At long last, after a 12-year hiatus, true best-on-best hockey is back with the NHL’s return to the Olympics. To look forward, though, we first have to look back.
With the NHL’s Olympic return, one storyline has emerged for each of the Big Six hockey nations attending (Canada, United States, Sweden, Finland, Czechia) based on their historical strength at past best-on-best tournaments. Using a timeline of each country’s strength relative to the field and a comparison to the strength of past Olympic entries, the goal is to add context to each nation’s current place in the Big Six hierarchy — and where they might be trending. Russia, obviously, will not be part of this exercise, but we’ll have more on them later in the week.
Each country’s historical strength is based on its expected win percentage using true talent estimates of each NHL player’s Net Ratings in the year of each event (methodology for pre-2008 data is at the bottom). That starts with the 1996 World Cup of Hockey and culminates with this year’s Olympic rosters for each team. For the sake of the exercise, the 2016 World Cup was excluded due to the existence of Team North America, and hypothetical rosters for the 2018 and 2022 Olympics were included to account for the gap between tournaments.
Here’s how strong each nation has looked on paper over the last 30 years based on the NHL talent on its roster.
With that in mind, here are five questions regarding the current state of each participating hockey nation.
Can Canada maintain its steady presence at the top?
It should come as no surprise to see Canada’s presence at the top of the best-on-best timeline above. For the past 30 years, Canada has been the best hockey nation in the world at every single tournament played (and not played, in the case of the 2018 and 2022 Olympics). Whether they won it all (2002, 2004, 2010, 2014, 2025) or lost (1996, 1998, 2006) doesn’t change the fact that every single time, Canada was the team to beat. The results only cement that status or dictate the disappointment that, for Canada, it’s always been gold or bust.
Over the past four years, though, the landscape has shifted. While Canada’s roster is as good as it’s ever been, the rise of Team USA has created a two-headed monster at the top. The reason for that: the USA has caught up to Canada’s depth advantage.
From 1998 to 2022, the top of Canada’s lineup (top six forwards and top three defensemen) was 30 goals better than the USA’s on average. That fact still holds true this year with a 28-goal edge. The bottom of the lineup, though, held an even larger edge, being 33 goals better on average from 1998 to 2018. In 2022, though, that would’ve slipped to 14. This year, it’s a four-goal advantage for Team USA instead.
Looking at the roster comparison from the chart above, it’s clear why. Canada loves role players when it comes to depth and while it’s obviously worked in the past, that may not be the case in a world where they have an equal.
Finding the right role players can be a valid approach, but this year, the Canadian brass arguably did a little too much in that regard. Anthony Cirelli and a trio of “safe” defensemen — Colton Parayko, Drew Doughty, Travis Sanheim — are the biggest culprits, falling below the usual trend of players in their role. I’ll give Brayden Point and Brad Marchand a pass, but it would’ve been nice to get one more difference-making forward on the team and one more elite offensive defenseman to maintain a gap in talent with Team USA.
It’s that decision-making at the margins that’s made things a little too close for comfort. That was fine when Canada was the team to beat, but it’ll be something to watch now that the USA has caught up.
If the Canadians have a saving grace, it’s the trio of Connor McDavid, Nathan MacKinnon and Cale Makar being better than any other top-three option Canada has ever brought to an Olympics. That alone may be enough.
Can the U.S. capitalize on its next ‘golden’ era?
The Americans entered their first golden era in 1996, winning the first World Cup of Hockey. When it came to Olympic hockey, though, they failed to seize the moment in both 1998 and 2002. The next “golden” era of USA hockey is here, but it’s not actually golden until they win gold. Will this generation finally get it done?
That’s the big question facing this year’s group, one that is likely the best American team ever assembled. Yes, there were weird snubs, but the sheer depth of American talent even allowing that to happen is the real story.
