Through the group stage, Canada averaged 37.3 scoring chances per game, three more than the next best team and nearly 15 more than average. On top of that, the Canadians are also leading the three key sub-categories as well: rush chances, cycle chances and forecheck chances. This isn\u2019t a team relying on one form of offense; they\u2019re a juggernaut in every facet of offensive play. It\u2019s a varied attack built on a strong mix of star-studded talent.<\/p>\n
That also means that if one cylinder isn\u2019t firing as expected, Canada has others to lean on to come out ahead. Even if the team started slow in a tight game, Canada\u2019s ability to generate chances against the Czechs stayed consistently strong during the quarterfinal, especially in-zone. While Canada\u2019s rush game was stifled a bit with nine chances, Canada still ended up with 14 chances off the cycle and eight off the forecheck. Canada found a way because of how many different ways they\u2019re able to create; it\u2019s a three-pronged attack where the team finished with 37 chances on the night \u2014 right in line with their usual.<\/p>\n If there was one qualm with the Czech game, it was not generating enough outside the big line. Connor McDavid, Nathan MacKinnon and Macklin Celebrini combined for 13 of Canada\u2019s 28 chances at five-on-five. But the beauty of having such a deep team is having so many options with the ability to break through. Even as many rightfully lamented that Canada looked far too much like a one-line team for most of the game, it was Nick Suzuki and Mitch Marner who saved the day.<\/p>\n This is arguably the best offensive group that Canada has ever brought to the tournament and they\u2019re showing exactly why it not only works, but works so well together. There are so many players with uniquely elite skillsets that have been on full display in the tournament so far. There\u2019s MacKinnon off the rush, there\u2019s Sidney Crosby off the cycle, there\u2019s Mark Stone off the forecheck and a whole group of players not far behind in each category. Canada is loaded with options.<\/p>\n Most importantly, it\u2019s been McDavid and Celebrini perfectly capturing Canada\u2019s offensive identity by doing it all as the tournament\u2019s most dangerous pair. Putting the best player in the world and the future best player in the world together has been seriously special and they\u2019ve been lights out so far with 11 points for McDavid and five goals for Celebrini. In terms of scoring chance contributions (scoring chances and scoring chance set-ups), McDavid is averaging a mind-boggling 12-per game after earning 16 (!) in the quarterfinal. That leads the tournament while Celebrini is comfortably in the top 10 at 6.75 per game. Add MacKinnon to that duo and Canada has one of the greatest lines ever assembled.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t know yet whether Canada will be able to take home gold, and things looked shaky at times on Wednesday. But Canada has positioned itself extremely well with a high-octane offense tailored to the team\u2019s strengths: star power and depth. As long as the Canadians can keep creating chances to this incredible degree, they\u2019ll always have a chance. And boy, has it been exciting to witness.<\/p>\n 16 Stats1. Harley rising to the occasion<\/p>\n It was a little funny that Thomas Harley pulled a Brett Lebda against France, somehow going minus-two in a 10-2 win. But aside from that he\u2019s been a revelation for Canada, looking significantly closer to last year\u2019s version which includes his 4 Nations Face-Off\u00a0 breakthrough.<\/p>\n In a down season it felt like a bit of a risk to bring Harley to the Olympics, but he\u2019s proven a lot of doubters wrong early, earning four scoring chance contributions (scoring chances plus scoring chance assists) per game. That\u2019s fourth for the tournament among defensemen and only a shade behind teammate Cale Makar at 4.33. Harley also has four points in four games (including an assist on the quarterfinal winner), turning his sound process into results.<\/p>\n What\u2019s really stood out for Harley is his ability to jump into the rush. Canada was dominant in that regard during the group stage and Harley was a major part of that.