other than their immense talent.”

As for the “forgotten Americans,” Lane Hutson of Michigan and Cole Caufield of Wisconsin, two states that turned “red” in 2024, they will undoubtedly continue to fade into the background on this issue.

In any case, attention will already have turned to Iran by the time you read this text…

facebook icon Share twitter icon Tweet linkedin icon Share
Copied!