Olympic Hokey USA vs Canada

Originally posted by sh76
WTF are you talking about, dude?

How exactly could anything I said possibly, possibly be construed as being anything remotely similar to being a "sore loser"?

And what does being underdogs have to do with anything I said?

You're either drunk or responding to the wrong post. 🙄

The Americans were saying they were the UNDERDOGS!

Didn't you hear what the American Coach was telling the World Media?

You're saying the Canadians were a tad better than the Americans! HOW COULD THIS BE IF THEY WERE THE UNDERDOGS ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN COACH ????

Do you know more than the Coach who lead the American Team to a Silver Medal?
Or are you indeed saying he was a liar about saying they were the UNDERDOGS?

Yes sounded like a Sore Loser, or just don't know Hockey well enough, if not for the American Goalie Miller there would be No Medal at all. The Goalie was the equalizer, what part of that don't you get??? I don't know another American Goal Tender that could have done what Miller did, do you?

Do you have a drinking problem? Is that why you ask if I am drunk? Perhaps pay closer attention to what is being said. I don't drink BTW!

Originally posted by Very Rusty
The Americans were saying they were the UNDERDOGS!

Didn't you hear what the American Coach was telling the World Media?

You're saying the Canadians were a tad better than the Americans! HOW COULD THIS BE IF THEY WERE THE UNDERDOGS ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN COACH ????

Do you know more than the Coach who lead the American Team to a Silver Medal?
O ask if I am drunk? Perhaps pay closer attention to what is being said. I don't drink BTW!

You're saying the Canadians were a tad better than the Americans! HOW COULD THIS BE IF THEY WERE THE UNDERDOGS ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN COACH ????

I'm sorry but there is simply no logical coherence to your statement. If you are not as good a team, then you are an UNDERDOG. If you are a slightly inferior team then you are a slight UNDERDOG. The Americans were a slightly inferior team and so were a (slight) UNDERDOG.

Isn't this obvious?

The comment about Miller is just plain odd. Is Miller not part of the team? If you win because of your goalie, does that not count as a win? If I say "If not for Crosby, Canada wouldn't win," what would you say? You'd say "Well, Crosby is part of the team." Well, Miller IS part of the team.

If not for Michael Jordan, the Knicks probably would have won 2 or 3 NBA titles in the early 90s. Should the Knicks start hanging championship banners for 1991 and 1992?

Frankly, it seems to me that you're so used to flaming on this thread that you flamed my post out of reflex and not out of thought. I said the Canadians won fair and square and did not make any excuses. I said that in the tournament as a whole, team USA played just as well, which is hardly even subject to dispute. I still don't have any idea exactly what you're arguing with me about.

Originally posted by sh76
You're saying the Canadians were a tad better than the Americans! HOW COULD THIS BE IF THEY WERE THE UNDERDOGS ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN COACH ????

I'm sorry but there is simply no logical coherence to your statement. If you are not as good a team, then you are an UNDERDOG. If you are a slightly inferior team then you are a slight UNDERDOG. The Americ t to dispute. I still don't have any idea exactly what you're arguing with me about.

You don't know hockey, you just like to argue rather you know what you are talking about or NOT. I have looked at your posts, and you do the same in most of them.

If you don't know enough about a subject you shouldn't bother commenting on it, as you make yourself look silly.

Miller is not the team, When a team gets outshot 2-1 in a game, the Goalie is the reason they win, which in the hockey world is called stealing one.
MILLER was not part of the team, He was the teams SAVIOR, there is a difference, that you obviously don't see.

Put MILLER with the Russian Hockey team, and I bet you don't even see the U.S. in the medal rounds. Can one player make a difference? YES, especially if he is between the pipes!


You don't know if not for Crosby Canada doesn't win, someone else on the Canadian team may have scored it. You CAN SAY if not for MILLER the U.S. would not have been in it, he was the EQUALIZER! You just can't be an underdog and the other team be just a tad better, that makes no logic what so ever.

AN UNDERDOG IS JUST THAT....You could call the Germans UNDERDOGS NOT THE USA....You JUST DON'T GET IT, and probably never will.

Originally posted by Very Rusty
You don't know hockey, you just like to argue rather you know what you are talking about or NOT. I have looked at your posts, and you do the same in most of them.

If you don't know enough about a subject you shouldn't bother commenting on it, as you make yourself look silly.

Miller is not the team, When a team gets outshot 2-1 in a game, the Goalie ...[text shortened]... call the Germans UNDERDOGS NOT THE USA....You JUST DON'T GET IT, and probably never will.

First of all, I rarely discuss hockey on RHP, so I don't know what posts you're referring to. You want to discuss hockey? I guarantee you I could discuss it on par with you or anyone else. I've been rabid Ranger fan since I was a kid. I guarantee you I know as much about the NHL of the last 25 years as you do.

This business of "if Miller was not part of the team" is so mindless as to hardly be worth responding to. IF the the North Pole were the Equator, then the Jamaican bobsled team would be World champs.

Put MILLER on the Russian hockey team, and it WOULDN'T BE THE RUSSIAN HOCKEY TEAM. It would be THE RUSSIAN HOCKEY TEAM with an AMERICAN IN GOAL (see, I can use ALL CAPS too).

In any case, without Miller, where do they lose before the "medal round" (whatever that means- in point of fact, everyone makes the medal rounds in Olympic hockey)? Maybe to Switzerland, whom they outshot by about a 2-1 margin? Maybe Finland, against whom they jumped out to a 6-0 lead in 10 minutes? Your idle speculation is baseless, unsupported and complete nonsense.

Underdog:

An underdog is a person or group in a competition, frequently in electoral politics, sports and creative works, who is popularly expected to lose.

If you are not expected to win, you are the underdog. Canada was expected to win. The USA was not. That makes them the underdog. The US coach did not say they were extreme underdogs or that they had no chance. He said they were underdogs, which they were. I still don't get exactly what about that you're quibbling with.

Why don't you just admit you overreacted to my post and be done with it? You're just looking more ridiculous every time you dig in with this indefensible misread position of yours. 🙄

Originally posted by Very Rusty

If you don't know enough about a subject you shouldn't bother commenting on it, as you make yourself look silly.

Hockey is the simplest, most mindless, easiest to understand team sport in the world - this is obviously not even debatable.

Hopscotch has more nuances than hockey. Silk has more texture than hockey. A kiddie pool has more depth than hockey. A stationary rock commands more intrigue than hockey. Wet cement has more life than hockey. My pet three-toed sloth is more "athletic" than Crosby or Miller combined.

'nuff said.