<\/p>\n 2. Canada\u2019s rebound concerns<\/p>\n Relative to other medal contenders Canada has not defended as strongly, and the primary issue there is rebounds. Through three group games Canada allowed eight rebound chances, tied for the second most with Denmark and France and only ahead of Italy. That\u2019s not great company.<\/p>\n Group strength plays a role here and it\u2019s a small sample, but it\u2019s something the team needs to be cognizant of as the tournament competition ramps up. Canada allowed five rebound chances to Czechia in the first game and three again in the quarterfinals. It\u2019s a step in the right direction, but that\u2019s still above tournament average.<\/p>\n 3. American offense generation isn\u2019t where it needs to be<\/p>\n It was obvious from the outset that the United States had the softest group. While Team USA won all three games easily with a heavy scoring chance advantage, that competition context matters in terms of expectations, and the Americans didn\u2019t really meet them, especially offensively. Given their opponents and the relationship our expected score line has with Filipovic\u2019s tracked scoring chances, the United States should have been clicking at close to 40 scoring chances per game. They managed 34 per game, six fewer than expected, which was a tournament-low differential. The actual total is still great, the third-best mark at the tournament, but it should\u2019ve been even more given the talent advantage their roster had over Germany, Denmark and Latvia.<\/p>\n That showed in the team\u2019s game against Sweden, where the Americans tried to nurse a 1-0 lead until the very end. Quinn Hughes made sure the United States advanced to the medal round with some overtime heroics, but the inability to finish throughout the game could be a major issue over the final two games. The United States are where they\u2019re expected to be and are heavily favored to advance to the gold medal game, but they may still regret not bringing one or two more finishers.<\/p>\n 4. Team USA\u2019s rush defense<\/p>\n Again, opponent context needs to be accounted for, but one of the most encouraging signs for the U.S. through the group stage was its stifling rush defense. The Americans allowed just 3.3 rush chances per game, the best mark of the tournament. Sweden was able to generate a lot more than that with nine, but rarely did those chances feel like true Grade As.<\/p>\n One reason that matters a lot: rush offense has been where Canada has generated most of its looks with a tournament-leading 11.3 per game. Should the two meet as expected in the gold medal game, it\u2019ll be a major battle of strengths that the Americans look well-equipped to contain. A fast-mobile blue line is a key part of that.<\/p>\n 5. Can the Hughes brothers be the difference?<\/p>\n Canada won the 4 Nations Face-Off, but there was one thing working against the Americans in that tournament: an absence of Hugheses. Jack didn\u2019t look like himself and Quinn wasn\u2019t able to participate due to injury.<\/p>\n While many eyes are on the Tkachuk brothers, it\u2019s the Hughes brothers that may give the Americans the edge in a potential rematch against Canada.<\/p>\n Up front, Jack Hughes hasn\u2019t been getting a lot of minutes, but he\u2019s made the most of his time out there with 17 scoring chance contributions, fourth-most on the team. His per-60 rate of 28.3 leads the Americans and ranks fourth at the tournament behind Connor McDavid, Bo Horvat and Slovakia\u2019s Peter Cehlarik. His ability to drive that fourth line with Brock Nelson has been a huge advantage for the United States. He looks as dangerous as ever.<\/p>\n On the back end, Quinn Hughes has been playing heavy minutes scoring four points in three games during the group stage. His scoring chance contribution rate wasn\u2019t as high as Cale Makar or Rasmus Dahlin\u2019s, but still ranked in the top 10 per game. In the quarterfinal, though, he showed exactly how valuable he is, picking up an assist on Dylan Larkin\u2019s goal and then scoring the winner in overtime \u2014 all while logging huge minutes and earning six scoring chance contributions.<\/p>\n If those two guys are at the top of their games, the U.S. has a real shot to avenge last year\u2019s 4 Nations loss.