The 2026 team left off Adam Fox because they already had Quinn Hughes and Zach Werenski. The 2010 team willingly took Brooks Orpik, Tim Gleason and Jack Johnson because they didn’t have many other choices — and won silver! The 2026 team brought J.T. Miller and Vincent Trocheck, but neither of those guys hurt as much as having someone like Joel Otto or Ryan Callahan.
Those tough decisions at the margins are ones Team USA didn’t really have to make at past Olympics and that’s perhaps the strongest indicator of the rapidly closing gap. In every year since 2010, the Americans have slowly crept closer to their North American rival, inching to this current point: co-favorites at this year’s tournament. While it would’ve also been evident in 2022, this will be the first Olympics where Canada and the USA are truly neck-and-neck.
That’s because every part of this team is better than past versions. Excluding the 2018 and 2022 teams that never were, Team USA usually has two skaters above a plus-15 Net Rating. This year, they have seven: Auston Matthews, Jack Eichel, Jack Hughes, Matthew Tkachuk, Jake Guentzel, Quinn Hughes and Zach Werenski. That’s more high-end talent than they had at the 1996 World Cup, where they had five such players. This roster is loaded.
On top of that, the Americans usually have five forwards and one defenseman above plus-10. This year they have 12 (!) and three respectively. Every single lineup slot has been improved by at least two goals and 4.7 on average. The goaltending, which has rarely been a problem, is also at its best ever too.
Star power, depth, goaltending, offense, defense — you name it, Team USA has it. None of that will matter, though, if the Americans don’t make it count. This is their best chance at a different outcome.
Can Sweden thrive without a superstar?
Peter Forsberg. Mats Sundin. Daniel Alfredsson. Markus Naslund. Henrik Zetterberg. The Sedins. Nicklas Backstrom. Nicklas Lidstrom. Sweden’s Olympic history is lined with superstar talent; this year’s version falls well short.
Of the top Swedish players by projected Net Rating since 1998 (including would-be teams from 2018 and 2022), Sweden’s current best player, Rasmus Dahlin, would rank 25th. Their best forward, Lucas Raymond at plus-11.1, would rank 34th and slot in as the fourth option on the average Swedish team.
With veterans like Victor Hedman falling off over the last four years, a lack of high-end talent relative to Canada and the USA is, without question, the biggest hurdle facing Sweden at this year’s Olympics. Sweden’s top four forwards and top defenseman usually combine for 70 goals of value. The 2026 roster sits at 55.
Sweden more than makes up for that deficit with its increased depth across the board. Every other skater slots higher than the average Swedish team from the past. But in a short tournament, game-breakers matter and Sweden’s lack of superstars looks like it could be a problem.
The Olympics may be the perfect environment for a player to rise to the occasion. This could be Raymond and Dahlin’s moment, and unfortunately, we won’t get to see Leo Carlsson get a chance to prove the same. Until they prove their superstar bona fides, though, Sweden enters the Olympics unusually unproven at the top of the lineup.
Can Finland make the most of its newfound star power?
Finland has a well-earned reputation at best-on-best tournaments as scrappy underdogs that almost always punch above their weight. Despite usually having less on-paper talent than the rest of the Big Six, the Finns join Canada as the only nation to reach the podium in four of five Olympics with NHL players.
That’s important given the strength of the current generation. The 2026 roster is the best on-paper team Finland has ever sent to the Olympics — and that’s without Aleksander Barkov. If the Finns can keep up their usual ethos of being more than the sum of their parts, that’s a potentially dangerous mix with a team that’s now significantly more talented.
That shows with improved depth across the board, but is more obviously felt by the quality and quantity of star players Finland now has at its disposal. Between 1998 and 2014, Finland had four players combined with a projected Net Rating over plus-10: Teemu Selanne in 1998 and 2006, Olli Jokinen in 2006 and Mikko Koivu in 2010. This year’s roster has four on its own and would’ve had five with Barkov.
