NHL
2026 Olympic
Hockey
Connor McDavid is averaging a mind-boggling 12 scoring chance contributions per game. Bruce Bennett / Getty Images
The last time the NHL was at the Olympics in 2014, Canada went undefeated and won gold, doing so through stifling defense that bordered on dull dominance. The Canadians were in control of every game, but it wasn’t exactly exciting hockey.
The 2026 version couldn’t be more different.
This Team Canada is fast, skilled and dynamic. They’re an all-out offensive machine — even if they terrified an entire nation with an inability to break through against the Czech Republic, also known as Czechia for most of their quarterfinal game. At their best, this version creates wave after wave of pressure, constantly threatening the inside and dominating the shot clock without settling for perimeter shots. With the puck on their sticks, Canada often looks inevitable, a stark contrast from the 2014 version that tried to win every game 1-0.
Advertisement
The proof is in the goal totals, where Canada’s 20 goals through the group stage were already more than they totaled in all of Sochi (17). Sure, half of that was against France, but the 2014 version got to play Norway (3-1), Austria (6-0) and Latvia (2-1) and barely did as much damage combined. The game has changed a lot over the last 12 years and this Canadian team is the perfect distillation of that. It wasn’t just the game against France; the Canadians also looked like an unstoppable offensive force against two genuine bronze medal contenders in Czechia and Switzerland during the group stage. Canada’s inevitability eventually shone through in an extremely tense game against the Czechs.
It’s not just goals either; it’s Canada creating a boatload of scoring chances in every which way. Dimitri Filipovic from the Hockey PDOcast has spent a lot of time tracking scoring chances for every single game at the Olympics (shout-out to him for that immensely helpful undertaking), and one of the key takeaways has been Canada’s offensive dominance.
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’t a team relying on one form of offense; they’re a juggernaut in every facet of offensive play. It’s a varied attack built on a strong mix of star-studded talent.
That also means that if one cylinder isn’t firing as expected, Canada has others to lean on to come out ahead. Even if the team started slow in a tight game, Canada’s ability to generate chances against the Czechs stayed consistently strong during the quarterfinal, especially in-zone. While Canada’s 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’re able to create; it’s a three-pronged attack where the team finished with 37 chances on the night — right in line with their usual.
Advertisement
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’s 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.
This is arguably the best offensive group that Canada has ever brought to the tournament and they’re 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’s MacKinnon off the rush, there’s Sidney Crosby off the cycle, there’s Mark Stone off the forecheck and a whole group of players not far behind in each category. Canada is loaded with options.
Most importantly, it’s been McDavid and Celebrini perfectly capturing Canada’s offensive identity by doing it all as the tournament’s 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’ve 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.
We don’t 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’s strengths: star power and depth. As long as the Canadians can keep creating chances to this incredible degree, they’ll always have a chance. And boy, has it been exciting to witness.
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’s been a revelation for Canada, looking significantly closer to last year’s version which includes his 4 Nations Face-Off breakthrough.
Advertisement
In a down season it felt like a bit of a risk to bring Harley to the Olympics, but he’s proven a lot of doubters wrong early, earning four scoring chance contributions (scoring chances plus scoring chance assists) per game. That’s 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.
What’s 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.
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’s not great company.
Group strength plays a role here and it’s a small sample, but it’s 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’s a step in the right direction, but that’s still above tournament average.
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’t really meet them, especially offensively. Given their opponents and the relationship our expected score line has with Filipovic’s 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’ve been even more given the talent advantage their roster had over Germany, Denmark and Latvia.
That showed in the team’s 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’re 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.
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.
Advertisement
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’ll 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.
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’t look like himself and Quinn wasn’t able to participate due to injury.
While many eyes are on the Tkachuk brothers, it’s the Hughes brothers that may give the Americans the edge in a potential rematch against Canada.
Up front, Jack Hughes hasn’t been getting a lot of minutes, but he’s 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’s 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.
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’t as high as Cale Makar or Rasmus Dahlin’s, 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’s goal and then scoring the winner in overtime — all while logging huge minutes and earning six scoring chance contributions.
If those two guys are at the top of their games, the U.S. has a real shot to avenge last year’s 4 Nations loss.
First it was Filip Forsberg as the 13th forward. Then it was Jesper Bratt who ended up in the press box for Sweden’s 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?
Advertisement
It would be one thing if both looked awful, but both Forsberg and Bratt were among Sweden’s 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’s goal-scoring struggles in this tournament relative to the other medal contenders, the usage decisions were extremely puzzling and likely spelled the team’s quarterfinal demise.
Team Canada has been very effective generating chances off the cycle all tournament, but they’ll 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’ll be a tough out in the semifinals.