<\/p>\n 6. Sweden\u2019s forward usage was a disaster<\/p>\n First it was Filip Forsberg as the 13th forward. Then it was Jesper Bratt who ended up in the press box for Sweden\u2019s play-in game against Latvia and as the scarcely-used 13th forward against the United States. Did Sweden know they could give both of these guys a regular shift?<\/p>\n It would be one thing if both looked awful, but both Forsberg and Bratt were among Sweden\u2019s most efficient offensive creators throughout the tournament. In the group stage, Forsberg created 34.9 scoring chance contributions per 60 while Bratt was at 25.4. The only other Swede above 20 was William Nylander (27.8). Given Sweden\u2019s goal-scoring struggles in this tournament relative to the other medal contenders, the usage decisions were extremely puzzling and likely spelled the team\u2019s quarterfinal demise.<\/p>\n 7. Finland\u2019s cycle defense<\/p>\n Team Canada has been very effective generating chances off the cycle all tournament, but they\u2019ll get a real test against Finland, who have been the best at stopping those very chances. The Finns allowed just 0.7 cycle chances against per game, which leads the tournament and is well below the average of 4.3 per game. Finland entered the tournament with the second-highest Defensive Rating from their defensemen, behind only Canada, and showed exactly why through the group stage. The Finns were also second in rush defense and if Juuse Saros can thrive behind this group, they\u2019ll be a tough out in the semifinals.<\/p>\n 8. Underwhelming tournaments from Hintz and Hertl<\/p>\n One of the reasons Finland and the Czech Republic entered the tournament with medal expectations was the presence of underrated centers Tomas Hertl and Roope Hintz. Instead, both have been mostly invisible. It took five games for Hertl to register a single point while Hintz has just two assists in four games.<\/p>\n The bigger issue is they weren\u2019t really threatening much either. Hintz was ninth among Finnish forwards with 11.8 scoring chance contributions per 60, while Hertl was seventh for the Czechs. On a per-game basis, the two were tied for 54th with France\u2019s Stephane Da Costa among all players at the tournament. Not great for two players expected to be difference-makers.<\/p>\n Hintz still has a chance to show his stuff in the medal round, but Hertl\u2019s poor play may have been the difference for Czechia going home early.<\/p>\n 9. Slovakia: Unlikely medal contender<\/p>\n Before the tournament started, it wasn\u2019t easy to imagine Slovakia competing for a medal. There was a chance, but it wasn\u2019t a particularly large one as they were in a difficult group with largely unproven NHL talent leading the way.<\/p>\n That all changed when Slovakia beat Finland 4-1 in the opening game, leading to a legitimate path to winning the group and getting a winnable matchup in the quarterfinals against the sixth seed. That\u2019s exactly what happened when Slovakia took down Germany 6-2.<\/p>\n Thank their rising stars for a lot of that. Through the group stage, Juraj Slafkovsk\u00fd, Dalibor Dvorsk\u00fd and Simon Nemec led Slovakia in scoring chance contributions, earning a combined 16 per game. That\u2019s 41 percent of the team\u2019s total chance contributions, with Nemec being particularly impressive offensively. He ranked first in scoring chance contributions per game amongst defensemen. On the production front, both Slafkovsk\u00fd and Dvorsk\u00fd have been massive with seven and six points respectively in four games, while Pavol Regenda\u2019s three-point game against Germany was huge. Slovakia\u2019s next generation has arrived.<\/p>\n Before the tournament started, Slovakia had just a two percent chance to medal. After a quarterfinal win against Germany, that\u2019s up to 35 percent. The Slovaks will be heavy underdogs to United States, but they\u2019ll be more than up for the challenge.<\/p>\n 10. Andrighetto showcasing himself as the best of the non-NHL talent<\/p>\n What a tournament it was for former NHLer Sven Andrighetto. In five games, Andrighetto had three assists and was a big-time contributor on the scoring chance front for Switzerland. Going into the play-in game, only Germany\u2019s Frederik Tiffels had more scoring chance contributions per game (4.3) than Andrighetto amongst non-NHL players, but he changed all of that with a dominant effort against Italy. Were the Italians the worst team at the tournament? Yes. But 12 scoring chance contributions is still a huge game, one that led the Swiss and doubled Andrighetto\u2019s previous total, giving him six per game. That\u2019s the same as MacKinnon and Celebrini and tied for the team lead with Nico Hischier.