The Olympics are Now Officially Over in Canada

Canada could finish first over all and accumulate tons of gold medals but only one matters to most Canadians - Hockey gold. In Torino 2006 Canada will not medal in the sport that defines this country's sports culture. After Canada's 2-0 loss to a superb Russian team the usual introspective debates and endless symposiums will litter newsprint and radio airwaves. The legendary Canadian heart we were all waiting for never came.

I don't know why but this team may have been pegged to win gold by the experts but a more thoughtful mind would have been a little more suspicious. We consistently, at our own peril, under estimate the opposition. Even up until today's loss Canadian hockey pundits predicted Canada would magically 'pull it together'. If they were playing well I could see this but Canada played horribly overall in the six games they played. They thoroughly deserved the loss. I don't think it was from lack of effort.

From top to bottom the philosophy of Hockey Canada was completely out of step with the nuances of Olympic hockey.

Before I go on a couple of thoughts. International hockey is highly competitive any of the 7 powers (Canada,Russia, Sweden, Finland, USA, Czech Republic, Slovakia) can beat anybody at any time. All the more reason for hockey minds to be agile and innovative if not daring. As for Canada, they remain the supreme hockey nation in terms of talent. There is no nation (with the possible exception of Russia) that could have literally sent a second squad of high quality.

The depth of Canadian talent is deep, awesome and safe. Nothing is wrong with hockey in Canada. Just add up the titles (and second place finishes) in the major tournaments (World Cup, World Championships, Olympics and World Jr.s). Who is on top? Canada - by a long shot. The problem lies, like in any organization, with two things: the administration and setting realistic expectations. Are Canadians prepared to look at this reality? For all the 'it's our game' rhetoric' the reality is that we do not own it.

Now for the ugly. Canada simply played awful hockey. From the onset I predicted they would not win a medal and I am not happy for being right. I won $10 for my troubles.

I based my bet on one simple axiom that can be applied to anything: Past winnings is not indicative of future victories and remaining loyal to the past is not always wise. Too many players selected to this team were having sub-par seasons and this should have been honestly considered. Those try-outs were an exercise in political non sense as Gretzky already new who he was going to select.

The whole selection process was flawed. Yes, the core of this team won in Salt Lake City in 2002 and the World Cup in 2004. On the surface, only this matters. However, we have to be frank. They were lucky in 2002 and 2004. That should have been a signal for them to not go with a safe formula but a different direction.

From the get go Hockey Canada was unwilling to be daring. They repeated the same errors they committed in 1998. Rather than take hot players that deserved to be there they went political. Way too many players should have been in Torino without debate on this team. Sidney Crosby, Eric Staal, Paul Kariya, Alex Tanguay, Patrick Marleau, Jason Spezza and Dion Phaneuf to be specific. It's hard to think they would not have made a difference.

Worse, the coaching staff of Quinn, Hitchcock and Martin were abysmal in their incompetence. They may be good NHL coaches but international guys they ain't. I could not believe how they could not adjust thanks to their old style NHL stubbornness. It was a disjointed effort that was devoid of any enthusiasm. No player stepped up their play and this is unacceptable.

My coaching choices would have been the following: Dave King or Tom Renney both actually have true international experience. Arguably, the greatest coach in sports history was never consulted (for typical short sighted Canadian political reasons). How Scotty Bowman continues to be ignored is one of the great hockey mysteries. Last, Jacque Lemaire - who is a true innovator and great hockey mind - deserves to be looked at in 2010.

Sadly, Hockey Canada seems to be a Toronto-centric operation and he may never be looked at. Lemaire, to outsiders like me, seems to stand on the periphery of hockey's inner circle.

Now, Canada has to reassess their position for 2010 in Vancouver. The nation will look to the players aforementioned to win. They will be thrown into the lion's den when they should have gained some experience in Torino. They will go against the dynasty of Russian players like Ovechkin, Kovalchuk and Malkin who were all the same age but no whave the added edge of experience by being present in Italy. It was a short sighted move on Canada's part to not bring th kids. They did so with Eric Lindros (who wasn't even an NHLer but still in juniors) in 1991 at the Canada Cup and it worked out great. As a result, Canada will not be a lock in front of their home crowd and that's a shame.

Canada has already won 18 medals - most in its history. This is cause for many of us to be impressed (though with 12 4th place finishes Olympic Canadian Committee would be a tad disappointed as they aimed for 25 medals to prepare for Vancouver). But, the hockey loss will over shadow all these accomplishments. Just another day in Canada.

Note from Oct. 2007 - Hockey Canada usually gets right more often than not and so I am not concerned.