Team Finland missed a massive opportunity in 2022 at the height of their star players’ powers with the NHL not attending. Whether the Finns can make the most of this one will depend on whether their star power can lift the usual underdog spirit to new heights.
Can Czechia get back to its winning formula?
There was a time when Czechia was a dominant hockey superpower. Winning gold in 1998 and bronze in 2006 was no fluke; the Czechs were right there in terms of roster quality with the best-of-the-best.
The key to that was two-fold: a collection of elite forwards and exceptional goaltending, led by two of the greatest ever. The Jaromir Jagr and Dominik Hasek combo in 1998 was arguably the best one-two punch in hockey; both were the top rated players at their position at the time. From 1998 to 2006, the Czechs assembled quality depth across the lineup behind Jagr, found another elite goalie (Tomas Vokoun) to run with as Hasek aged, and stayed competitive with the best in the world.
Since 2006, though, Czech hockey has declined heavily. That’s apparent from this year’s roster, a group that features just nine NHL skaters — Czechia’s lowest NHL representation ever at the Olympics. The 2010 Olympics were the start of the drop and while there were no NHL players at the 2018 and 2022 Olympics, those two tournaments would’ve likely cemented Czechia’s status at the bottom of the Big Six hierarchy.
The cause for Czechia’s hockey decline was the fall of the nation’s two prongs. Jagr was still Czechia’s best player in both 2010 and 2014, but there was obviously a massive difference between prime Jagr (age 26-30) and elder Jagr (age 38-42). It’s the same story with Patrik Elias and without an elite successor, the Czechs were without their usual high-end offensive stars. While things would’ve shifted in 2018 as David Pastrnak rose to prominence, that would’ve been around the time Czechia lost its second prong: goaltending. Between the pipes, the Czechs still had Vokoun in 2010, but had to settle for Ondrej Pavelec in 2014 and would’ve likely tuned to Petr Mrazek in 2018 and 2022. Not great!
All of that is to say, there’s a very notable uptick in Czechia’s expected win percentage going into the tournament. They’re not back to full power, but they’re trending in the right direction. That has a lot to do with the country’s winning formula being back in play.
Pastrnak and Martin Necas are not prime Jagr and Elias, but they’re the closest things the Czechs have had in decades. Add Tomas Hertl to the mix, and Czechia’s top trio isn’t far off the team’s high-end talent from 2002 and 2006.
Ditto in net, where both Lukas Dostal and Karel Vejmelka stack up well to Vokoun in 2010; by projected GSAx per game, both rank among the league’s top 10 goalies.
Czechia enters the 2026 Olympics fifth in the pecking order among contenders with depth as a major concern. But the team’s offensive star power and goaltending look a lot closer to the peak Czech teams of the early 2000s — maybe even enough to surprise with a medal.
Methodology
Data from before the analytics era is incomplete at best, but there’s enough there to reverse-engineer decent ratings for players, especially on offense. That’s done by using a multiple regression to compare current player stats that were available at the time to each player’s current Offensive and Defensive Ratings.
For Offensive Rating, I used points broken up into goals, primary assists, secondary assists and separated by strength state (even strength and power play). I also used shots, percentage of even-strength and power-play ice time and the strength of the team’s offense. For Defensive Rating, I used plus-minus, blocks, percentage of even-strength, power-play and short-handed ice-time, and the strength of the team’s defense. I also used Offensive Rating to serve as a proxy that eliminates the pluses in plus-minus. For seasons before 1997-98, it’s the same process, but without TOI or blocks.
It’s far from perfect on defense, with the lack of on-ice scoring chance stats and the dependence on plus-minus. But the ability to separate points into strength states as well as goals, primary assists and secondary assists paints a pretty close picture.
Those stats were adjusted for era based on the relationship between team goal difference and wins and turned into “true-talent estimates” using a simple marcel weighting of the current season with the prior two.
Data via Evolving-Hockey, NHL and Hockey Stat Cards