<\/p>\n Given the massive hole in Switzerland\u2019s lineup with the injury to Kevin Fiala, the Swiss really needed someone to step up. Andrighetto did exactly that and doesn\u2019t look far off from some of the NHL talent here.<\/p>\n 11. Revisiting the non-NHL guys to watch<\/p>\n Before the tournament started, I did an Olympic preview<\/a> where I asked Cedric Ramqaj and Thibaud Chatel from NL Ice Data<\/a> to highlight some non-NHL players to watch. It sure feels like they nailed it.<\/p>\n In net, Leonardo Genoni has indeed been the GOAT of Swiss hockey, sporting a .945 through five games, while Damian Clara was a major storyline for Italy. On defense, both Dean Kukan and Martin Gernat delivered a lot offensively for their teams and while Matej Stransky wasn\u2019t given a big role up front, he\u2019s been effective in his minutes. Going into the knockout round, Stransky earned 11.2 scoring chance contributions per 60, which ranked fourth on Czechia.<\/p>\n 12. Canada needs more from Nurse<\/p>\n After scoring 18 points in seven games in 2022, it\u2019s been a shockingly quiet tournament for Sarah Nurse. Through six games Nurse hasn\u2019t been very noticeable in any game and has scored just two points, both assists. Only Natalie Spooner and Jennifer Gardiner, some of Canada\u2019s least-used forwards, have fewer points.<\/p>\n It\u2019s an especially dismal rate for Nurse given she\u2019s third in ice-time among forwards behind only Sarah Fillier and Daryl Watts. Nurse came into the tournament with a lot to prove after being left exposed by Toronto in the expansion draft and looked dominant in the five games she\u2019s suited up for this year. Canada is still waiting for that version to show up, and the gold medal game would be a great time for her to do it.<\/p>\n 13. Puzzling Canadian usage<\/p>\n Two issues in Canada\u2019s ice-time distribution have drawn a lot of ire from fans during this tournament: the lack of ice time for Julia Gosling up front, and the over-usage of Jocelyne Larocque on the back end.<\/p>\n Gosling looks like a rising star for Canada and came into the tournament with 12 points in 14 PWHL games, a mark only bested Brianne Jenner and Marie-Philip Poulin among Canadians. She\u2019s responded well to an ice-time increase and has one of the best impacts on five-on-five goals in the league this year.<\/p>\n That\u2019s all been on display this tournament, where she has three goals and five points despite averaging just 11 minutes per game. For a team desperate for offense in the top nine, that\u2019s not enough. For the tournament, Gosling is fifth in points per 60. Canada may not have the same youth movement that the United States has, but it doesn\u2019t help when they don\u2019t use what they have.<\/p>\n Canada and USA points per 60 leaders If there\u2019s any hope for an adjustment, it\u2019s that there\u2019s already been one for Larocque, who came into the tournament with the weakest Net Rating among Canadian defenders. Through the first three games she was second in ice time behind only Renata Fast, playing 20.1 minutes per night. Since the USA loss, Larocque has shifted to sixth on the depth chart with 15.8 minutes played per game.<\/p>\n 14. Team USA\u2019s five-on-five dominance<\/p>\n One major difference between Canada and the USA is how much the Americans have completely owned the scoresheet at five-on-five.<\/p>\n Canada is up 21-8 in goals overall but has relied a bit more on a power play that\u2019s scored seven goals. At even strength, the Canadians are just 14-5. Compare that to the Americans and it\u2019s night and day. The USA is up an incredible 31-1 overall, but perhaps even more striking is that they\u2019re up 26-1 at five-on-five. How do you stop that?<\/p>\n 15. Harvey\u2019s MVP bid<\/p>\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nhl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-18-at-9.25.11\u202fAM.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
Marie-Philip Poulin (CAN): 4.78
Hannah Bilka (USA): 4.73
Daryl Watts (CAN): 4.70
Abbey Murphy (USA): 4.67
Julia Gosling (CAN): 4.46<\/p>\n