Before this thread turns into a pissing match, there are a number of things that have to be said-
- the US did overachieve. But looking back, was it really a huge overachieves? Playing on an NHL ice surface, the Americans did what they had to do. Use their speed, forecheck like demons, and rely on a dominant goalie. With less surface to use, they cut off the rink and forced other teams into mistakes. All in all, a great gameplan and I don't think a gold would have been an injustice.
- the physicality of this tournament was underrated. Russia, Sweden and Finland weren't ready for it. Small teams like Latvia and Switzerland that were willing to leave it all out were able to pressure the more 'European' teams and skill wasn't enough
- at the end, Canada still shone through. As discussed here earlier, the game with the US in prelims was closer than 5-3, and this game was the same. I felt Canada created more chances, but the US did well to bury theirs when they had them.
- the medal debate. It's stupid. Canada setting a record of 14 gold medals is fantastic. American fans will bring out the more medals argument, which is valid. However, as of those Olympics America was the only country who ranked by total medals and not by gold. The BBC and most other international sources have Canada as the top ranked country (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/vancouver_2010/default.stm).
I can only assume that if the US had more golds and not total medals, American sites would adapt this criteria as well.
- To be clear, I am not begrudging the US getting 37 medals. Great achievement. It's just their is not point in having an argument over which is better. I'm sure when the US set the previous record at Salt Lake, it was a huge deal. Canada shattered the host nation record be four golds.