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.
The bigger issue is they weren’t 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’s Stephane Da Costa among all players at the tournament. Not great for two players expected to be difference-makers.
Hintz still has a chance to show his stuff in the medal round, but Hertl’s poor play may have been the difference for Czechia going home early.
Before the tournament started, it wasn’t easy to imagine Slovakia competing for a medal. There was a chance, but it wasn’t a particularly large one as they were in a difficult group with largely unproven NHL talent leading the way.
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’s exactly what happened when Slovakia took down Germany 6-2.
Advertisement
Thank their rising stars for a lot of that. Through the group stage, Juraj Slafkovský, Dalibor Dvorský and Simon Nemec led Slovakia in scoring chance contributions, earning a combined 16 per game. That’s 41 percent of the team’s 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 Slafkovský and Dvorský have been massive with seven and six points respectively in four games, while Pavol Regenda’s three-point game against Germany was huge. Slovakia’s next generation has arrived.
Before the tournament started, Slovakia had just a two percent chance to medal. After a quarterfinal win against Germany, that’s up to 35 percent. The Slovaks will be heavy underdogs to United States, but they’ll be more than up for the challenge.
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’s 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’s previous total, giving him six per game. That’s the same as MacKinnon and Celebrini and tied for the team lead with Nico Hischier.
Given the massive hole in Switzerland’s lineup with the injury to Kevin Fiala, the Swiss really needed someone to step up. Andrighetto did exactly that and doesn’t look far off from some of the NHL talent here.
Before the tournament started, I did an Olympic preview where I asked Cedric Ramqaj and Thibaud Chatel from NL Ice Data to highlight some non-NHL players to watch. It sure feels like they nailed it.
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’t given a big role up front, he’s been effective in his minutes. Going into the knockout round, Stransky earned 11.2 scoring chance contributions per 60, which ranked fourth on Czechia.
After scoring 18 points in seven games in 2022, it’s been a shockingly quiet tournament for Sarah Nurse. Through six games Nurse hasn’t been very noticeable in any game and has scored just two points, both assists. Only Natalie Spooner and Jennifer Gardiner, some of Canada’s least-used forwards, have fewer points.
Advertisement
It’s an especially dismal rate for Nurse given she’s 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’s 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.
Two issues in Canada’s 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.
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’s responded well to an ice-time increase and has one of the best impacts on five-on-five goals in the league this year.
That’s 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’s 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’t help when they don’t use what they have.
Canada and USA points per 60 leaders
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
If there’s any hope for an adjustment, it’s that there’s 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.
One major difference between Canada and the USA is how much the Americans have completely owned the scoresheet at five-on-five.
Advertisement
Canada is up 21-8 in goals overall but has relied a bit more on a power play that’s scored seven goals. At even strength, the Canadians are just 14-5. Compare that to the Americans and it’s night and day. The USA is up an incredible 31-1 overall, but perhaps even more striking is that they’re up 26-1 at five-on-five. How do you stop that?
There should be no doubt who the best player at these Olympics has been — it’s Caroline Harvey. She’s tied for the tournament lead with nine points and leads the USA in ice time with 22.5 minutes per game. But the real sticking point for me ties to the last one about the USA’s five-on-five dominance. The Americans are plus-25 at five-on-five; Harvey is plus-14 for the tournament. She’s on another planet right now.
The hotly-anticipated gold medal game in women’s hockey is today and while there’s still a lot of luster behind a game between one of hockey’s best rivalries, it’s faded a bit with how much better the USA has looked. What once felt like it would be a bitter battle between close foes now feels like it’s going to be a coronation for a new golden era for USA women’s hockey. It just doesn’t feel close and that’s been on full display throughout the tournament. (And to many, that’s been evident for a year now.)
Our projections started with the USA having a narrow edge for gold (around 51 percent in a given game against Canada), but that’s only grown with each passing game. All tournament, the USA has exceeded those expectations while Canada has done the exact opposite. On paper, the Canadians should be a lot better, but have looked much worse than the sum of their aging parts. Add a decisive 5-0 win in group play to all of that, and the odds have shifted dramatically to 65 percent for the USA. And to be honest, even that feels extremely light — oddsmakers are closer to 80 percent.
Data via Dimitri Filipovic and Hockey Stats
Spot the pattern. Connect the terms
Find the hidden link between sports terms
Play today's puzzle
Dom Luszczyszyn is a national NHL writer for The Athletic who writes primarily about hockey analytics and new ways of looking at the game. Previously, he’s worked at The Hockey News, The Nation Network and Hockey Graphs. Follow Dom on Twitter @domluszczyszyn
Hockey News